The David Knight Show - 5Dec22 Trump says Twitter Censorship Justifies Suspending Constitution; Musk Takes a Dump on Twits with a Pile of Docs

Episode Date: December 5, 2022

OUTLINE of today's show with TIMECODESTrump, the Calvin Coolidge of Free Speech, says censorship on Twitter is grounds to suspend Constitution — gets over 71,000 likes on his platform2:17Trump suspended Constitution 998 days ago by Exec Order for "Covid Emergency"7:07Ironic that "Oath Keepers" going to jail for putting all their faith in a man who broke his oath to ALL his wives, broke his oath to the Constitution, and then left them to twist in the wind10:47Trump's statement allows Biden, FBI, and rogues gallery of former intel officials to pose as "defenders of the Constitution"15:14A quarter of the world's countries used "pandemic rules" to engage in religious persecution21:03After Friday's interview with Goattree talking about radiation safety concerns with earbuds, a listener with Safe Technology in Santa Clara, CA posted a test showing radiation levels on AirPods27:29Switzerland has plans to ban charging EV's as power grid goes wobbly30:53ATF has changed terms of gun control. "Worksheet 4099" shows how they will do GUN CONTROL BY BUREAUCRATIC DICTATE35:47TSA — nothing to show after 20 years. Internal TSA documents said in 2011 there was NO threat to airports or airplanes47:32Latest DHS bulletin is nothing other than malicious political disinformation campaign aimed at their political enemies55:06DeSantis appears to capitulate to Disney. Bob Iger long ago embraced political correctness. "Splash Mountain" ride based on "Song of the South", just one example59:19Musk takes a dump on the previous Twitter censors with a pile of documents. What did Matt Taibbi reveal from the "Twitter Files"?1:10:00BigTech & BigGov have been acting in a conspiracy against free speech and free press for over 4 years.1:19:40The Deep State is a deputized state -.1:20:28A personal example of shadow banning on Twitter, this weekend, and hiding ANY and ALL comments made in response to my tweets1:27:55If they would censor, more conservatives wouldn’t even think of using social media.1:43:58How Elon Musk became the richest man the world in history.1:54:34Elon Musk’s “green solution” for electric trucks.2:00:02Matt Taibbi’s statement at debate on BigMedia — exactly how they sold their soul (and the same applies to many in alt-right media)2:02:28CLIPS: Noam Chomsky clearly stated what freedom of speech is about. But if you look at his anti-vax statements, he does NOT support liberty2:25:52James Woods: Scratch a liberal and you will find a fascist every time (and I would say also a racist)2:32:06Zelensky adds religious persecution2:40:11We're not called to be passive and silent as Christians, but beware of being drawn into partisan alliances that invite political persecution2:45:26The new Supreme Court case about LGBT persecution of a woman who creates websites.2:54:33Find 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 Monday, the 5th of December, year of our Lord 2022, day 998. Today we're going to begin with President Trump's amazing statement over the weekend about suspending the Constitution because he didn't win the election. Maybe he needs to notice that he suspended it 998 days ago. Yeah, we're going to talk about that.

We'll talk about the Twitter files, and we'll also talk about some things that are even more urgent coming up. But it is amazing to see the blindness of Trump's supporters. 70,000 people agreed with him that this is what happened on Twitter on Twitter is so severe we should suspend the Constitution. Seriously? We'll be right back. Stay with us. Well, take a look at this. This is Trump on Truth Social. I think one of the things that concerns me the most is not that he's willing to suspend the Constitution, but that 70,000, almost 71,000 at the time this snapshot was done, 8,700 comments, 21,000 retweets, but 71,000 likes on Truth Social. The termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,

is warranted by the fact that you had some people censoring him on Twitter. Yes, it was reprehensible, and yes, it was interference with the election, and yes, Donald Trump was president and allowed this type of thing to happen to other people for years before he finally got booted out while he was still president. Because if you don't support freedom for other people, you won't get it for yourself. And that even includes Donald Trump. It even includes the president. And as I said, as he was presiding over, you know, he was the Calvin Coolidge of free speech, if you will.

Well, he's presiding over all the censorship that openly, overtly censoring people and then shadow banning, which is in a way, I think, even worse. you know pretending that you've got something going on pretending that you are uh actually have a platform where you can speak to people that you can participate in this platform i think it's better just to kick people off so they know but uh he never did anything about it there was a lot of concern because a lot of people said, well, you know, this establishes a precedent. What happened with InfoWars? And then two months later, 800 sites, which that didn't get much attention at all. So, you know, it worked to do it against InfoWars. Marco Rubio was all in favor of it as well.

It was bipartisan support. Trump didn't do anything. But as people began to complain about it, he set up a Rose Garden party for people who had not been kicked off. And he had invited Ben Garrison. And then because some people on the left cried out about that because Ben Garrison's political cartoons, then Ben Garrison was uninvited. Now, Ben Garrison still supports Trump, and I just don't understand that, frankly. This is not about a personal thing. This is not about, okay, well, forgive and forget. He wronged me with this. Instead, this is about a principle. You have to stand on principle, and know, forgive and forget. It's, you know, he wronged me with this.

Instead, you know, this is about a principle. You have to stand on principle and you have to oppose this, even though it might make you look vindictive and unforgiving. You have to not forgive these political moves that establish very dangerous precedents. And that precedent, it was no gift to Trump to give him a pass on this because they wound up using that against him, against him. And it's what he deserved. He was the one who locked down the election and turned it into a mail-in election. He deserved to lose for that. There wasn't any way that I would have voted for the man in an

honest election. No way I'm going to waste my time on these dog and pony shows. I would not have voted for the man after he locked us down, bragged about his mRNA injection, skipping the testing and the rest of this stuff. I was done with Trump way before November, 2020. But a lot of people are not. They would prefer to have Trump than the constitution isn't that amazing isn't that concerning it is to me so um as a matter of fact the person who sent that to me

uh on twitter i got on twitter just to say this is just yeah don't don't look for me here on twitter and then i get a couple of messages yesterday about that. And so I engaged against my better judgment for a short period of time on Twitter. I'm just done with that platform. We'll still post stuff up there, but we don't get any engagement whatsoever. It's a waste of time. And it's an illusion. As a matter of fact, can you pull up my Twitter account? See if you

can put out the, show the tweet that I did about the, it's up near the top on my account. And it's a tweet that I did about what Twitter really is. I showed a meme of it. So Trump, according to Breitbart, does not believe that this was awkward wording, as some people have said. Well, I think, you know, he just, well, everything he does is awkwardly worded, perhaps intentionally so. Was it awkward wording? Well, I don't know. I mean, didn't, suspending the Constitution? He did that 998 days ago when he suspended freedom of worship, when he suspended freedom of movement, when he told Main Street America and middle class businesses, you're not essential, shut up

and shut down. And it was him who did it. He did it with his executive order, giving legal cover and giving funding to all the governors who are doing this everywhere. He gave them legal cover. He gave them funding to do it. That's how it works. There wasn't anything else that he could have done.

He put Fauci in charge. He kowtowed and promoted everything that Fauci, Big Pharma, and the CDC said. And then he gave legal cover and funding to these people. He couldn't have done any more. If he had done any more, there would have been complaints. Well, you don't have done any more if he had done any more there would have been complaints well you don't have the authority to do that so they did it running through the yeah that's it um though i think that's the one pull it up and we'll say no that's not the one um there is a one horse that's it right up above there yeah i said is that picture of the mom you

got a grocery cart and in front of the grocery cart they've got a little plastic car that you can stick your child in and they got a little steering wheel that they can pretend that they're steering with and i said this is the best way that i can explain what's going on with Twitter and social media in general. The illusion of control, the illusion of free speech. They give you something to keep you busy, but behind the scenes, they're controlling everything. Just like mommy pushing the golf cart while junior is in front thinking he's driving a plastic Tesla or whatever he imagines it to be.

Yeah. Twitter is a plastic Tesla with a steering wheel that goes round and round, but it doesn't do anything. At least that's what it is for me, shadow banned. And people say, well, just be patient with him. You know, all these people hate him. He's doing everything he can. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. i've heard that for so long with trump it's 4d chess give him a break everybody hates him and all this other kind of stuff yeah the same game uh and i think he's actually playing the same game that trump although he's a lot smarter than trump he may actually do a couple of things to get people on his side well the jury is out so um trump says with the massive fraud of this type of magnitude, based on the release of the Twitter files, which again is not anything that we didn't know. We knew all of this stuff.

He gave a lot of insider emails about how the censorship was being coordinated between Twitter and the DNC and all the rest of these things, which we already knew. We already knew. But now they've brought the receipts. They've shown the proof. 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 the response to the mainstream media is still, that's not real. We don't care. There isn't anything that you can do, nothing that you can show the left, nothing you can show mainstream media. You know, you can show them pictures of a smoking gun and a dead body on the floor.

They don't care, especially if it's Hunter Biden. So there isn't anything that you can do to increase this. But now everybody on the right, well, now it's for real. Well, it was always for real. A massive fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution, says Trump. Isn't it ironic that the Oath Keepers are going to jail 20, 40 years perhaps

for supporting an Oath Breaker like Trump? I said this when he was running as a candidate. I said it at InfoWars while Alex was telling everybody that he was the second coming of George Washington. He was George Washington playing 4D chess. I said, look at his life. This is a guy who has had three wives. He's broken every oath to every one of those three wives, including his current wife.

Don't tell me he's going to support his oath to the constitution. See, there was once upon a time that the philandering presidents, whether you're talking about FDR, JFK, or any of them, they had mistresses all over the place, but they pretended that that wasn't happening. And that gave Americans the idea that it really, you know, well, I think it's happening, but maybe it isn't happening. They had the decency to be ashamed of what they were doing.

Trump is unique in the sense that he's proud of his sin, which typically you only see with the LGBT people. I said for the longest time, and I said this there as well, I said for the longest time they would have the pride parades. These are the only people I've ever seen who are proud of their sin, so proud of it that they hold a parade. And then Trump came along. I said, you don't see people talking about how proud they are to be adulterers. Then you got Trump boasting about it.

Character matters. And now we have a cast of characters who have no character. That's how we got into this clown show to start with. But, uh, what happens is that when you back somebody who has no integrity, who has no character, this is what you wind up with.

So, um, he said, sadly, we become a corrupt country, perhaps one of the most corrupt anywhere in the world. We must right this horrible wrong and take our country back. Well, it was happening while he was there.

He suspended the Constitution. He spent trillions of dollars to initiate universal basic income for everybody, to get people dependent. He didn't have any problem with that. Now, the problem he has is that it was done to him because he, as his lawyer said, is a deeply wounded narcissist who is incapable of acting

except out of his own perceived interest or out of revenge. So we've had gun control by executive order. What happened to the Constitution with that? Trump set that precedent. And you've got mainstream media, NBC, saying, well, you know, Trump did this with a bump stock. We can do it with assault rifles.

Of course they can. Immediately after he did it, Lala Harris said, if I'm elected president, I'll give Congress 100 days to enact sweeping gun control legislation. And if they don't do it, I'll do it by executive order. Why? Because Trump had just done it. He was unbelievably useful to Davos, the Great Reset, and the Marxist communists who wanted to destroy the Constitution. Now he's talking about doing it himself directly.

So he had gun control by executive order. He had the executive order declaring a state of emergency where he gave legal and financial aid, legal cover, to all the people who are enacting this medical martial law. He supported the Vax mandate. That's right. He did it in 2019. They got to get the shots supported the vax mandate. That's right. He did it in 2019. They got to get the shots, the MMR shots.

It's really going around. It's really dangerous. He was setting the precedent for what would be enacted, whether he was president or the Biden was president. He was setting the precedent in 2019 for vaccine mandates. And then, of course, take the guns and do the due process later, which is... 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 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 still there so uh you have um mike turner who is part of the intelligence community, goes on Face the Nation to criticize Trump because, of course, the intelligence people reflexively criticize everything

that Trump does. But he talks about it being a violation of oath and all the rest of this stuff, and he presents himself, the guy who is part of the intelligence community oversight, he doesn't do anything to stop the CIA or the NSA or any of this stuff that they're doing. And he, Trump allows this guy to portray himself as a supporter of the constitution. Unlike Donald Trump, it allows Biden to do the same thing.

It is an unforced error, which is what we see over and over again with Trump unforced errors is his own worst enemy. Uh, so you have a conservative site, uh, coming back and saying, this is American thinker, uh, pot meet the kettle. The White House castigates Trump for attacking the Constitution. And the White House said this. The Constitution brings the American people together regardless of party, and elected leaders swear to uphold it. Attacking the Constitution and all it stands for is an anathema to the soul of our nation and should be universally condemned.

American think American thinker says, who is this mystery man? I mean, clearly he's a constitutionalist given his spot on assessment of those who trample the most sacred document in American history. Or is he a dimwitted, double thinking, dissonant Democrat? Well, it's that's the latter. It was Joe Biden who said that. Actually, his spokesperson, Andrew Bates. Literally right on the heels of damning revelations that members of the Biden team intentionally violated

private citizens' rights protected by the First Amendment, this comes out, you see Trump is never going to be, even if his intentions were honorable, he is never going to win this fight rather than taking the high road and supporting the constitution Trump calls after the Biden administration has violated, been caught with all the evidence, all the documents, documenting the fact that they violated the first amendment. What does Trump do? He comes out and he says, we shouldn't have the constitution at all.

I want to overthrow this election. And bingo, he comes out with something that is worse than what the Democrats have done, quite frankly. Just get rid of the Constitution for me. At the very least, he gave them cover. He took this issue away. We had an issue where he could really hammer the mainstream. Look at this.

We got the documents. We got the receipts. No, he comes out and says, just get rid of the Constitution. Again, he's incapable of acting except out of his own perceived interest or out of revenge. And that clouds his judgment to the extent that he doesn't even know what's in his own best interest. He doesn't even know how to get revenge.

And then American Thinker says, and what about the shell not be infringed part, you know, the Democrats are always trying to take our guns away. Yeah. And you know how they're going to do it. And we're going to tell you later, you know, they got a lot of new measures coming out from the ATF. Trump established this precedent and boy, they are really ramping this thing up. Rapidly. Trump established this precedent, and boy, they are really ramping this thing up rapidly.

They got some sweeping regulations that are going to be an amazing new precedent. I'm going to tell you about that when we get to the news here in a second, before I finish with it, after I finish with this. But they've got some sweeping measures to expand their power and to destroy the Second Amendment, and it was given to them by Trump. They don't have to go through Congress anymore. And let me be clear, Congress never had the authority to remove any, to infringe at all, to add these little measures on the Second Amendment.

They always knew that it was going to be done that way. For the First Amendment, they could come out and they could say, well, as of today, First Amendment's gone. No free speech, no freedom of religious liberty, free exercise. You're not going to be able to meet in public. That'll be a crime. All the rest of the stuff, it sounds pretty close to what we've experienced for the last couple of years under Trump's executive order, doesn't it?

But you know, they can just do that by instant fiat. But when it comes to the Second Amendment, which is the real effective check on tyranny, it has to be done by a gradual process of infringement. It has to be done not by one immediate edict, but it has to be done death by a thousand cuts. And yet, now those thousand cuts can be done by the bureaucracy rather than even by Congress or by the Supreme Court, if you will. Over the last few years, to give you an idea of just how bad COVID has become, for other parts of the First Amendment,

not just the free speech part, but the other part, free exercise of religion, which is equally important. Yeah, during Thanksgiving, the left NPR was adamant about the fact that pilgrims did not come for free exercise of religion. No, America wasn't founded on that at all. That's why it was the first part of the

First Amendment. Yeah, first part of the amendments for Bill of Rights. In nearly a quarter of the countries, governments used physical force such as arrests and raids to make religious groups comply with COVID public health measures, said a Pew study published November 29. Authorities in at least 46 countries or territories used at least one type of force against religious groups, including detentions in at least 40 countries or territories, physical assault in 11, property damage, confiscation or raids in 10, displacements in four, and killing people in three.

The report also found that one or more religious groups in 69 countries violated COVID restrictions and health measures, including the United States and Canada. Well, that's good, but that's only 69 out of 198 where people violated, where people obeyed government instead of God. Private individuals and organizations in nine countries accused Christians of spreading COVID-19. In Egypt, they blamed the pandemic on the Coptic Orthodox Christian minority. Well, typically, typically what you see in Egypt. The study also found that religious groups in India, Argentina, Italy,

and the United States faced social hostilities in light of the pandemic. So you tell me where you think we fell in that, in terms of detentions, physical assault, property damage, confiscation of raids. I guess you'd put fines in that, right? Displacements. I don't know of anybody that was murdered with the enforcement of these things, but just understand,

Trump supported Fauci, CDC, throughout this whole thing, and big pharmaceutical companies. He gave them the podium. He endorsed everything they had to say. He said, they're very smart people. You should listen to these people. They're the experts. And then he gave legal cover and massive funding to the tyrants,

Republican and Democrat, who carried this out. And so now we're at the point where you have Shukri Abdurrahman. This is a woman who is, by her headdress, a Muslim, who was running against Ilhan Omar in that district, uh, that district is heavily Muslim, heavily, uh, Muslim Muslim immigrants from Somalia. So they figured they would fight fire with fire, I guess. So they got a Muslim woman to run against a Muslim woman in that district.

Uh, she did not win, but now she's still in the news because she responded to all this, this Twitter leak, saying it's only by bullets now, only by bullets now. This is a silly game of calling for violence and division over this type of thing. Look, who are you going to support? Who are you going to support if you have violence? What candidate out there supported free speech?

This is not the way forward. Violence and scapegoating is not the way forward. That's the way forward into a civil war, which is exactly what these people want. I said that about January the 6th. I said that talking about what the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys were doing. I said that about the Stop the Steal, Save America.

I said, this is not the way forward. This is not the man we should be supporting. He didn't support us. He told us we were non-essential, which I find to be more obnoxious than Hillary Clinton's deplorables because it was a betrayal. Nobody expected Hillary Clinton to support us. We're going to take a quick break and we will be right back. Stay with us. And when we come back,'ll talk about uh the news before we get into the twitter files quite frankly you know i i'm just well uh we will talk about it because everybody else is talking about it and i think that there's a there's a different

perspective that they are missing So we'll be right back. 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 LiveScore Bet. This is total betting. For more information, please visit www.betresponsibly18plusgamblingcare.ie Thank you. you're listening to the david knight show okay um calm down a little bit here uh let's let's do a follow-up to what we talked about

on friday i had goat tree and we're in a goat tree um correctly pointed out he said uh you realize how much radiation is coming off of these uh air pods and and that would be the case for any of these in-ear wireless headphones, earbuds. But I don't really know how it compares to others. I know years ago when this first came up, and we're talking about radiation and the effects on people, there was a documentary that someone did and it showed the pulsing. They could, they could turn on the EMF and there was a bunch of bugs that were on a leaf. And, uh, you can see the bugs jerking when they turn it on and jerking, turn it off, you know, that type of thing. It's like, okay, you can, you can visually see the effect

on these insects here when you turn this on close proximity and they looked at the radiation levels of different phones and the ones that were the absolute highest were apple and the ipad was off the charts so just understand that if you have those devices i don't know if that's changed or not that That was several years ago, five or six years ago. It may be worse now. I don't know. But after the report that I did with Goat Tree, this was put up by someone on Twitter, and he does a test. Apple AirPods, and they are turned off with the case closed low levels of RF and look what happens immediately when we open the case and take out the earbud our levels of RF know it pretty high you can see people walking around with the ear pod about it's peaking at about 700 or 800 millivolts per meter.

Okay, and that was Safe Technologies in, what was it? Was that Santa Clara? Let me look at that just again. I'll pull this up. Yeah, Santa Rosa, California. Safe Technology. So good job doing that. He referenced that report.

Um, it was pretty much buried on Twitter. Um, but, uh, he did happen to see it. Uh, maybe he follows the show. Maybe he was looking for it, uh, after he heard the broadcast, but as goat tree followed up, he said, you notice that he did that with just one of those, uh, double that, and you're up to a cell phone level. And we know that Apple has said, don't hold the cell phone next to your head. You know, put it out away from your body while you're using it.

Don't do it that way. So imagine if you had a cell phone that was not only next to your head, but inside your ear and you just leave it there all day. Uh, we've already seen brain tumors from people who were heavy users of cell phones on the side where they always hold the phone. And, um, so this understand that just to just a warning about that. Uh, so thanks to goat tree for doing that.

And thanks to safe technologies for doing that. And, thanks to, uh, safe technologies for doing that as well. Uh, while we're talking about, uh, newfangled inventions, let's talk about the electric vehicles and they're being banned in Switzerland during particular times because they're going to have,

uh, power cuts and blackouts because they don't have a grid anymore. They're destroying the grid while they're mandating that all transportation be charged off the grid because they don't want you going anywhere. Just like California. Same thing we saw. Switzerland could limit the use of electric vehicles in cases of electricity supply shortages this winter under a four-step plan to prevent power cuts and blackouts.

So they put together this four-stage action plan to keep the grid from crashing. And of course, part of this is to make sure that people would not be able to charge their EVs except in cases of absolutely necessary journeys. That is stage three of four stages. So first two, you can still have your electric car and still charge it, but in stage three and stage four, no, can't do it.

The country also plans a stricter speed limit on highways, uh, which has yet to be adopted. Well, because you know, that'll, that'll also help, right. Or will it, they're always looking for another way to control us and to fine us. That's what this is truly about. And this is happening because, and Switzerland's a little bit different. It's not that they're shutting down their grid. It's that they're reliant on, they never really built one sufficient. They've always bought their electricity from France and Germany and France and Germany are shutting down their grid for the

green MacGuffin. So, uh, they've been importing their electricity and because of Germany and, um, you know, the, uh, boycotting of Russian gas, boycotting of the pipeline, the demolition of the pipeline, all the rest of this stuff. They are suffering. France was heavily involved in nuclear power, but just coincidentally this year, they've got a lot of their nuclear power plants are in maintenance. Isn't that unfortunate and such a coincidence?

French electricity grid is at higher risk of strained power supplies in January. It's coming January than previously estimated due to lower nuclear power generation. Because they picked this time to do maintenance. I mean, who knew that NATO was going to pick a Russia would do this, right? And it's not just the EVs parking lots themselves are in the crosshairs for climate change. This is something I've lived with basically my entire life, the hatred of cars, which extends to all things cars.

It extends to the suburbs because the suburbs are only possible with cars and you shouldn't be taking trips. You should not be commuting. And we're not going to build any more roads for you to do that. That was my, been my experience after the interstate was built and things like that. They quickly stopped that. No,

no, we're going to stop this urban sprawl. Cars are the worst thing that man has ever invented, and cities are our salvation. That's what the urban planners say. That's what the CEO of Lyft wrote when he got his degree in urban planning. That's what the environmentalists want. And so they hate all things associated with cars, parking lots especially,

because, you know, if there's no place to park your car, you can't really go there. That's why we quit going to Washington, D.C., to try to see the museums there, because no parking. And it's just too much of a hassle. So, yeah, they're going to ban cars. They're going to ban the parking lots. What they're doing in France, they approved a law last month requiring parking lots with 80 or more spaces to be covered by solar panels within

the next five years. Okay. Well, you know, that's not a bad idea. It gives people shade. It also can generate some power. But it's going to be expensive. And who's going to pay for that? Well, you're going to see

your parking fees go up. You know, I don't think that, um, you know, either that, or they're going to charge the people who park there, you know, electric cars, um, they could charge their car. So I imagine that they'll bump up the charging prices. If charge your car there, parked underneath the shade of the solar panels. The bottom line is that that's the other side of this. They're pushing anybody who's middle class or below out of having a car. Everything is going to be a lot more expensive. And then we get to the Second Amendment move that I talked about before. 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. 18plusgamblingcare.ie. The Trump precedent of letting the ATF create rules as if we had no second amendment, as if the constitution didn't exist because as far as trump is concerned it doesn't he gets elected dictator and he thinks he should be able to take back his dictatorship up to 40 million firearms could be banned overnight due to a new atf brace rule this is from from Gun Owners of America. This is not the NRA, by the way, folks. Gun Owners of America have been far more spot on,

and of course there's other ones as well. The National Association of Gun Rights. I've done some work for them in the past. But Gun Owners of America, I've interviewed Larry Pratt many, many times. His son is now running it. Uh, so again, this is Trump versus the constitution from precedent. Trump who was playing 40 chess at the time that he said, we'll

let the ATF write the rules. And we'll start with something. And this is how insidious it is and how calculated this is. We'll start with something that nobody's going to fight over, except the gun owners of America did fight. NRA did not. The bump stock ban. So now we've got something new.

The BATF is set to release its final rule on braced firearms later this month. And analyzing the proposed rule, which was released initially in June 2021, ah, but there's a new wrinkle to it, a very dangerous new wrinkle to it, the ATF has intentionally designed its, quote, factoring criteria for rifled, barreled weapons with accessories commonly referred to as stabilizing braces, unquote. That's the name of the rule. To affect a complete ban of every pistol-braced firearm currently on the market.

Because, you see, their proposed rule, even though they proposed it back in June of 2021, nearly a year and a half ago, they are, you know, just a few months after Biden took office, taking advantage of Trump's precedent, uh, giving them that kind of power. They put out a rule, but now for the last year, it only took them, you know, five months to put out their rule, but they've been working for 18 months to really put the devil in the details. And, uh, they're still amending the Constitution as we speak. Masquerading as a helpful rulemaking to assist gun owners.

Yes, we're from the government, and we're here to help you. We're from the ATF, and we're here to help you comply to our rules. How about that? The firearms industry helped them comply with the law. In reality, the proposed rule is designed with the obvious specific intent to largely outlaw the use of stabilizing braces on firearms. Why is this important? Well, you know, this is something that has a lot more practical usage

than the bump stocks. Bump stocks are kind of a throwaway thing, but it was a very important precedent. So now they go to something that's a little bit more significant and more widely spread, more widely used, to take it to the next step of legal precedent. And they're going to use it to ban guns and confiscate guns and to register guns and all the rest of this stuff.

That's where they're going with this stuff. But they're going a step at a time. They're starting out with the most trivial, you know, nonsense things moving to other things that are a little bit more serious, but still not that serious. Uh, thank you,

Regan, uh, Regan Perlitt. Thank you very much. I appreciate the tip on rock fan. Thank you. Uh, so this new thing that they're putting out now that they worked for a year and a half on, it's called worksheet 4999 worksheet 4999.

You're going to be hearing a lot about that. I think it contains, at least in the last, designed to ensure that virtually no stabilizing brace is eligible for use on a non-rifle firearm, and thereafter ensuring that most firearms do not qualify to even use an allowed stabilizing brace. This is the precedent. Even if a firearm passes the checks listed in worksheet 4999, ATF still reserves unto itself the unbridled discretion to override the results of the worksheet at any time and for any reason. You see, they create a system that has a lot of devilish details in it

to deprive you of your God-given right recognized fundamentally by the Constitution. And then they reserve for themselves the rights to deny you your, even if their form doesn't do it, they can still override their rule and just dictate to you personally on a case-by-case basis. Do you understand how dangerous this is? And again, this is for a stabilizing brace for a pistol. Most people don't use that. Most of the people who are using are people who have some kind of a disability as a veteran or something like that. But it's still, even though millions of people are involved, this is still not even though millions of people are involved, this is still not a firearm. Are people going to understand the danger of this precedent and push back against this?

The ATF in their proposed rulemaking claims that the number of these stabilizing braces in circulation is about 7 to 9 million, whereas the Congressional Research Service estimated that it is four times that. They estimated the actual number of braces in circulation is anywhere between 10 and 40 million. If this proposed rule becomes law, says Gun Owners of America, millions of gun owners could find themselves in possession of illegal, unregistered, short-barreled rifles or shotguns overnight. You understand what they're doing? They're going back to one of the very first cases of gun prohibition

was over sawed-off shotguns, the Miller case. What a piece of work that was. The guy was a convicted felon and he, um, uh, they, they passed a rule about the minimum length of barrels. They targeted him and there was a lot involved in that targeting, but even beyond that, the suspicious Genesis of the case, he died before his case was heard in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, instead of declaring it a moot issue,

which it was at that point, because he was dead, they went ahead with it and they decided the case anyway. The other thing that was amazing about it was that they said that a sawed-off shotgun was not a military weapon therefore it was not protected by the Second Amendment they said the Second Amendment is about a domestic militia trained by the government equipped by the government but it was about a militia therefore only military weapons should be allowed just the opposite of the lies that they're telling us now. That was a lie, but it was a lie that was polar opposite of the lies that they're telling us now.

And so they said, because a sawed-off shotgun is not a military weapon, then we can ban it. Well, that was clearly not the case at the time they banned it. It had been used widely in trench warfare, uh, during world war one. What better weapon could you have in narrow trench warfare than a sawed off shotgun to clear the way. And it had been used even in the civil war, uh, by some cavalry charges much better off when you hit that line of people. Uh, if you've got, instead of a saber,

if you've got a sawed off shotgun in your hand, so it'd been widely used, uh, in both wars. So they lied about that. They continued with the case where the plaintiff or where the defendant was dead. And,

uh, so that's the basis now of these sawed off shotgun laws. And so now they're going to have the bureaucracy develop a rule and say that if you add a brace to a pistol, you've now created a sawed-off shotgun or a short-barreled rifle that has a barrel that's too short. This is what's called infringement. Boiling the frogs gradually. One lie after the other. This is what's called infringement. Boiling the frogs gradually.

One lie after the other. So I guess we'll just do the due process later. Is that right, Donald? ATF attempted once before to effectively ban pistol braces in 2020 during the Trump administration. Oh. And they pushed back. Republicans pushed back at that point. And it was a little bit too quick, right?

So the Trump administration slows them down a little bit. Because it had been two years earlier, in 2018, that Trump had given the power to the ATF to do gun control regulation themselves with the bump stocks. That was in 2018. Then they said, okay, let's do it again. Oh, let's slow it down a little bit. Can't go too fast. People will catch on.

Because of massive grassroots response to the rule change, the ATF abandoned their attempt and withdrew the rulemaking because now it's getting more substantive. Nobody really cared about the bump stock, but now when it's something that's more substantive, now they start to pay attention. So what is Gun Owners of America doing to combat this arbitrary and capricious regulation? They're the ones writing this article here, of course. We worked with 48 senators to demand that the ATF withdraw its proposed rule. ATF doesn't have to listen to senators, just like

they don't have to listen to you. 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. 18plusgamblingcare.ie.

Right. And they don't have to obey the Constitution. They don't have to be bothered with anybody. You know, you can comment on it. Senators can comment on it. They don't have to pay any attention. And Congress said, Gun Owners of America, we're targeting the core

of the issue, the National Firearms Act. The outdated and unconstitutional National Firearms Act allows ATF to regulate these sorts of items in the first place. Exactly right. That's where they started putting through things like

the sawed-off shotgun. And so they have Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas and Congressman Andrew Clyde of Georgia have introduced the SHORT Act,

which would remove short-barreled rifles and shotguns from the national firearm act. All the national firearm act is a violation of the constitution. Any, any minor infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is a violation of the second amendment. Uh, all of these federal laws and rules are a violation of that. So anyway, they said, finally, if that doesn't take effect,

we will take it to court. Uh, let's talk about other efforts to protect us because you know, the federal government now no longer cares about the constitution no longer cares about Liberty. It has everything for one of two reasons, you know, uh, national security and continuity of government, or they tell, uh, national security and continuity of government, or they tell the public, we have to take your Liberty to keep you safe. Nobody wants to talk about Liberty anymore.

So Lee camp wrote an article. It's on a free thought project. TSA has groped and assaulted us for 20 years, 21 years with absolutely nothing to show for it. The reality is that the TSA has played next to no role in the biggest counterterrorism and stories of the past two decades. As Daryl Campbell reports in the verge, the reality is that the TSA has played no next to no role in the biggest

counterterrorism stories of the past two decades. And according to the think tank Rand intelligence and security services managed to foil nearly two thirds of terrorist plots in the planning stages. Now we can't points out correctly. Of course, us law enforcement also creates almost all the terrorist attacks that they thwart. They're the firemen who declare themselves to be heroes for putting out the fires that they started in the first place. That's what you need to know about the FBI. Back in 2013, a review of planned terror attacks found that only 1% of terrorists caught by the FBI are real. The vast majority, over 90%, are people either pushed by or helped by the FBI.

You see, they're the ones coming up with the plots. They're the ones coming up with the conspiracies. They're the ones bringing people in and trapping them and running the whole thing. And at the last minute, they come in and shut it down and declare themselves the saviors of mankind. And look, the TSA is no different. They don't mention it here. And it is just a source of frustration to me.

There was something that we pointed out in, I think it was 2013, that it was an engineer who was pushing back against these body scanners. And as part of the lawsuit, he got discovery about internal communications with the TSA. And one of the things that he found, which we would never have known, except that when they posted the lawsuit on pacer.gov, that's where all the federal

lawsuits go up and of course they redact anything that makes them look bad. Right. So they posted by accident, the unredacted lawsuit or the unredacted documents that were obtained as part of discovery. They posted that by accident on pacer.gov. And, um,

yeah, we were notified of that. We grabbed a copy of that. And then later that afternoon, they realized it and they posted up the redacted copy. Now, what they didn't want you to know was that internal documents in the TSA in 2011 said that there is no threat to airplanes or airports. They said that in 2011, 10 years after 2001.

No threat, says the TSA, to airports or airplanes. What's even more interesting is that that happened at exactly the same time that there was a massive pushback in Texas. We had David Simpson, a straight-up guy, state legislator, man of real character. Few people like him. And he led an effort that passed unanimously in the Texas House saying we are not going to allow the TSA to do naked body scans or to alternatively put their hands on people as a condition of travel. And they were scrambling to stop that. The TSA and the federal government said, we will turn Texas into a no-fly zone.

They went to, then when it went to the Senate, the guy who was lieutenant governor, a former CIA guy who was set up, he spent more than anybody ever spent to run at that point in time to win a statewide office in Texas. After he got out of the CIA, they set him up in the oil business. Like they typically do. These guys, a lot of them were done that way.

Bushes, for example, set them up, you know, to make a fortune in oil. And, um, this Lieutenant governor, uh, led a movement in the Senate to stop it.

So at the same time all that was happening, the TSA was honest in saying there is no threat against airports and airplanes. And how did they know that? Well, they know that because they fail all of the tests. Whenever they have a test there, they fail virtually 100% of them. According to senators and congressmen, they won't give you the number, but they'll allude to it. Oh, you, you wouldn't believe it.

If I told you what this number is, it's basically all of them, you know, but they won't give you a specific number. And so the TSA knows that since they can't stop anything and there hasn't been an attack on any airports or airplanes, that there isn't any threat. It's just that simple. Now, they don't point that out here, but again, only 1% of the terrorists caught by the FBI are real.

There is no threat to the airports, and yet what are they doing? Daryl Campbell continues. He said, actuaries measure the cost-effectiveness of an intervention with a metric called the cost perlife saved. This calculation tries to capture the total societal net resources spent in order to save one year of life. For example, some of them have calculated seatbelt laws have cost $138 per year of life saved.

He says, well, I'm willing to pay that to save a life. On the other hand, the most generous estimates of the cost effectiveness of the TSA's security screening put the cost per life saved at around $15 million. This is a metric that really isn't any of the business of the federal government. Look, we want to have safety, but it's not their business to try to create that. They don't have that power in the Constitution. They've got one job, really, defend this country and defend our God-given liberties. And they're very narrowly prescribed as to what they can do about that. So this is mission creep. It's a government that is metastasizing like cancer

once you let them get into these areas where they take your liberty to promise you safety and you never get it. As Benjamin Franklin said, you know, you don't deserve it even if you would get it, but you're not going to get it. But it gets worse. The $15 million number assumes that airport security is 100% responsible for stopping all terrorist attacks, which we know is not true, which we know there aren't any. So you're going to take this number and you're basically going to divide it by zero and you're going to find that the cost is infinite.

Less optimistic assessments place the number at $667 million per life saved for the TSA. So worth it, isn't it? You know, everything we really get our money's worth from the government, don't we? Problem is, is that we get a lot of other things from them that we don't want, don't deserve. I think, well, maybe we deserve it if we allow them to do it. You have a bulletin, another one of these bulletins. Had Sheriff send this to me, had a rainbow send this one to me.

November the 30th just came out a summary of terrorism threat to the United States. This is coming from the, from DHS. They put these things out and I want you to listen to how they, uh, how they couch. What the threat environment is here. Listen to this. Some domestic violent extremists who have conducted attacks have cited previous attacks and attackers as inspiration. Following the late November shooting at an LGBT bar in Colorado Springs,

Colorado, which remains under investigation, extremists in the United States have already praised an October, the, uh, shooting this year at an LGBT bar in Slovakia. I have not even seen anything about that. I mean, I scan the news all the time. I don't see anything at all about that. That's news to me, but you know, they want to say this inspired, you know, this attack in November in Colorado Springs was

inspired by a shooting, which I've never heard of, in Slovakia. And yet the reality is that the guy that was there was a non-binary dude. 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.

18plusgamblingcare.ie. He was into all that stuff and the pronouns and everything else. But forget the facts. Just invent a string of motivations and forget about where this guy was coming from. DHS is still selling the lie that this was an anti-LGBT shooting by somebody who was not one of their own. Then they go on to say, we've also highlighted the enduring threat to faith-based communities,

including the Jewish community. But you know what they ignore? And the Islamic state of Iraq and all the rest of this stuff, looking at the Jewish community, what have they ignored? It seems like they've ignored the firebombing of crisis pregnancy centers and the attacks on the Catholic church buildings and things like that. As a matter of fact, I reported to you last week that in one particular instance of a crisis center that was attacked, you had firebombed. The pastor contacted the FBI. That's supposedly their jurisdiction, especially because these things are going from state to state, these

organizations typically, but contacted the FBI. They did nothing at all. They confiscated the surveillance footage so that it wouldn't be given to the media. And, uh, when the pastor contacted them, they berated him. How dare you call me about this? You know, we're busy creating some new terrorist attacks that we're going to run. They don't care. They don't care. They would talk about, uh, faith communities. Okay. Well, um, they turn a blind eye to what is going on with this very selective. Well, they want to

talk about, Oh, we'll talk about threats to the Jewish community, but they won't talk about fire bombing of crisis pregnancy centers and, uh, you know, Catholic churches, things like that. So they berated him. And then they called him once a senator started calling into question their non-action with that case and many others. The only thing they wanted to talk to him about was what he was going to say about them. They didn't want to talk about the case at all. And they got real horsey when he wanted the tapes back.

Anyway, then they go in, they say, well, in October 2022, in San Francisco, an individual allegedly broke into the house of a member of Congress and attacked their spouse. Who would they be talking about there? Let's see. Again, pretending. Creating an event that has absolutely nothing. And Reuters is right there with him.

Reuters is their propaganda partner. Reuters and Associated Propaganda, the AP, right there. Headline, threat environment in the U.S. to remain heightened in coming months, says government. The threat environment in the U.S. will remain heightened in. Uh, could we say that it's DEFCON three against conservatives? Uh, yeah, well, you know, that's the funny thing about, uh, Kanye. He doesn't even know, doesn't even know it's DEFCON. He put it out as DEFCON. We'll talk about that in a minute. But anyway, Ron DeSantis, meanwhile, has capitulated to Disney, apparently, in backroom negotiations, says Anthony Sabatini. And a report from the UK-based Financial Times are both indicating

that they're trying to back off. Now that there's a new CEO, the new CEO solves a lot of problems for both Disney and DeSantis. They don't have to go forward with any of the stuff that they were talking about. They can all pretend now that this was simply Bob Chapik. And now that we got Bob Iger back, everything is good. Everything is good. Is it? So,

um, uh, yeah, I want to thank, uh, Mark Crawford. Thank you very much for the tip. Appreciate that.

It says blessings to you, David. Well, thank you very much. That is a blessing to us. And Richard Williams. Thank you also. Thank you for the tip on rock fan,

a financial times report indicated Florida lawmakers are working closely with the Santas's office to give Disney back their special tax privileges and allow them to administer their parks with a private government called the Reedy Creek Improvement District. I grew up in Florida. I was in high school, as a matter of fact, when Disney World opened. And many of us were outraged from the very beginning that they were able to have their own government operating independently so they didn't have to pay any taxes. And they were able to provide their services far more efficiently, of course, than if they had to do it through government. They could decide what the

benefits were. And quite frankly, if you want to look at how effective governments are versus how effective it is if you take care of the roads privately, it's a great thought exercise, but you can actually see it done from a libertarian standpoint. You can actually see it done in Disney. The problem is when it came to things like accidents on rides and things like that, they were able to cover that up pretty effectively. There was a lot of talk, I don't know if it was true or not, about people getting injured

and how they would do their own investigation. You don't have to worry about any sheriff or somebody coming in and poking around. Uh, they were their own government and they would do their own investigation. So from some standpoints like that did not work too well, but in terms of, you know, uh, building the sewer and keeping it going and the infrastructure and the roads and all the rest of the stuff worked out great, but, um, why should they be allowed to do that?

Why should they be given those special privileges? And of course it's not just that the federal government gives them massive subsidies to do the fireworks that they do on a regular basis. They say, oh, you know, they're doing tests or something for us or whatever, you know, whatever excuse they come up with. So, um, uh, now by getting rid of the former guy, Chapik and putting in Iger, uh, they can just pretend that none of that stuff ever happened. And so it kind of bails out, uh, DeSantis, uh, meanwhile, DeSantis is, um, uh, you know, press secretary had said, um, we will have an even playing field for businesses in florida the state certainly owes no special favors to one company however sabatini explained how the

statement from desantis's press secretary is a little more than just political rhetoric designed to deflect criticism about desantis folding to disney The special district, says Sabatini in a tweet, is scheduled to dissolve on June 1st of next year. There is no reason for a compromise with Disney. The only amendment needed is requiring Reedy Creek to have a winding down plan to pay back its remaining debt. Instead, Disney will likely get 99.9% of its power back. So, um, you know, they're pretending that and positioning this as if, uh,

DeSantis is not doing a U-turn, but I think that is what is happening. You look at Disney and of course, going back years under Bob Iger, uh, he was already talking about, you know, this, this woke stuff did not happen with Bob Chapik. They've been trending to this for very, very long time. As a matter of fact, we had a video store and, and the, you know, the only classic that they would not release was song of the south and the only way that we could get that in our video store was with a um a laser disc that was out of japan they would release it in foreign countries but not in america and and it was kind of funny because um you know the way the laser disc was set up you could have a different audio track that would be be in your native language. But, uh, so you could listen to the English track. You could listen to the Japanese track, but they did not, uh, you know, when,

when it was a song, you know, like a zippity doodah, when it was a song, they would subtitle it in Japanese characters and just leave it in the English version. Uh, and so, um, you know, subtitles as part of the visual, the video track was always there, uh, even if you're listening to the audio track in English. And so we thought that was kind of interesting and, and it was pandering and it was one of the first pandering that was done in the early nineties before this stuff got so insane. But again, that was Disney doing that even back then.

But in the mid-90s, we took our kids when they were very young, and we had a timeshare, and we were able to switch it out and stay at a Disney property because we were homeschooling the kids, and they were still very young. I mean, they were like first grade or something like that. And, uh, but we were able to set up our time with that. So it just worked out that we're able to stay, uh, at a Disney property and they had a special deal. They called it the e-ticket express where they had after hours, you go in and they would keep the main attraction in each area open for a number of hours and nobody took him up on I mean it was a

dead time of year it was September when everything would die everybody would go back to school typically and so they were trying to think of ways that they could drum up business but nobody took him up and it was the emptiest I've ever seen the park. It was really pretty amazing. And the costume characters are just, uh, uh, in that area, they had like, um, uh, Brer rabbit, Brer Fox were costume characters pushing each other up and down the hills and shopping carts, even to the point where a little bit concerned about them running over some of the kids, but you know, Hey, uh, we weren't going to shut them down with it, but you know, we just got out. The only ride they

had open was splash mountain. I mean, we just went around and around and around on splash mountain because you didn't have to get off. There was nobody there. Uh, so it's a lot of fun. It's really kind of ingrained in our memory. I just have to say that if they think that this is about racial stereotypes, well, first of all, all cartoons are basically stereotypes, right? But maybe if that's their problem with it, they don't understand the situation. And I've said this many times. I've talked about Song of the South. I said, yeah, okay.

It's Uncle Remus. Uncle Remus is a slave. A slave who wrote stories that people still find amazingly inspiring and humorous and all the rest of this stuff, right? And you know, Aesop, who wrote Aesop's fables. Aesop was a slave. Yes, he wasn't a different race than the people that had enslaved him, but he was a slave and people still talk about his writings. And so I said, one way to look at this instead of skin color and a slave or plantation or

whatever, one way to look at this is to say, look at the humanity of somebody who was born a slave, but transcended all that was done by wherever he was. I mean, we don't really know the exact identity of Uncle Remus or of Aesop, but do we know who owned them or the masters or who they were enslaved to? No, no. But it underscores the humanity of people, even of slaves. So you should elevate this. And you should say, look at this accomplishment.

Look at what this guy accomplished even as he was a slave. But look, if they don't like it, then get rid of zippity-doo-dah. Keep using that. But you won't use the rest of it. Everybody's got a happy place. We need to go there sometime. A laughing place, right? Yeah, so they're going to close Splash Mountain,

and they're going to replace it with The Princess and the Frog. Because, again, this is about skin color. So we've got to find something else that's skin color so we can replace it with that. So Bob Iger said in 2020, you know, because Chapik hasn't been there that long. He immediately crashed and burned. But Bob Iger was still there.

March of 2020 said, I felt as long as I've been CEO, the song of the South was even with a disclaimer, not appropriate in today's world. This is the guy Disney's brought back. You think anything's going to change with Disney? Get rid of their Disney stuff. Get rid of your Disney plus stuff. Uh, by the way, they pointed out when they were talking about this, I talked about it at the time in 2019, they had a, um, a, uh, a pressure campaign from an activist group to get rid of splash mountain.

And there was a petition, um, in 2019, 21,000 signatures wanted to get rid of Splash Mountain. There was another one that said, keep it unchanged. That got 93,000. So this is, you know, not Disney doing what people want. This is Disney imposing their own agenda on people, and that's going to continue, but we're going to give them all kinds of special privileges, and for all of the virtue signaling of the Santas, it's going to remain the same.

Stay with us. We'll be right back. 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. This is The David Knight Show. All right, let's talk about, what should we call it? Twittergate? Lapgate?

Laptopgate? Laptopgate? I don't know what we call this thing. Let's talk about this. This is all anybody wanted to talk about over the weekend. You know, look at the news sites. It's top story everywhere. So, we'll talk a little bit about some of the details of what Matt Taibbi put out.

He was given the information by Elon Musk. I think perhaps the reason he was given that information was because Matt Taibbi has been very outspoken in terms of supporting the First Amendment. Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi, both liberals, but old-style liberals who defend the First Amendment. And Matt Taibbi used to work for Rolling Stone magazine, and Glenn Greenwald worked for The Guardian, then he went to work for The Intercept and things like that. But both of them have been appalled at the censorship that has now become commonplace and have been voices of reason when it comes to the First Amendment, especially because they have the additional credentials of being leftists and saying, you know, look, we have to support speech that we don't agree with. And if you don't support that, you don't support free speech if you only support speech that you agree with.

We'll talk about that in a minute here. But anyway, he participated in a debate in Canada. He and another individual debated a couple of people over censorship. And they wiped the floor with him. We'll talk about that coming up, but because of those types of things, I imagine that's reason that Elon Musk gave this to Matt Taibbi because he figured that, you know, he's going to give it an honest opinion. He doesn't have an agenda.

He is all about focusing on the story and telling the truth about the story, regardless of who it hurts. And that's why, you know, whose interest it is. And that's one of the reasons why both he and Glenn Greenwald are now independent, is because they would not play the game that mainstream media is playing. And we'll talk about that First Amendment aspect. It's interesting what he had to say in the debate he really nailed it in that debate but let's talk about the twitter uh files first and he put out a thing to his uh a message to the people who subscribe to him on

substack you know i'm on substack i haven't written too much stuff there i'm going to try to write some more stuff but i don't charge anybody if you want to go there. But he's doing that for a living. That's where he makes his money. And so it is a subscription service for him. He writes there regularly, and that is as an independent, that's how he survives. So he put out a thing to them saying, look, I'm going to put out this long thread, and put out this long thread and I apologize to you for not putting it on sub stack first. He says, um, absolutely understand if subscribers are angry, that's not appearing on sub stack first. I'd be angry too. But he said it was such an important story.

He had to put it out there broadly. And he said the last 96 hours have been among the most chaotic of my life involving multiple trips back and forth across the country with a debate in Canada in between. There's a long story that I hope to be able to tell soon, but I can't not quite yet anyway. What I can say is that in exchange for the opportunity to cover a unique and explosive story, I had to agree to certain conditions. And so I think, you know, Elon Musk giving him the information says, you got to go wide with it.

You just can't keep it on sub stack. So he said, um, what you're about to read is the first installment in a series based upon thousands of internal documents obtained by sources at Twitter. Uh, and I'll just kind of skip through the high points here of what he said to them instead of reading all of it. Cause it's very long, uh, in an early conception he said, Twitter more than lived up to its mission statement, giving people, quote, the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers. But as time progressed, the company was slowly forced to add barriers. Some of the first tools for controlling speech were designed to combat the

likes of spam and financial fraudsters. You mean like SBF or something? Anyway, shortly over time, Twitter staff and executives began to find more and more uses for these tools. Outsiders began petitioning the company to manipulate speech as well. First a little, then more often, then constantly. And so by 2020, writes Matt, he says, requests from connected actors to delete tweets were routine. One executive would write to another,

more to review from the Biden team, quote unquote. And the reply would come back, handled. Celebrities and unknowns alike could be removed or reviewed at the behest of a political party. Now listen to this. Both parties had access to these tools. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored. However, it was not a balanced system because it was based on context.

It wasn't an algorithm. It wasn't a stated policy. It was on who you know and who likes you. And because of the political bias of the people who worked at Twitter, it shook out virtually always to the Democrats. For instance, he's got a chart contributions by party of recipient. And, um, so in terms of money coming to, uh, uh, money coming from Twitter, you could see that in 2018, Republicans got 3.6%. Democrats got all the rest. It dropped in 2020 to 1.5%. And in 2022, it dropped to a quarter of a percent. That was about as close to a hundred percent as you can get. Uh, so he says, um, uh,

hang on. I just want to say, he says that Twitter took ordinary steps to suppress a story, removing links and posting warnings that it might be unsafe. And of course, we're talking about the New York Post story about Biden's secret emails. When this broke as an October surprise and immediately this kind of stuff started happening. a group mainstream media came out against it. I said at the time, I said, first of all, they can't even take a slam dunk thing like this and win with it. They're that incompetent. They sat on it. There's a lot of stuff that's there.

They thought they would just throw it out there and the mainstream media would grab it and run with it. How naive. Did they not realize that they're like 100% against them, that they're going to shut down that narrative, which is what they did. You had Twitter, social media accounts. As we now see, they produced the documents. We knew it was happening.

They, you know, took the New York Post, put them in Twitter jail, suspended them, would not allow people to tweet the New York Post story. They took the extraordinary steps of blocking that, even blocking people from sharing it through direct messaging. and so all this kind of stuff was was happening and um i said yeah they didn't realize who their enemies were they didn't know how this is going to be handled they didn't know that there were so many things here that they should have used this in the public's interest they should have started this thing a long time ago they should have had a real investigation in it instead of just dropping this like an October surprise, making it look like, you know, oh, we found some dirty laundry on you or we made it up

because that's typically what happens with the October surprises. They're typically things that are made up about somebody. And drop them at the last minute so you don't have time to respond. And so by doing it that way, it actually made it easier for these people to cover it up. But now what's come out with the, um, uh, the, the, with Elon Musk showing the internal emails we now know. Oh, well, you now have the documents of what we've always known that Twitter was

doing this at the behest of the Democrats. Publicly, they say they nudge them, okay? But privately, they're telling them exactly what to do. And this is why I've said for the longest time, you know, that when Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, Heritage being conservative, Cato Institute being libertarian, they say, well, this is just a private company doing what private companies are allowed to do. They can do whatever they wish.

They can suppress any speech that they want. They can feature any speech that they want. It's just up to them to decide. I said, no, it isn't. I said, first of all, you don't understand that they're acting in concert. This is monopolistic. It is a true conspiracy. It was being directed out of Apple.

Phil Schiller and Tim Cook were doing that on August 6th, 2018, against Infowars, moving all at once. They continued to do it. Those other 800 people that were taken off two months later, that was the DNC telling social media, these people 800 people that were taken off two months later, that was the DNC telling social media, these people are bots, take them off. Oh, okay, you said their bots will take them off. They have been doing exactly what, the corporations have been doing exactly what the Democrats

want them to do. And the corporations have been doing for the government what the government is expressly prohibited from doing. They're using them as a beard to do what they're prohibited from doing. It is a deputized state. Yeah, forget the deep state. Look at the deputized state. The deep state is the bureaucracy, like the ATF, just eviscerating the Second Amendment.

They're going to end it if we don't stop this stuff. If we continue to allow the bureaucratic state to write laws, if Congress is going to continue to abdicate their power and just sit there holding dog-and-pony hearings and never doing anything about anything, we're done. That's an even bigger, well, as big a deal as the election. And that's why I said, you know, with the election, you look at what Trump did throughout all of 2020,

and you look at the fact that all of our laws are being decided by the bureaucrats. I mean, you're going to get people energized and activated to support the Second Amendment? The Second Amendment, Congress isn't going to have anything to do with preserving the Second Amendment unless they get rid of the ATF or put some handcuffs on these people, that's becoming a moot point because now the regulations are coming directly from the bureaucracy, not from the mixture of the Democrats get control of the Congress, they'll, they'll, uh, eviscerate the second amendment.

No, that's going to be done because Trump put the ATF in charge of rewriting all the rules. So White House spokesperson, Kayleigh McEnany at the time, was locked out of her account for tweeting about the story, prompting a furious letter from the Trump campaign after campaign staffer Mike Hahn said, at least pretend to care for the next 20 days about this stuff. So, um, he sent this and, and, and Matt, uh, put in the, um, in his Twitter thing, he's got copies of the emails.

So there's an email from Mike Hahn and, uh, he sent it to, high-ups at Twitter. He says, Kelly McEnany, and he gives her Twitter handle, has been locked out of her account for simply talking about the New York Post story. All she did was cite the story and firsthand reporting that has been reported by other outlets and not disputed by the Biden campaign. So Mike Hahn, with the Trump campaign said, I need an answer immediately on when and how she will be unlocked. Also, I don't appreciate how nobody on this team called me regarding the news

that you'll be censoring news articles. Like I said, at least pretend to care for the next 20 days. Well, this led to public policy executive Carolyn Strom sending out a polite WTF query. She said, hi team, can you take a closer look here? Thank you. Several employees noted that there was tension between the comms and policy teams

who had little or less control over moderation, let's just call it censorship, than the safety and trust teams. Strom's note returned the answer that the laptop story has been removed for violation of the company's hacked materials policy. So she says, oh, okay. The decision was made at the highest levels of the company, but without the knowledge of CEO Jack Dorsey. The person who was making this decision was Vijaya Gade, one of the first three people

that Elon Musk fired. So Gade was the one who was doing that, interfering with the election. Censoring. They call it moderation. One former employee characterized the decision as they just freelanced it. Hacking was the excuse, but within a few hours, pretty much everyone realized that it wasn't going to hold, but nobody had the guts to reverse it. And so he said there's a lot of lengthy exchanges back and forth, including GADE and former

trust and safety chief, Yole Roth. Coms official, Trenton Kennedy writes, I'm struggling to understand the policy basis for marking this as unsafe. And one humorous exchange on day one, Democrat Congressman Ro Khanna, Khanna, Khanna reached out to Gade to gently suggest that she hop on the phone to talk about the backlash regarding free speech.

Khanna was the only Democrat official, says Matt Taibbi, who I could find in the files who expressed concern. Gaddei quickly replied to him, immediately diving into the weeds of what Twitter's corporate policy was, completely unaware that the congressman was more worried about the Bill of Rights. They don't care. I mean, Gade is Indian. I don't know if she's an American citizen or not. Clearly, she doesn't care about the Constitution or any of the values in this country. Anyway, he kept trying to steer it to the First Amendment.

And so they eventually come back and point out the First Amendment is not absolute, according to Twitter. They've got their corporate rules, and their corporate rules are going to take precedent. And so he said the letter coming from NetChoice contains, says Matt, contains a, says that Matt contains a chilling passage, relaying democratic lawmakers attitudes. They want more moderation. It's called that censorship.

And as for the bill of rights, he says, they don't see it as absolute. So, uh, Matt says an amazing subplot of this is just how much was done without the knowledge of CEO Jack Dorsey. I think he had other things that he was interested in at the time. But he did show a letter, or an email rather, from Jack Dorsey to Gade, the person's head of the so-called trust and safety, and misinformation, in other words, and hatred. And he was forwarding something from Matt Taibbi that was sent to Jack. And it was an article with the Hunter Biden expose, suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual

story. Well, that's absolutely true. You know, I just want to pause here and talk a little bit about all of this idea that everything is getting better at Twitter. It's not. And I don't think it is simply a matter of giving Elon Musk more time. As I pointed out, you know, they said that they marked, they posted warnings. If you tried to, you know, they blocked the New York Post. And if you tried to retweet that story, they would post warnings that it was unsafe. And then they blocked its transmission via direct message. Well, you know, I see this kind of stuff all the time. Elon Musk says, well, we're not going to block people. We're only going to block particular tweets. And that simply is not true. Take a look at this, for example. And I, I, you know, when I saw this, I went to Twitter because I knew that

this happens all the time. So this is, um, you know, the radiation story that we talked about earlier. We've got very few, I've got 13 retweets. I've got like about 130 something thousand people, uh, that follow me on Twitter. Everybody says, oh, I didn't know you're still here. I never seen you. I have to come here to look for it. I've heard that so many times. I don't generally bother to go there and do anything.

Because when we post a video or something that's there, I'll typically look at it. If it says, oh, we got two comments, 13 retweets and two comments. It just isn't worth my time to be there. Um, and, uh, so whenever I look at it to see if somebody, what would they say with these two comments? What I see is what you see there down at the bottom, it hides the comments. And it says, if you want to see additional replies, including those

that contain offensive content, uh, just click on this button here and we'll show it to you. Right. Comments that may contain offensive comments. Well, when I click on that, this is the type of thing that I see. I see comments. A lot of them are, Oh, great show today. I really love this. Or, okay.

I really like real offensive comments. I guess it's offensive. If they hate me that much. It offends Twitter for people to like what I posted or whatever. So, you know, one of them is a joke. Hey, David, a little bit of radiation never hurt anybody. Just think of Spider-Man or even better, Venom. But the other one's great show today. Always knew, never had to hold the phone up to my head or use those AirPods,

and my discernment told me well those were offensive because anything any comment on my account is labeled that way they don't want people to see it they hide it they hide what i put and they hide what people put in response to me so then i had somebody come back and say well you know just give elon musk a little bit of time uh you know he's got to get things together and he really means, well, he's playing 40 chess or whatever. Interestingly enough, uh, when I went back last night and looked that person, I replied to that person. I said, uh, well, I'd show you your tweet to me hidden as offensive. Cause that's what they thought. I thought it was funny. They put her tweet up and it was hidden as offensive.

I said, but I just don't have the time anymore for this nonsense. And when I went back and looked, then is that this tweet is from a now suspended account. They suspended her account person who was saying, Hey, Elon Musk, he really means well,

he really wants to get the stuff going. And of course we've saying, hey, Elon Musk, he really means well. He really wants to get this stuff going. And, of course, we've seen from Jack Posobiec put out, he said, well, even before Elon's tweet about the Twitter files, a friend reached out to tell me Elon's team had found something in their review of censorship decisions. They said it was internal communications on every single high profile ban and shadow ban that's happened since 2016. Well, fine. If they want to come clean and they want to talk about what they've been doing to my account, if they want to talk, I've had a Roy Potter talk about how they're blocking direct messages doing from him and doing things like that. They said, well, you know, blocking direct messages from him and doing things like that. They said, well, you know, blocking direct messages

about people talking about the New York Post story, that's something they usually reserve just for extreme cases like child pornography. Well, you know, this is where we are right now. And I'm sick and tired of the smoke and mirrors of social media, frankly. You know, if people want to know what I think, they can tune in. But a lot of people, if they just look at 128 characters that I put on something, a lot of times they don't really understand what I'm talking about.

They don't have a context. Or they'll come back and say, what is CBDC? They're not listening. I don't have time to give people private lessons on social media. And I'm completely shadow banned there. And I'm fed up with it. Like I said, it's just giving you a little cart with a wheel that spins around to make you think that you're driving.

You're not. So Matt Taibbi says, it's been a whirlwind 96 hours for me. He says, there's much more to come, including answers to questions about issues like shadow banning or boosting or manipulating follower follower accounts, the fate of various individual accounts and more, you talk about manipulating follower counts back before I was as heavily banned as I am now, I would see that, um, they would, uh, I would have a net loss throughout the week and then a followers. And then it would go up on the weekend. And then when the person would come back, they'd start clipping off a couple hundred a day or something like that. It's like,

is that all they're doing at Twitter? I mean, these people just amazing to me, uh, users who tried to share the link to the article were greeted with a message saying we can't complete this request because the link has been identified as Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful. That's something that is still going on as well. Entire, not just it's Twitter is not censoring, just tweets.

They're censoring people. They're censoring accounts and they're censoring entire websites like bit shoot. Whenever I put up a bit shoot video, everybody is saying, well, it says this is a dangerous site. Do you realize? Yeah.

They, a lot of times I think that's directed at me. It's not me. It's everything on bit shoot. This is harmful content. And it looks like they're blocking you from going there. So there's a big return. Come back to Twitter.

Don't go to BitChute. Don't look at anything on BitChute. There'll be a little tiny, tiny thing down at the bottom. Go ahead anyway. Most people don't even see that. They make that so small. They don't even realize that they have an option to go forward. This is how underhanded and deceptive and manipulative

the censorship is on social media. The company could have perhaps simply trusted the Post, says Matt Taibbi, one of America's oldest publications that does not have a reputation for fabricating bombshell stories like Twitter does with countless anonymous bombshells from other major publications. So you look at all the bombshells from major publications like Washington post and New York times,

much worse. You just had the associated press nearly try to lie us into world war three because it was sensational. They would go with it. They would go with an anonymous sensational report about something that was untrue that could have started World War III. They're still on Twitter.

Has Elon Musk taken any action against them? No. Why not? Why wouldn't you at least suspend them for a while, the Associated Press? Oh, well, they're royalty. They're the experts. They're the establishment. And he's not going to go against the establishment.

So here's the more important part about this, and that is the heavy involvement of the FBI and the intelligence community in all this as well. The Twitter files and the FBI, this is from Technofog writing at the Reactionary. And what he says, as Miranda Devine observed, there is much more to be divulged, specifically the FBI's meddling in the 2020 election and the FBI's pressure of social media companies, including Facebook and Twitter, to essentially censor the Hunter Biden story. It's a story of FBI Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan. Elvis Chan.

Has Elvis left the building? No, he's still there at the building with J. Edgar Hoover's name on it. Elvis has not left the building. Elvis Chan said that he, along with the FBI is foreign influence task force and senior cybersecurity infrastructure security agency officials. Boy, that's a mouthful. It must be important. These people sound like real authorities.

They're hacks. They're political hacks. They're corrupt bureaucrats who have taken over our government and are using it for their own political purposes. Well, they had weekly meetings with major social media companies to warn them of Russian disinformation attempts ahead of the 2020 election. No, no. Still lies about Russia. FBI Director Christopher Wray actually took pride in these efforts. He said, uh, their involvement with social media companies is to make

sure that their platforms are not used by foreign adversaries to spread disinformation propaganda. Really? Maybe you should have paid attention when everybody pointed out that China used bots over a hundred thousand of them were eventually kicked off. you should have paid attention when everybody pointed out that China used bots. Over a hundred thousand of them were eventually kicked off after the fact, but they used hundreds of thousands of bots to pressure Italy and to following China's zero COVID lockdown policies.

But of course the FBI is not worried about that. FBI likes lockdowns. Yeah. They're only interested. No, it says my son and domestic adversaries. That's right. The censorship was directed from the top.

Twitter's former head of trust and safety. Again, Joel Roth complained that the leaks were essentially violence. The leaks about corruption and collusion with foreign governments, the Bidens being paid off by China, by Ukraine, other things, and the crimes committed by Hunter Biden, that was essentially violence to talk about that. The media's response to the Twitter file story

was also equally predictable and boring. They said it's a non-story. So just as they did with the Hunter Biden laptop, they're now ignoring all the documents talking about how they shut down the Hunter Biden laptop. They're still doing it. Still doing it. They misrepresented the leak.

They ignored the merits. They downplayed the significance of the Hunter Biden story by focusing on scandalous photos and not the corruption influence peddling, the tax evasion, the violations of federal law. Yeah. He saw all the pictures of a drunken, drugged out,

naked, uh, hedonistic Hunter Biden, but they skipped the tax evasion the open corruption with Ukraine and Burisma other things like that how similar isn't that to what really happened with Ken Starr covering up for Bill Clinton Ken Starr had tons of stuff about Bill Clinton. There were all kinds of accusations

about massive financial corruption, pay to play and all the rest of this stuff. There were massive legitimate allegations from multiple victims of violent sexual attacks and rape. And what did Ken Starr do? He focused on a consensual relationship. of violent sexual attacks and rape. And what did Ken Starr do? He focused on a consensual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. So this is par for the course.

It's the tactic these people do. Thankfully, we were able to see the documents for themselves. They're damning, demonstrating the danger of the political control of social media. The DNC and the Biden team knew that they had friends at Twitter, and Twitter lied to the FEC about their influence. But that's just the surface, which we talked about. Everybody's talking about it. Even more importantly is what it tells us about the FBI and the intelligence community.

There's something worse underneath it all. The lies of the FBI to keep politically damaging and true material away from Americans. It's the massive censorship enterprise by the federal government. It's the one-sided influence operation that's being conducted on American soil. It was there in 2016. It continued through the 2020 election. It continued through the pandemic and through the development of the COVID vaccines.

That's right. That's from the reactionary. And then this from Breitbart. Ex-intelligent officials who said that the Hunter Biden laptop story was a Russian operation are silent. Not only are they not speaking out, but they are refusing to comment on any of this and we're talking about Leon Panetta, Michael Hayden, John Brennan,

James Clapper, the usual suspects. These people have now become regular talking heads on cable news as contributors but they have absolutely nothing to say when asked about this as a matter of fact the New York Post who had the hunter Biden story and who were punished and locked out shut down all this stuff and then attacked by these spies, contacted them. So we contacted Leon Panetta, former CIA director and secretary of defense. John Brennan, former CIA director. Mike Hayden, a former CIA director and also director of the NSA.

They don't put that there. He's head of both the CIA and the NSA. Real snake. Jim Clapper, former director of national intelligence. And, of course, the guy who got to where he was coming up through the geospatial intelligence side. Anyway, all once said that the Post's reporting had all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation. These guys accused the New York Post of being a front group or duped by Russia. They said, this is all Russian misinformation campaign.

So the New York Post contacted these people who had slandered them and who had covered up the truth. And they said they all declined or did not respond to request for comment about whether the latest disclosures had changed their opinion. That's putting it politely. Uh, they never believed anything that they said. Most likely,

uh, the first amendment is not absolute. As a Democrats pointed out as, as part of that, as I said earlier, it was Carl Sabo of research firm net choice that emailed Twitter's head of public policy, Lauren Culbertson,

a report showing that they'd polled 12 congressional staffers, nine Republicans and three Democrats. Sabo reported to Culbertson that the Democrat staffers complained that Twitter quote, let conservatives muddy the water and make the Biden campaign look corrupt. Well, it's pretty easy to make the buying campaign look corrupt because they are so hopelessly corrupt. They also compared the Hunter Biden laptop story to the Hillary Clinton email scandal, uh, where she had a private server in her

home basement with tens of thousands of classified documents, uh, some of them above top secret, because these are conversations that she was having with other foreign heads of state that had not even gone through a review process. So how did they handle that? Well, with operation red herring, right? Let's not talk about what's in the emails. Let's not talk about what I was doing with my private server. Let's talk about maybe where they came from and, uh, let's ignore any discussion

about South Seth rich will punish that severely. If you talk about Seth rich, who Julian Assange indicated had been perhaps the person. He strongly suggested he was the person who released that information, and they wound up dead. So Sabo said the Democrats linked this to Hillary Clinton's email scandal. She did nothing wrong. Oh, really? But because the press wouldn't let the story go,

it became a scandal far out of proportion. In their mind. The Democrats mind social media is doing the same thing. It doesn't moderate enough. They mean it doesn't censor enough. So when it does, like it did yesterday, it becomes a story.

If the companies censored more conservatives, wouldn't even think to use social media. That's why I'm right now. Uh, they can have it. I don't care. Yeah. If, um, people want to know what I think they can tune into the show. And, uh, if you want to, uh, uh, you know, post, uh, links to the show or

tell your friends about it, that'd be great. Uh, but, um, there's no point in me doing it really. I mean, I'll continue to do it. I'm going to continue to have, um, you know, Travis post the shows up and some of the cuts up, but I don't expect to get anything out of it and I don't think Elon Musk is sincere and I'll tell you why in just a minute. Um, so it said if they would censor more conservatives, wouldn't even think to use social media, uh, for disinformation, misinformation, or otherwise.

Otherwise. Because, you know, conservatives don't have anything to say except for misinformation and disinformation. We know that everything that they do is a lie, and they have destroyed his career in Hollywood. Not just Twitter, though, right? It is the zeitgeist in Hollywood. They would find some way to destroy his career. They would find some way to sort out his political beliefs, and they would shut him down, even if he hadn't spoken out on Twitter.

That's why I say, yeah, you see these editorials, like this one at American Spectator by Daniel Flynn. Musk is right. It's a battle for the future of civilization. Let's not get carried away with hero worship here, okay? And let's not get carried away with the importance of Twitter. Free speech is bigger than Twitter, and civilization is bigger than America.

I mean, and all of this is bigger than Elon Musk, even though he is the richest man in the world. James Woods said, Musk saved America. Not yet, he hasn't. Not yet, he hasn't. And it's not clear that he's going to do it. And even if he saves free speech on Twitter, we got a lot of other problems that'll at least allow us to free speech is important because that's how they were able to pull off this fake pandemic and the rest of this stuff and lock us down into medical martial law, not being able to oppose it, not being able to warn people sufficiently to get the word out broadly enough. Anybody listen to me knows that I've been opposing this stuff since before 2020. I was warning people what was coming out of China.

And it wasn't a lab virus. I said, you got to watch out for the political state, locking people in homes. And you've got European countries talking about doing the same thing. I was opposing it for months before they started doing it. But free speech is very important to be able to oppose it. But if these people are not interested, you know, conservatives are far too often just looking in the rear view mirror so much that they can't see what's coming at them. And they're on smack dab into a semi truck.

And that's what's happened. We've got a, we've got a semi called CBDC that is barreling at us at about a hundred miles an hour. And the conservative is so busy looking at Twitter and the Trump election. They're not even talking about that CBDC semi truck that's coming at us. And so, um,

and then the other part of it, is they're always looking for some billionaire savior. Who's going to altruistically save them. Guess what? Billionaires are not altruistic. That's how they became billionaires. They love money. They love, and that is the root of all evil,

not the money, but the love of it. So does the federal government bear responsibility to ensure that the U.S. remains a free society? Says this article from the American spectator by Daniel Flynn. Do they have a responsibility? Yes, they do. They've got one job and, uh, and that's to make sure that we stay free. Governments are instituted among men to protect our God-given liberties. And when they don't do that, or when even worse, they become destructive of those God-given liberties like free speech. It is the right and the duty of the people to alter or abolish them. That is the essence of what government is for.

That is certainly the essence of the founding principles of America. And they are called to do that based on that. And they're prohibited from doing what the Biden administration and the Trump administration. Don't forget, the Trump administration was telling them to shut people up. It's just that they didn't have as many friends on the inside. They still did shut people down for the Trump administration. As Marco Rubio said, you're going to censor who I tell you to censor, right? Not who China tells you to censor.

These people want to be dictators. They're just, you know, when you're talking about Trump or Rubio or any of these people, just like the left, they want to be just like Justin Trudeau, Justin Castro. They admire the power of dictators. George W. Bush has said the same thing.

Oh, I wish I could just tell people to do this and do that, just like a Chinese dictator. And, of course, that's exactly what they were doing the last couple of years. Traditionally, the federal government has assumed a massive role in ensuring, particularly when it came to communications, that no company controlled too much of the market share. And now what do we have? Well, we got Disney that owns everything.

We got Twitter. We got Apple. We got Google. We got Facebook, Meta, whatever. Allowing these monopolies to happen and allowing the monopolies to conspire together to completely shut things down for political purpose. That's where it's come because they don't protect the rights of you. And I eventually comes back to them as well.

Guard Goldsmith. Hey, thank you very much for the tip. Listening with headphones as I move around the computer and your comments truly energize the mind. Well, just make sure they're not the wireless ones. Make sure I'm sure you say headphones instead of earbuds.

Uh, thank you. I'm very glad that you also mentioned Brennan and the murderous cabal of bottom dwelling, deep staters, your powerhouse day. Well, thank you. Guard guard is, and guard has got a new program that is starting on rock fan guard. Uh, put a message up there and tell people, um, and I'll, I'll relay it for you where your program is going to be time and things like that in the name of it. So people can look for it.

Um, because, uh, I'm really happy to see guard branching out on this stuff. He's got a lot to say. That's very important. The white house publicly nudges tech companies to censor, but privately we know that they are doing much more than just nudging. Yeah. Nudging. Yeah, nudging. I hate that term. This is a battle for the future of civilization, said Musk.

If free speech is lost, even in America, tyranny is all that lies ahead. Free speech was lost a long time ago. And again, it's still not been revived even on Twitter. Um, but again, uh, the issue is one that is bigger than, and this is, this is, that was a self-serving statement. It is important. Twitter is important. It is a digital public square and the principle is important. The principle is even more important than Twitter because that same principle should apply to Google, should apply to Facebook and to Apple and all these different companies. But I don't think it's going to happen because I don't believe that these people are altruistic.

The EU says Twitter faces fines or shutdown if it does not comply with their law. They said this over and over again. You know, when Musk completed the purchase, he said, the bird is free. And this guy, this EU bureaucrat who had already come over, Thierry Breton, said, the bird will fly by our rules. And he had already done that as soon as the purchase was announced back in the spring, the guy came to Austin and remember this awkward exchange. I'll play for you again. This is something really needs to be hammered into the minds of people who

are tempted to, to celebrate too much. Elon Musk, we have to defend issues and we have to defend principles. And when he's right about free speech, absolutely support him. I'm glad that he's released these Twitter files. But don't see him as a savior

because you never know what his real purpose is or when he's going to change direction. As long as he's moving in the direction of freeing speech, great. Hopefully he will do it someday. But here's what he did when the EU bureaucrat, Thierry Breton,

came to Austin. So we are in Austin together with Elon Musk. Thank you very much, Elon, for welcoming me. Thank you. You're most welcome. And of course we discussed many issues and I was happy to be able to explain to you the DSA, a new regulation

in Europe. And I think that now you understand very well. It fits pretty well with what you think we should do on our platform. No, I think it's exactly aligned with my thinking. I very much agree with... It's been a great discussion and I really think... I agree with everything you said, really. I think we're very much of the same mind

and I think just anything that my companies can do that would be beneficial to Europe, we want to do that, I just want to say. No, thank you very much. That's again a good example. Then when we see that it could be some differences, especially when we are speaking things so important for our fellow citizens. Yes.

As in life and the digital space, the best is to come and discuss what we did. And I'm happy to see that for your life. Sounds good. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right.

Yeah. Yeah. Bowing. Um, yeah, the DSA, as in a dog, not the TSA.

Look, Elon Musk became the richest man in the world and history. Why? Because he catered to governments everywhere, especially to their Great Reset, especially to their ESG, especially to the climate MacGuffin. That's how he became rich,

by the greening of America, by jumping in on this greenwashing stuff. That's how he became rich by the greening of America, you know, by jumping in on this, um, greenwashing stuff, that's how he became rich. And the thing about Elon Musk, you know, he's got, he's been far more successful than Trump. You know, what Trump had what $6 billion or something like that as a net worth, um, Elon couple of hundred at one point, he's lost a lot now, but, um, uh, he's far more successful than Trump and he has dealt with far more governments. He's cut special deals with people all over the world and with

the Pentagon. He's somebody who's deeply embedded in all this stuff. He's somebody who comes from a family that was all about the technocracy. And his grandfather was thrown out of Canada because he tried to overthrow democracy and install a technocracy. Uh, that was back in the 1930s. He bought into this whole stuff from HG Wells about, um, the, uh, thanks to come the movie I think was shape of things to come. I forget which one was which there was a

novel. And then there was a movie. I think maybe the movie was a shorter one, maybe things to come anyway. Um, uh, they believe that technocrats should rule the world. That's the same kind of stuff that does the big new Brzezinski was saying. And so we're between two ages. What is coming is a technocratic age where the technocrats will run everything and they will know before you do what your decisions are and they will be monitoring every single thing that you do. That was put out by Zbigniew Brzezinski in the 1970s. So this is a long running thing. He has used this to become unbelievably wealthy, and I don't trust him for a moment. Yes, cheer whatever free speech is allowed at Twitter.

If they allow you to have free speech, go for it. I won't believe it until I see my shadow banning being specifically addressed. Musk hands over, as a matter of fact, it just take a look at this, a big rig Tesla semi. So he made a big, uh, a deal of this.

They just did a 500 mile journey from the Fremont plant to San Diego on one charge. Notice they did a, uh, okay. Went 500 miles. It didn't have from what some people are saying here, uh, a full load, but even if it went 500 miles on a full 80,000 load or whatever, 80,000 pound load, um, you would still, uh,

even if that had happened, there's still no point at which he has to do a charge. That becomes a big part of the equation. And as they're talking about this, they say, well, they're unveiling next year, not this year, next year, what is coming is a faster charger, a liquid-cooled cable that is capable of one megawatt charging. That'll be unveiled sometime next year. So they have to have a special liquid-cooled cable to charge it that quickly. What about the batteries? You know, when you charge your batteries, you ever notice how we talked about this on Friday with Goatry

when he was talking about, what about how are they going to charge the batteries of these brain chips? You know, they put these brain, these chips inside your head and seal it up. Uh, you ever notice what happens when you charge your phone or you charge your laptop,

it starts to get hot. Um, what's that going to do, right? How are you going to charge it? First of all, there's no Jack. Uh,

so it's going to be some kind of induction charging which is again like we're talking about with the ear earplugs the uh wireless earplugs so there's going to be some radiation directly going in there but also heat onto your brain well what about this you're going to liquid cool the cable the cable so that you can run that much juice through it that much power quickly what's that going to do to the batteries? Liquid cool the batteries as well when you're charging them? And if one of these things catches fire, whoa, that's going to be a big fire.

Big fire to put out. It's going to be much bigger than these electric bus fires that burn down entire depots. But the reason I mention this here is because the people who think that Musk is their savior, and again, cheer him on as he's freeing up Twitter for whatever purposes he's doing it, just don't see him as a savior. And that's why I think this is being done. So don't fall for that.

But, um, he's rolling this out. And as he's rolling it out, California is saying that within by 2024, they don't want to have any diesel trucks allowed in any of the ports. You're going to have to have electric vehicles and things like that. Isn't that convenient?

He's right there. As Newsom is, and the Democrats are shutting everything down, all the diesel trucks, shutting that down. He's there with about the only solution of an EV. This is just a coincidence, I'm sure. I'm sure there's no conspiracy going on. I'm sure there's nothing in the back door that this guy has set up. He's much better at this folks than Bill Gates is even much better at government collusion.

Uh, everything that he has made his money off of is environmental, social governance stuff. Great reset stuff. Bloomberg explained electrifying big commercial vehicles is crucial to transitioning to more sustainable transportation. Adding that trucks only account for 1% of the U S vehicle fleet, but produce a whopping 20% of all vehicle emissions.

And so Elon Musk is there with the green solution to make himself rich. Just what the great reset people want. Now, meanwhile, one person who looked at this told Reuters, this is a guy who's a senior analyst at a consultancy group called Guidehouse. He said, well, actually, this wasn't very impressive. He moved a cargo of chips. Average weight per package is 52 grams. That cannot in any way be said to be definitive proof of concept.

So I don't know what the total weight was. He doesn't say, but he implies that it wasn't a full load and it's never going to be a full load because it's going to, you know, have a, uh, uh, the, the weight of the batteries, a massive amount of weight for the batteries to be able to move 80,000 pounds, um, uh, for 500 miles. And of course the electrification of the transportation sector will include, have to include massive investments in generation for the grid, because you can put these, even if you've got super cooled charging stations and you put them everywhere, there's not any electricity, just like we started out in the news section, talking about how Switzerland, just like California, is saying,

well, we're going to have to stop you from charging stuff. And it's going to be even worse than that. They'll give priority, perhaps, to the semi-trucks, because everything is about taking away private transportation. All right, when we come back, we're going to talk a little bit more about some of the free speech issues that are here before we get into some other news. So stay with us. We will be right back.

I want to talk a little bit about the debate that Matt Taibbi was involved in. I mean, he's had a very busy several days, as he pointed out. A big debate over free speech and the status of mainstream media in terms of shutting that down with the government. And then working with Elon Musk to put out the documents that prove that they were interfering with the election. Very important. And I really do appreciate Matt Taibbi. He has done a great job. Always been an honest journalist.

And he talked about that in the debate. As a matter of fact, they were not expected to win the people that were involved in it. There's a, uh, the debate in Canada, there was a Canadian journalist, Malcolm Gladwell, who was with, um, uh, the other side, New York times, Michelle Goldberg. Those were the people who were arguing for, mainstream media being able to have a monopoly and shut down free speech. And Matt Taibbi and bestselling UK author Douglas Murray, as Zero Hedge points out, mopped the floor over why public trust in mainstream media has fallen to an all-time low.

As a matter of fact, when you look at before the debate, prior to the debate, they took a poll as to whether or not, you know, what people thought about that proposition. And they were behind 48 52. And then afterwards, uh, they, after the debate, uh, Matt Tybee and the other individual, um, one the day in terms of talking about how, uh, corrupt journalism is, uh, people agreed with him 67 33. So before, uh, corrupt journalism is, uh, people agreed with him 67 33. So before, uh, they were less than half 48 to 52.

Then after the debate, 67 33 at one point says zero hedge Tybee made. At one point they made is that mainstream outlets have become a demographic hunting business for which ethical guardrails have been tossed out. Well, that's absolutely true. But, um,

the problem is, is that's not just limited to mainstream media. It's alternative conservative media as well. It has also become a demographic hunting business where ethical guardrails have been tossed out. They don't care about discrediting the truth and they don't care about what they say being the truth if they can get a lot of attention. And we've seen this over and over again. Before we get into this, let's talk about some real free speech and some real honest journalism. Gard Goldsmith, and he got back with a time as to when his program is going to be. He says, I plan to test on Wednesday night at 6 Eastern to about 7.30,

then test a couple more times during the week at that time slot, then start officially next Monday from 6 PM to 7.30 live. Post the cuts at Rumble, Odyssey. He said, I like Odyssey a lot, and BitChute. He says, I'll post the details at Substack. So go to his Substack and take a look at what is happening there. I like Odyssey a lot as well. We have some days that will give us a problem in terms of uploading stuff,

but when we get this stuff up, it is the one platform that allows you to, and I have taken the time because it's a long show to get people an idea of topics when I'm talking about what topics I talk about and where they are in the show. In case you don't have time to listen to the whole thing, you can jump to that spot. But, uh, Odyssey is the only one that recognizes those times, uh, codes, just like YouTube does to jump you into the video. So if you see something there that looks like you're interested in that section,

you can just click on it and go directly there. Uh, they're the only ones, unfortunately at this point in time that do that. Uh, but good luck to guard. Um, again,

he knows exactly what's going on. He's focused on Liberty and, um, and he's got a great background and a lot of different things. So I know that you'll enjoy his program. Uh, but as I was saying, alternative media does this as well.

Yeah. We, they look at their hunting. What hunt, what demographic are they hunting for? They're hunting for the MAGA demographic. They're afraid to say anything to criticize Trump. And now we can add in their Kanye as well, right?

So I look at this and, you know, I know what, you don't think I can read the room as well? I mean, if I can't read the room, I can certainly read my emails and people get upset with me because I wouldn't say the problem with everything is the Jews. I had somebody who said, you know, I've supported you since this show began. And because you won't name what the real problem is, it's like, pal, you know, the Jews are not the problem.

The Jews have suffered horribly in Israel under both conservative and non-conservative leadership. You know, Netanyahu was in there for a while, and then the other guy that took it, they both decided they were going to vaccinate them and use them like lab rats for Pfizer, worse than any other country. So, you know, when you look at the Israeli government,

when you look at Mossad, I have no more regard for the Israeli government than I do for the federal government under Biden or Trump. I have no more regard for, you know, the Mossad than I do the CIA. government under Biden or Trump. I have no more regard for the Mossad than I do the CIA. They're the same thing. And as I've said before, I've had people, when I travel abroad, upset with me because I'm American because of what the CIA does.

I understand. But I don't embrace that. And I don't impute to Jews what Mossad is doing. You can make this argument, and people do, about look at how many successful Jews there are and how many of them are involved in these nefarious things. Well, of course that's true. But it is not exclusively them.

And what happens is that you let a lot of people off the hook and you blame a lot of the wrong people. We start treating people like groups. I'll have more to say about that. But yeah, I know exactly what the room wants to hear. This is what Matt Tabe said. He talks about how he grew up in a family that was all about, you know, his father was a reporter, his stepmother was a reporter. His godparents were reporters. He said everything that he grew up with was watching the media. He always wanted to be a reporter. He'd play games as being a reporter.

He says, I love the news business. It's in my bones, but I mourn for it because it's destroyed itself. My father had a saying, the story is the boss. In the American context, if the facts tell you the Republicans were the primary villains in this or that disaster, you write that story. If the facts point more at the Democrats, you go that way. If it turns out that they're both culpable, as was often the case across nearly 10 years of investigating Wall Street and the causes of the 2008 crash for Rolling Stone, if they're both culpable,

you're right that. We're not supposed to nudge facts one way or the other. Our job is to call things as we see them and leave the rest up to you. But we don't do that now. The story is no longer the boss. Instead, we sell a narrative

as part of a new business model that is increasingly indifferent to facts. As you said, they're hunting for a demographic. Let me figure out what the demographic is, and I'll cater my stories to that demographic. And it gets, it's become a lot easier simply because of social media. Anybody can do this game, right? You know, CIA can do it, but so can Fox News. Anybody can hire software people who are going to go out there and algorithmically look at what people are saying and doing. It gets a little bit in their way when social media is,

when they're banning certain things and boosting other certain things like that. But still, they're able to go out there and get a sense of that. You know, the Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch, always, his sense was, well, let me go counter to what everybody else is doing. It wasn't anything sophisticated by looking at what everybody, uh, was, was doing at a given time. It's just, Hey, I see that all the news media out there is left-leaning.

So I'll do something that is right-leaning. And when he went into talk radio, he saw that talk radio was exactly the opposite way. Talk radio, most everybody was leaning to the right. So when he started making a move into talk radio, Rupert Murdoch went to the left and failed big time. Because the reality is that it's not just demographics. It's that the elite are out there on the french they're the radical french uh they're the um the small radical minority the vast majority of people uh whether you're talking about tv news or talking about talk radio news

that's why those two things were successful. But I don't ever see that personally, I don't see the story as the boss. I really don't. I got one boss and I said this at Infowars, I don't work for Alex. I work for Jesus. I don't, I'm not going to answer to Alex. I never did. And he fired me for that. But you know, I don't answer to how. I never did. And he fired me for that. But I don't answer to Alex or

anybody else. I don't answer to any of you. If you don't like me, turn me off. I don't care. I talk about what I think is important. I talk about what I think you need to know to warn you. What I would want to know, I would want to know. I wish I had known some of the stuff I know now about vaccines when my kids to know, I wish I had known some of the stuff I know now about vaccines when my kids were younger. I wish I had known that. And it makes me sick to see what's happening here. I'm going to answer not to Alex Jones, not to anybody else,

not to any of you listeners. I will answer to Christ one day. And so will you. So, as a Christian, that doesn't earn my salvation. Let me just add that. I'm not doing this to save myself. There's nothing I can do to save myself. But I know that if in the short term, I read the room and I tell you what you want to hear, even though it's a lie. I know that as a Christian, there's going to be circumstances for that kind of disobedience here and now and in the afterlife, the next life. There will be circumstances.

There will be consequences for that loss of things in both this life and the next. So, and I also know that if you get punished for telling the truth and doing the right thing, even if they kill you, that's not a problem. You have to have that long view. That's why I say the only way that you're going to, the only way that this country is going to be saved is not with Elon Musk. He is not our savior. Jesus is our savior. And you have to have a perspective where you have a leverage point that is outside of this life in order to accomplish things in this life that are important against this fight. Because if you don't have that eternal and supernatural perspective, you're not ever going to win. You have no chance

of making any change. Matt Taibbi went on to say, this bifurcated system is fundamentally untrustworthy. When you decide in advance to forego half of your potential audience to fulfill the aim of catering to the other half, he's talking to you, Fox. He's talking to you, CNN and MSNBC. When you do that, you're choosing in advance which facts to emphasize and which to downplay. And you're also choosing which stories to cover and which ones to avoid based on considerations other than truth or newsworthiness.

The best example of this, frankly, is Matt Drudge. You can see this from Matt Drudge. He chooses which stories to cover, which ones to avoid. And everybody knows what his political perspective is at a given point in time based on what he's done with that. He doesn't write the stories. He edits this. He's the editor who chooses what to talk about. That's why I say there is no such thing as objective journalism. You know, Matt Taibbi does his best, and I do as well, to try to tell you things as I see them. I could be wrong.

He could be wrong. He could be wrong. We all have a bias that includes even what we choose to talk about. And so if, um, yeah, if you're not, if you're not aware that you've got a bias, that's the worst thing. Never listen to anybody who says that they're objective. Never listen to them. You want to listen to people who says that they're objective, never listen to them. You want to listen to people who are going to tell you what they think. And, um, and you want to be able to get your opinions, a lot of different opinions from different places and compare them to each

other and make up your own mind. That's why having a digital, uh, marketplace of ideas is so essential because you need to be able to, yeah, I prefer, I want to always, when I was consuming news, when I was in college, I would want to go to the places that were opinion journals and not time and news week.

I would go to national review in the nation and I would want to say, well, here's the event. What do they think about it and why they would analyze it, say, this is why I think this about that. You know, that it's somebody's opinion. They're conscious of the fact that they're giving you their opinion and they're telling you why they think that this event is, you know, what the significance is of it one way or the other, but anyway, he goes on to say that if, um, if you're choosing which stories to cover,

which ones to avoid based on considerations other than truth or newsworthiness, this is not journalism. It is political entertainment. And it's unreliable. Again, Drudge is a good example of that. There's another story about Cat Lady, right? That is out there. Or just all the celebrity news, right?

What what's going on with the Royal family and the civil war within the Royal family or the rest of this stuff, who cares? It doesn't affect your life. It's not newsworthy, not worthy of your time. It is political entertainment. And a lot of the politics stuff is the same way. Some of it is obviously just celebrity entertainment news, but a lot of politics now has just become celebrity entertainment. It's now less important, says Matt Taibbi,

for reporters to be accurate than to be directionally correct. Which, in center-left mainstream media, mostly comes down to having the right views, like opposing Donald Trump, or anti-vaxxers or election deniers or protesting Canadian truckers or any of the other people who are deemed to be wrong thinkers. Now, I particularly like this next thing he says. Like scientists, journalists should be able to reproduce each other's work in the lab. If you've got too many anonymous sources, this becomes impossible. I like that because I've been talking for years,

pushing back against the climate, McGovern, being part of a group that was suing Michael Mann, who came up with a hockey stick, hockey puck stuff. Show us your data. Show us your data. It's being used for public policy. You did it at a public university. You did it on government time. hockey puck stuff. Show us your data. Show us your data. It's being used for public policy. You did it at a public university.

You did it on government time. Show us your data. I'm not showing it to you. And he got away with it. We lost in court. Yeah, because of politicized courts, really. But, you know, that's a sticking point. All that came up because of ClimateGate. The fact that they were sending each other emails saying we've got to hide the

decline and we've got to hide the fact that our models are not working. Well, we'd like to see your data then. Then we saw the same thing again with the pandemic. They want to hide the data. As a matter of fact, the FDA wants to hide the data about Pfizer. They wanted to hide it for 60 some odd years. These people are always trying to hide their data. Now what this looks like in journalism, it looks like anonymous sources. Anonymous sources are the same thing as when the scientists come out and say, we've got, um, we can't show you the data.

Trust me. I'm an expert. Trust me. I've got anonymous sources. I've got anonymous sources from the intelligence community that say that Russia just attacked Poland and we need to start World War III. I've got experts and anonymous sources who tell me that we're all going to die if we don't lock each other down until we get a vaccine that we can inject

everybody with. Trust me. I don't have to show you any data. Matt goes on to say, I'm no fan of Donald Trump. He says, I wrote a book about the man called Insane Clown President. And he says, but I've compiled a list of over 100 of these bombshell revelations about Trump that went belly up from Bounty Gate to MSNBC saying that Russian oligarchs co-signed a loan for Trump to countless others

because he said, these stories offend me. A good journalist should always be ashamed of error. It bothers me to see so many of my colleagues so unashamed. See, this is why when I saw this Steve Pachinik stuff rolling around InfoWars, simply because Alex could pander to the demographics. He was hunting demographics, and boy, he had a gold mine with that Steve Pachinik lie about, oh yeah, Donald Trump put out blockchain watermark ballots and quantum computers are analyzing it. And we got the National Guard out of the 20,000 National Guard are arresting people now, two days after the election.

Well, that was a goldmine for InfoWars. And it was an absurd lie. So what do we do about free speech? And this is one of the reasons why, again, is Elon Musk really trustworthy when it comes to free speech? I've talked about Kanye. I completely disagree with what he's doing. He's an idiot. Uninformed idiot, just like Trump.

And a bigot as well. But he got suspended for putting up this Raelian symbol, which is a Star of David with a Nazi swastika on the inside. Elon Musk has no idea what that's about. And of course, you have publications like CNBC. Never mention where that comes from. I mean, it's bad enough if you know where it comes from, but it's not racist, right, if you know where that is coming from. They did not put that together, as far as I can tell, for any racist purposes. which is I'm sure what the real common ground is with Kanye and these people who, um,

they created a religion, a bunch of atheists who create a religion, worshiping what they hope will be UFOs. And they got into a lot of controversy with that. And, uh, they changed it. Uh,

they changed that symbol. So instead of having the, um, instead of having the, um, uh, swastika in the center, they twisted it so that swirled in and they said, well, that's kind of like a galaxy, we're all about, you know, so UFO cult from decades ago, the Ray aliens, and they did that for about eight years. And then they said, no, you know, there's a lot of power in that original symbol because our founder saw that

symbol, the star of David with a Nazi swastika in the center of it, our founder saw that symbol on the hall of a spaceship where they downloaded the information to him or something. Okay. And so they don't have any context for that. There's no understanding from CNBC or the mainstream media about where that symbol comes from. There's no understanding about that from.

And, but he's going to determine what's true and what isn't right. You say he, to, to say that this is some kind of a connection to Nazism is, is what you wind up with when you've got some organization or some individual like Musk or an organization like Twitter deciding what is true and what isn't true. They don't know. That's why they shouldn't be making that decision. He doesn't know that it's a Aurelian symbol. He doesn't understand what that symbol is about.

But on the basis of that, he suspended Kanye. Now, there's other reasons he could suspend kanye if he wanted to i guess but again if he's going to have a free speech platform you have free speech it's not that difficult um yeah let's show that show people the symbol that you've got there there there it is right there so that's the thing that is at question okay and as a matter of fact you can see on the right you can see the symbol that is um question. Okay. And as a matter of fact, you can see on the right, you can see the symbol that is, um, you know, the one that they went with for about eight years and said, no, no, it's the other one that we saw on the, on the, that our founder said he saw on the hull of the ship.

So we're going to go back to that, but they kind of, you know, swirled it on the center to try to appease people because everybody was thinking that they were talking about the Nazis and Nazism, but it wasn't about that. But here is the real issue. We talk about free speech and, um, Noam Chomsky, uh, talked about this as a matter of fact. Uh, but he's, he himself has failed this, but when he first talked about it, he laid it out accurately as to what really free speech is. So, you know, hold your fire. I'm not supporting Chomsky because he failed big time by his own standards. But here's what he said, which was correct.

I regard this as not only trivial, but as compared with other positions I've taken on freedom of speech, invisible. I do not think that the state ought to have the right to determine historical truth and to punish people's deviations. I'm not willing to give the state that right, even if they happen to... What are you denying that the gas chambers never existed? But I'm saying if you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for the views you don't like. I mean, Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked, right? So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of freedom of speech.

There's two positions you can have on freedom of speech, and you can decide which position you want. With regard to my defense of the utterly offensive, the people who express utterly offensive views, I have the slightest doubt that every commissar says, you're defending that person's views. No, I'm not. I'm defending his right to express them. The difference is crucial, and the difference has been understood outside of fascist circles since the 18th century. Is there anything... Okay, now, all of that was about people who were

denying the Holocaust. And what he was saying was, look, they have the right to say that. We need to debate them. We need to be able to win that debate in the public square. But he was saying, I hate those... He's Jewish. He says, I hate those views, but we cannot censor that. And so that was noam

chomsky but here's noam chomsky during the pandemic talking about people's freedoms what are your thoughts on mandating vaccines Well, it's a mixed story. I think people who refuse to accept vaccines, I think the right response for them is not to force them to, a danger to the community by refusing a vaccine, they should then say, well, I also have the decency to isolate myself. Okay, I don't want a vaccine, but I don't have the right to run around harming people. I'll just, that should be a convention. Enforcing is a different question. It should be understood, and we should try to get it to be understood. Well, he also went on to say when he was questioned about that, you know, what about food?

He goes, well, that's their problem. That's their problem. Uh, you know, would he have said the same thing about, well, um, you know, these people who, um, people who have views that I don't agree with about the Holocaust or about whatever else. Okay. I think we should just lock them up and somewhere and throw away the key. If they want to say that that's a dangerous idea. And so we will just lock them away.

And what about feeding them? That's their problem. I don't really care. And you see, we got lied into this pandemic simply because we don't have free speech. And he's a victim of that perhaps, but I've seen that type of thing. That's why when Elon Musk says freedom of speech,

but no freedom of reach, that's not free speech. That's no different than saying freedom of speech for the views that I agree with. I have told you before, and I've talked about this many times, it's a thing at both the Democrat National Convention and the Republican National Convention that you're allowed to go there and speak, but they're going to put you in a cage far away from the entrance. Oh, yeah, we got free speech, but you know, you're just not free reach.

We're going to put you somewhere out in the woods or whatever, where nobody's going to hear you and you can just go talk your, you know, that's like shadow banning. That's what Twitter does with shadow banning. And I'm had it with that. I've had it with that cage. I'm not going to put up with that anymore. Um, you know, I'll put some stuff out there, you know, it's just like, uh, to, to make an analogy, go to the RNC free speech page and put my sign up there.

If anybody happens to stumble over that way, they can see it, but I'm not going to be foolish enough to sit in that box and think I'm talking to people. Uh, thank you. Slim Pickens. Thank you very much for the tip. I appreciate that. It says DK takes no guff. Well, it isn't about, Oh, thanks. I appreciate that. It's, it's, it's really about, uh, who am I accountable to? I know who I'm accountable to. So, um, anyway, the, um, when you look at, uh, James Woods case, for example, uh,

the email that was posted by Matt Taibbi shows that a Twitter employee emailed a coworker with a suspension request, writing, an additional report from the DNC and listed were two tweets, including one by Woods. So here are the people I want you to get rid of. And again, it was the DNC before Trump's midterm elections in 2018 sent a list of 90,000 accounts that they identified as bots to, uh, to Twitter, to Facebook and said, get rid of them. And they said, oh, okay, sure. Uh, woods tweeted on October the 24th, 2020, a meme of Hunter Biden.

After the Hunter Biden laptop story broke, that showed a picture of him, uh, apparently taking drugs and engaging in a sexual act. And so, uh, for that, they fired him. James Woods was on with Tucker Carlson. He said, scratch a liberal and you will find a fascist every time. He is promising that he will fight back against this. He says he's going to sue the DNC for this stuff. He said, these people have destroyed my career.

They have destroyed my livelihood. They've destroyed my faith in a country that my family has defended in the military since the Revolutionary War. He said, scratch a liberal and you'll find a fascist every time. These Democrats, and now I can say it because they're now my enemy, they declared this, not me. But when you go around calling everybody, oh, this one's a fascist and so on, you know who the fascists are? Scratch a liberal and you'll find a fascist every time. Every time.

And I would say that about racism as well. These people who focus everything on skin color, that is as racist and as bigoted as you can be. And so these people who are obsessed about race That is as racist and bigoted as you can be. And so these people who are obsessed about race are racists by definition. He says, I'm hardly recognizable anymore because my career has been destroyed by these very people. He said, I miss my career. And these people took it from me.

He had a very successful career course, a lot of awards. But he says, let's not talk about me for a moment. Let's talk about just simple individuals who put out a tweet and now their lives are destroyed. How many times have we seen that over how many different issues, right? Not just politics, but about religious beliefs. He said, did you know that casting directors literally in my business literally go online and they check every actor who comes in for a part to see who they're following? If an actor or an actress is following me, they will blacklist them. Well, again, you know, is that Twitter's fault or is that Hollywood's fault? And is it Hollywood that is selling this stuff? He goes on to say, I'm going to sue the DNC over the suppression.

He said, they've got an enemies list just like, uh, McCarthyism. Right. And, uh, Joe McCarthy. And we've got another, now we got Kevin McCarthy is, uh, I wonder what Facebook and Google are hiding. Everything, Kevin, everything. Google has become a search engine that is designed to hide things to hide people. I know, you know, it's like, like, uh, uh, I know. I would not be surprised to see that I disappeared

from the top of their search stuff after doing this show on a low-profile thing. But as soon as they did the purge back in 2018, just instantly they had

purged me overnight. but I'd seen it already happening in YouTube as well. Uh, strange things that were happening. The fact that, uh, my view count started plummeting even as my followers were skyrocketing and then they capped the followers and then they started to take them down. And, uh, then they just purged altogether, you know, just kick without any explanation, but there's something else that is in the works and it is a big issue. And this is a bill that's being pushed through by the Democrats is now being criticized by a lot of Republicans and rightfully. So the media cartel bill is what Breitbart is calling it a boon for media

conglomerates, even like Fox news, right? It's not just a CNN and MSNBC. Uh, this is the, um, uh, journalism, uh, JCPA journalism competition and preservation act. Now true to form in Washington is exactly the opposite of that. They don't want competition and this act will stop that. And it's not about preserving smaller independent journalism. It's about killing it.

So that's why they call it Journalism Competition and Prevention Act. It's really there to prevent competition. The JCPA would create an antitrust exemption for the news media and broadcast industries, allowing them to form a media cartel to negotiate with big tech for online advertising revenue. So what they're saying is we do have, and everybody knows, you've got this oligarchy, not exactly a monopoly, but an oligarchy of a Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, things like that. And, um, rather than trying to do anything to stop that, uh, the government is encouraging them for their own purposes to be their deputized

sensors and things like that. So they're saying, well, we're going to allow the media companies to create a cartel so they can negotiate terms with big tech. So we're going to have big news and big tech, and both of them are going to get bigger. I mean, you've already got such an amazing consolidation years and years ago. We're talking about how, look, there's only about five media companies.

It's probably fewer than that now. And, and I remember seeing the chart with all the different little organizations and how they'd all been subsumed into, you know, less than, um, you know,

five or less media companies. It's now much smaller than that. And so there, those so those companies are evidently not big enough to deal with big tech, so they're going to allow them to have a cartel in the name of protecting small news organizations like small town newspapers and stuff like that. That isn't going to happen. That is not what's going to happen. Jim Jordan says that the JCPA is further collusion in order to further censor conservatives.

That is a part of it for sure. He says, this is big tech, big media, and big government, all colluding to limit who gets defined as a journalist. This is a licensing of journalism. And then to limit the information that we the people get to see. What they'll do is they'll say, well, David Knight is not a licensed journalist. So we have license now to shut him down and any independent voices.

That's exactly what this is going to be used for. Okay, we're going to take a quick break and we will be right back. I have some very important news to tell you, so stay with us. We'll be right back. Thank you. you're listening to The David Knight Show. Let's talk a little bit about what's going on in Ukraine. Zelensky has outed himself once again as a tyrant. He was shutting down media organizations left and right a few years ago.

Now he's going after churches in Ukraine, churches that he perceives to be political enemies. Zelensky announced that he is seeking to ban all religions with ties to Russia. He claims the move is needed to guarantee spiritual independence to Ukraine. This law will target millions of Ukrainians who identify as Russian Orthodox. No wonder the Democrats love him. You know, we've had the head of military intelligence in the UK and head of their defense department as well as our state department. Many others say, you know, the rainbow flag and LGBT values, that's why we're fighting. Well, maybe that's why they're shutting churches as well.

No, it also has to do with politics. And this is also a warning, I think, to the people who are grabbing the flag of Christian nationalism to look at what happens when you start mixing that religion and politics. Yes, our politics should be informed by principles and those should be founded on, um, it should have a solid basis of principles, no doubt about it. And we should not be afraid to talk about, uh, our beliefs. We have freedom to, uh, express ourselves, both the freedom of religious exercise as well as religious expression

First Amendment all the rest of this stuff and so we should never be intimidated into silence and on every issue really that is in government there is a moral perspective on it it's just like when I talk about education. It is not a real education if the children are not given a moral foundation. Without a moral foundation, it's just technical training, right? You're learning about math and English from a technical standpoint, but you're not really an educated person unless you understand why you believe what you believe, right? You would have in the classic trivium, they would talk about a grammar school, and then you'd get later on and you would get into critical thinking.

But you had to get into the critical thinking part. You didn't have really the tools of learning if you didn't get into that. There'd be a period where you would just go through at a very young age. You'd be exposed to a lot of facts, a lot of rote memorization to give you a databases there. But then you were supposed to be able to think critically, not to have your mind filled with a particular point of view, liberal or conservative, you know, Christian or atheist or whatever. No,

you were supposed to be able to think. And that was the goal of education. And so when we have political policies, why do we support this and not that? Virtually every one of them comes back to some kind of a moral foundation eventually. I mean, if you're talking about something as prosaic as, well, what do we do with the roads? It comes back to, well, what would be a just way to finance this or something like that? So we have to be concerned about how we merge these two because I've said many times, if you bring politics into religion and you start to merge the two, what you wind up with is politics.

And that's what's happening in Ukraine under dictator Zelensky, who announced that he has introduced legislation that would eliminate religious organizations affiliated with Russia from operating in Ukraine. He said it was necessary to purge the Ukrainian church in order to preserve, was it the state? Yeah, essentially that's what he's saying. In order to preserve the state, I've got to purge this particular branch of religion.

He says, we'll never allow anyone to build an empire inside the Ukrainian soul. Huh, huh. Zelensky had announced Ukrainians continuing to attend the churches as failing to overcome the temptation of evil. So now he knows what is right

and wrong. You know, just like these people set themselves up as arbiters of truth. I'm sorry, that's misinformation, that's disinformation. I say that's mal information. It's evil information. And that's what he's saying here. You know, My kingdom is not of this world, said Jesus. These are the charges that were made against him.

And Zelensky is taking on the role of persecutor of Christian religions. At least two-thirds of Ukrainians identify as Eastern Orthodox Christians. At one point, the majority of Ukrainians attended parishes that followed the Moscow Patriarchate. That number has now dwindled to under 15%. This is what always happens. We've seen this for what always happens. We've seen this for years in Europe.

It's one of the reasons why America was founded. It's one of the reasons why religious freedom was in the First Amendment, because religious wars and persecution went hand in hand. Usually this, you know, and it would even involve things like, you know, what church you're in, whether you were baptized or rebaptized. That's why everybody was killing the Anabaptists things like, you know, what church you're in, whether you were baptized or rebaptized. That's why everybody was killing the Anabaptists because, you know, both the Protestants and the Catholics were killing the Anabaptists because they were getting rebaptized. And they saw that as identification with a particular political philosophy. And even if you didn't have a political philosophy, you were rebelling against their philosophy if you didn't stay in their church organization. That's why they combined those. That's why it was so imperative for Americans

to separate that out, because they didn't want to see that happening again. We need to transcend politics. We need to not have identity politics, especially when it comes to religion. So Moscow has called Zelensky, denounced him, called him, uh, these people enemies of Christ. So now they've added a new religious dimension to the Ukraine war because they want to keep this thing going. They really do. So, um, the, you know, might've, uh, you know, uh, Putin was having trouble getting people recruited. Now this is going to be essentially a boon to him.

It's going to backfire on Zelensky, but not really, because I think what Zelensky and NATO want is a sustained war. Russian officials have denounced the Ukrainian government as enemies of Christ and of the Orthodox faith over security service raids on churches accused of links to Moscow. So we've seen raids on churches because they did not follow the COVID rules. And now we're seeing raids on churches in Ukraine because they're part of the globalist organization. You will bow the knee to me no matter what. So what is happening with this?

Well, you've got the Eastern Orthodox Church. And back in 2019, which was when Zelensky came in, right? They don't point that out in this article on Breitbart. But remember, Zelensky took power after this war internally in Ukraine had been going on for five years. And he took power and he even had people, you know, both in regular Ukraine and people in the Donbass voted for him because he said, I'm going to do peace, right? And then he puts Arestovich in charge of the peace stuff. And then you have our Ukrainian reporter.

I've played that clip many times. So when are we going to have peace? It ain't going to happen. He says, as a matter of fact, it's going to get worse. We're going to be at war with Russia by 2022. That was in 2019, as Zelensky is getting in. And he said, she said, that's horrible. Isn't there anything we can do about it?

Oh, no, it's a good thing because we get into NATO. We'll destroy the country. Ukraine will be destroyed, but we'll get into NATO. That's the good thing. We want that. And so in 2019, as he's getting in, the false pretenses are saying that they're going to have peace. At the same time then, the Eastern Orthodox Church had a split.

And so you had a split where you had a Ukrainian Eastern Orthodox branch split off. Because, see, it was too Russian. They were planning this war for a very long time. And so it had been formally under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Moscow until Zelensky gets in, and then they get somebody to set up and have a church split. Preparing for this three years ago. The Ukrainian government-backed new church

was known as the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. It was not recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church, which is by far the largest Eastern Orthodox Church of Ukraine. It was not recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church, which is by far the largest Eastern Orthodox Church. And then you had disagreement with different countries. Serbia, Romania, Poland backed the Russian position of withholding recognition of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. But you had in Greece, the Greek Orthodox Church of Ukraine. But you had in Greece, the Greek Orthodox Church did back them.

And so even in Europe, there was a bit of a division. The church, the Russian Orthodox Church, continued to recognize was slightly differently styled Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which chose to remain subject to the Moscow Patriarchate. And that made the Ukrainian government very upset, because that was the whole purpose of splitting off this church when Zelensky became president.

So they have, for years, been carrying out raids against this, what do we call it, The unorthodox Orthodox church, politically unorthodox Ukrainian church. So you've got a Ukrainian Orthodox church and they've got a Ukrainian unorthodox church, according to Zelensky. So they started, uh, raiding that church that said, well, you know, we're still going to be listening to the, uh, same guy. They got like a Pope type of figure, you know, in the Eastern Orthodox church.

So it's very similar really, if you stop and think about it to Crimea, right? You know, Ukraine breaks off from Russia and then Crimea says, but we want to stay with Russia. And Ukraine says, you can't leave us. We can leave Russia, but you can't leave us. And so Ukraine breaks off from the Russian Orthodox church and that's their right to do that, they said.

And so then some of the Ukrainians who had been part of the Russian Orthodox church said, we'd like to stay in that Russian Orthodox church. You can't do that. You don't have the freedom to do that. Same thing we saw in the civil war here in the u.s virginia secedes and uh western virginia says uh we don't want to succeed we want to stay in the union okay yeah we support the principle of secession so virginia said you can stay they called it west virginia they kept that division kept that as a state but Ukraine is not that way Ukraine is unbelievably hypocritical when it comes to secession political or religious the Russian linked Ukraine

Orthodox Church remained a major religious force in Ukraine right up until February the 22nd however even though they were getting raids against their churches and raids against their monasteries for the last three years by the Zelensky government. But then when Putin crossed the Rubicon in February 2022, then everything changed, and they started stepping up the persecution. These accusations have continued despite the Ukrainian Orthodox Church declaring its independence from Moscow due to the Russian Patriarch's apparent support for the war, and have now culminated in Zelensky's announcing a crackdown on the church as security services execute a fresh series of raids on some of the holiest

sites in Orthodoxy as well as the homes of various priests so when for three years they were still being persecuted and raided but not like they're going to be now and then when Putin crossed into the country cross through the kind of aided the country they said I said all All right, we're no longer going to, we're going to disassociate from the Russian patriarch or whatever, but we're not going to join this Zelensky church. Oh, no, we're going to come after you now. That's what this is targeted toward, those people.

The scope of the crackdown seems to be very broad with Ukraine's security services, the SBU, the goons, having previously described one of the goals of a raid of the Kiev Caves Monastery as, quote, preventing the use of the Lavra as a center of the Russian world. Again, they're going to give the Russians more of a reason to fight.

On December the 3rd, the SBU published on social media the full names of a number of clergymen who are representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church or are closely related to this organization, which they described as the Church List. The SBU has claimed that its raids have uncovered warehouses with pro-Kremlin literature, Nazi symbols, are they Raelian or are they, you know, they got, I mean, the real Nazis, the guys who've got Nazi symbols tattooed all over their arms are Ukrainian forces. I mean, they're the real Nazis.

But they claim that they found Nazi symbols and teachings about Satanism. And there were even brochures with calls for peace. Oh, well, we got to shut these people down. Right. You want to talk about teachings about Satanism? Let's talk a little bit about the LGBT. You know, there's another Supreme court case that's coming in and this is about, um, and, and talk about the real fascists, the fascists, the Nazis,

the Satanists, the left, you will, the people who embrace this stuff. And again, I don't want to feed this left, right paradigm, but Nazis, the Satanists, the left, if you will, the people who embrace this stuff. And again, I don't want to feed this left-right paradigm, but hey, you need to get more people on the left who are like Glenn Greenwald or Matt Taibbi, who understand what free speech is and what the free exercise of religion is. But anyway, the new Supreme Court case is one about a woman who creates websites. You know, they've come after bakers. They've come after photographers. The baker has won all the way up to the Supreme Court. But unfortunately, in that particular case, a lot of people have said, well, that's a very narrow case because it hinged.

You know, this is all of these cases really are coming out of Colorado. So the masterpiece cake shop, you know, they came after him and want him to bake a, uh, homosexual mirage cake, uh, for a wedding. And, um, he refused to do that. That's the case. They took the Supreme court and won. Then he comes back to Colorado right after that case. And you've got to kind of come in and he come in and he wants them to bake a cake,

celebrating his train anniversary, you know, where he decided he was going to change his gender. And the guy says, no, I'm not going to do that. They're targeting him. Obviously this is obviously religious persecution and it is being done in cooperation with the state government there in Colorado, something that is cynically called a civil rights commission. It's anything but.

And so now in Colorado, again, they're coming after Lori Smith, a web designer who wants to sell custom wedding websites, uh, but she won't do it for same sex couples. Now, uh, Vox is, you know, oriented towards LGBT, so they begrudgingly say that the alliance defending freedom, which is defending her, make an uncharacteristically strong argument. They say it is bedrock law that the First Amendment protects an artist's right to choose what to say and when to remain silent. Wait a minute.

An artist? An artist? Now, see, that's the problem with the masterpiece decision from the Supreme Court. They made it about the fact that he was custom making this. And so they made it about art. And what he said was, look, I'll sell any of the stuff that I've got. I've got cookies. I've got ready-made cakes and everything. I'm not kicking anybody out of here because, you know, are you homosexual? Get out of my store. No, it wasn't, you know, get off my lawn type of thing.

It wasn't that at all. He was saying, no, they came in here and they want me to custom cake, custom decorate a cake simply because they know it's against my religion and they want to make me bow to that. But it wasn't really about art. And that's what they're saying. They're saying that this protects an artist's right to choose what to say and when to remain silent. It follows that no law can force a web designer, they said, someone who is literally in the business of publishing words that can be read by the general public, to create a website that they find fundamentally objectionable. And so this is such a strong First Amendment argument

that even Colorado's Civil Rights Commission, the people who are persecuting civil rights, agrees with it. And it's really kind of hard to find the points of disagreement in this thing. But it said, according to the state, once a web designer agrees to sell a particular web design to the public, it must provide the same service to people of all sexual orientations. Not clear that that is the situation, but it is also clear that these people

do not support choice, right? What is it that these people are doing? They're trying to coerce. They're trying to compel. The left always says they're pro-choice. I've always said the only choice that they support is your choice to kill your child. Everything else is to be coerced and compelled. Just look at what's happened with the pandemic, but with everything, religious as well. So they go on to say, what if certain businesses are exempted from civil rights laws

because they make products that require a spark of creativity? Well, what qualifies as an artist? What qualifies as creativity? What about jewelers? What about hairstylists or makeup artists? What about a conservative Christian restaurateur who claims their food is an expression

of their most sincere religious values and therefore not to be served to gay customers? This is not really the argument. You know, it was Gary Johnson who said, well, you know, this cake thing. He says, what if, you know, the electricity company says, well, I know that you're gay and I'm going to turn your electricity off. That's not analogous to what was happening in this shop. They have a monopoly. They have a government-created monopoly.

And if Gary Johnson wanted to pay attention to what was going on, it would be this government-allowed monopoly of big tech. Eavesdropping on your conversations and saying, you're going to get kicked off because I don't like your views. That's the analogy. Small shops don't have monopolies, but we persecute them while we swallow whole the monopolies of big tech and then look to create a monopoly of big journalism again. The Common Man The common man. They created common core to dumb down our children. They created common past to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing.

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

and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find at thedavidknightshow.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. thedavidknightshow.com Thank you.