The David Knight Show - Best of Recent Interviews

Episode Date: November 25, 2022

Interviews with * Stephen Kinzer, author of "Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control"* Dr. Ted Baehr, founder and publisher of MOVIEGUIDE* Guy Relford, lawyer specializing in 2nd Amendment protection and host of the GunGuy podcast* Christian Gomez, TheNewAmerican.com, what is the Convention of States and what are the risks it presents to the Constitution* Adam Hardage, Remote Health Solutions, taking health back from the system dominated by BigPharmaFind 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. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Okay, now joining us is the author Stephen Kinzer. His book is Poisoner in Chief, I told you about. It's about Sidney Gottlieb, an amazing character. And I read you some of the reviews early in the program. This short description of his book, The Visionary Chemist,

Sidney Gottlieb was the CIA's master magician, gentle-hearted torturer, and the agency's, quote, poisoner-in-chief. As head of the MKUltra mind control project, he directed brutal experiments at secret prisons. See, that's nothing new. He made pills, powders, potions that could kill or maim without a trace, including some intended for Fidel Castro and other foreign leaders. He paid prostitutes to lure clients to CIA-run bordellos. Again, so you keep seeing this same pattern.

He secretly dosed people with mind-altering drugs. His 22 years at CIA, Gottlieb worked in the deepest of secrecy, only since his death has it become possible to piece together an astonishing career at the intersection of extreme science and covert action. And so joining us now is Stephen Kinzer, author of Poisoner in Chief, and he's had some other books that look very interesting about the intelligence community as well. So I'm going to have to get you back on, Stephen, about some of those. But thank you for joining us. It's great to be with you. It's a fascinating subject.

It really is. It really is. And I want to talk about NKUltra and all the rest of these things as well, but let's give people kind of an idea of the man himself. What was this guy like? I've told people over and over again, we cannot, if you're not kind of a sociopath, psychopath, I've interviewed John Kiriakou many times, who was a whistleblower about CIA torture program.

And he said, yeah, the CIA is looking for people who are sociopaths and right up to the edge of psychopath, hopefully not over the edge. I think maybe Gottlieb qualified for that. But, you know, we always underestimate the evil that people like this are capable of. And then we underestimate the technology. But tell us a little bit about the man himself. What was motivating him, and what kind of guy was he like? I can tell you that spending a couple of years in my little office

with Sidney Gottlieb, more or less, as I was writing his biography, was pretty chilling. You tend to get very close to the people you're writing about if you're a biographer. And in this case, I was very disturbing. So Sidney Gottlieb was the first director and essentially the founder of the chemical branch of the CIA. He was hired early on in CIA history in 1951, and soon was assigned a series of projects that came together as MKUltra. It got that name because the leaders of the CIA all agreed that if there could be a way that the CIA could control people's minds,

that would be the ultra-discovery. The prize would be nothing less than global mastery. So Gottlieb's assignment was try to experiment with all kinds of drugs that you can possibly think of, all kinds of toxins, all kinds of other techniques like sensory deprivation and electroshock and extremes of heat and cold and whatever else you can come up with, to find a way that would destroy a human mind so that a new mind could be placed in there. After having been given this assignment, it became clear to Gottlieb that he had what amounted to a license to kill. He was able to go to foreign countries like Germany or Korea or Japan

and have the American military police who are running occupations turn over human beings to him, prisoners or refugees or people they suspected of being enemy agents. These people would then be used as guinea pigs in horrific experiments that were the most extreme and intense experiments on human beings that have ever been conducted by any government agency or official and a number of people were experimented to death we don't know how many but this is what I mean when I say godly probably was the most powerful unknown American of the 20th century. Nobody else had a license to kill from the U.S. government

and went out and tormented people in the U.S. and around the world in such secrecy with such heavy official protection. But the interesting aspect, following up on your question, is who was Gottlieb as a person? This is where the complexity comes in. So Gottlieb did not live like any other government civil servant of the 1950s. He lived in an eco-cottage deep in the Virginia woods that did not have running water. He got up before dawn to milk his goats. He was a vegetarian. He was a Buddhist. He prayed. He meditated. He wrote poetry. He was active in his community. So I sometimes would ask myself, how do you fit these

two parts of his personality together? He was probably the most prolific American torturer of his generation. But yet he was also this kind of proto-hippie who loves nature and humanity. And so this really gives you an insight into the complexity of the human character. And it's part of what makes Gottlieb such a fascinating figure. It's kind of like Mingala hanging out on Walden's pond. Something like that. It's the equivalent. You know, that's really fascinating, and it's interesting that he considered himself to be so spiritual,

because as we look at him going to foreign countries and taking prisoners and experimenting on them, of course the thing that comes to mind is Operation Paperclip and how they brought the Nazi scientists and the Japanese scientists who have been doing that type of thing over here. And they really became kind of the core of not the CIA, but of other operations. And when I look at that and the people who were involved in using these Nazi and Japanese scientists,

one name that I always think about is Frank Olson, who had a very close connection to Scott Gottlieb, not Scott Gottlieb, Sidney Gottlieb, I keep getting them confused somehow, but he had a very close connection to Gottlieb. Talk about his connection to Gottlieb. Well, first of all, when it comes to the Nazis, you're absolutely right that MKUltra was based in large part on Nazi science. When Gottlieb took over his job, he had to ask himself, like a good scientist, what knowledge is

already out there in this field? How do I find out everything that's known about tormenting people poisoning people killing people destroying people's mind and so where would he look the people who knew that or Nazi scientists and their counterparts in Japan so the CIA went out and hired these people and their expertise was part of the basis for MKUltra. I found one episode where a Nazi scientist was brought to the United States, for example, to lecture the few scientists in MKUltra about a poison gas which we still use today called sarin, a very potent poison. So the question was, do you need the same amount of sarin

to kill a small child or infant? 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

as you would need to kill an adult now the CIA couldn't find this out because we're not going to conduct those kinds of experiments. But the Nazis had. So this guy came over and gave an explanation, said, no, actually, you don't need a...

It's the same dose. If you want to kill an adult and a baby, we figured this all out. So we built it on the knowledge of these Nazi doctors. And when I was researching this book, I went to Germany and I found what I think might be the CIA's first ever secret prison. It was where Gottlieb conducted his gruesome experiment.

The young German guy who now owns this house, which is a lovely little Tudor mansion, took me down into the basement. And he said, these storage rooms were the cells where Gottlieb and the Nazi doctors that he worked with carried out experiments that were actually just continuations of the experiments that those Nazis had conducted just down the road in concentration camps only a few years earlier and of course here's another contradiction god leave himself with jewish his parents

had left europe in the early twentieth century if they had not left and stayed there when the nazis took over they probably would have been caught up in some sweet they could have been sent to some concentration camp. And who knows if young Sidney might not have become one of the victims of one of those horrific so-called experiments in a concentration camp. But in the event, they came to the United States and Gottlieb didn't seem to have any

hesitation about working with those very same Nazi doctors. Wow. That's amazing. So that brings us up to the case of Frank Olson, who you asked about. Olson was one of the small group of American chemists who was deeply involved in MK Ulster. He was one of the right-hand men for Gottlieb. Frank Olson, a young chemist, was sent abroad to observe some of these horrific experiments in Germany and elsewhere.

At one point in the summer of 1953, he apparently watched an experiment in England in which somebody was tortured or tortured to death with gas that Olsen himself had developed. That was his specialty, was trying to transform poisons into gas. Anyway, it began to disturb him. He had what we might today call an attack of conscience. He didn't want to do this

anymore. And he told this to the CIA. He said he not only wanted to quit MKUltra, but he wanted to quit the CIA. He didn't want to do this anymore. Now, this gave the CIA a huge dilemma, because if the secrets of MKUltra had ever emerged and it became clear to the world what kind of things Gottlieb was doing, it would be devastating not just for the CIA but for the United States position in the world. Frank Olson had secrets in his head that absolutely could not be revealed as far as the CIA was concerned. And we now know that Olson had actually met one of his friends and asked, do you know a good journalist? So this posed a kind of a mortal danger to the CIA. And what happened was that Gottlieb arranged for Frank Olson to be administered lsd without his

knowledge just be at a party just before thanksgiving in nineteen 3 it following that often had a theory them psychiatric reaction partly due to his desire to leave the CIA became very confused by various account the CIA brought him to New York and a couple of nights before Thanksgiving in 1953, he went out the window of the 13th floor hotel room in which he was staying with another CIA officer and died upon hitting the ground.

Yeah, he's literally defenestrated. Exactly. Literally, he's literally defenestrated. Exactly. Literally, yeah. And it shows you, if it's true that he was killed by the CIA, which a lot of circumstantial evidence suggests, the extent to which the CIA was willing to go to suppress any publication of information about the existence of MKUltra. I'll tell you, trying to piece it together, this remove has been very difficult,

and I'm painfully aware that I've only discovered a portion, a small portion, of what Sidney Gottlieb did and what MKUltra was, but even that small portion is quite chilling. Yeah, it's a cold case, and it's something that happened back in the 50s, you know, 70 years ago. It is difficult to find that. I've interviewed myself several people who were MKUltra survivors. Talk a little bit, though, before we get into more of MKUltra, talk a little bit about LSD, because this is the sort of thing that Sidney Gottlieb and his LSD promotion and creation and propagation had such a fundamental effect on society in the 1960s.

And he's involved with Ken Kesey and so many people. Talk a little bit about the LSD thing that he was really kind of, I guess, the father of it, right? At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar, and the chance to reward you. of it, right? It's true. We can now trace a lot of the LSD culture in America and the whole explosion of its use in the counterculture back to Sidney Gottlieb. Although no one at the time knew that because nobody at the time knew that Sidney Gottlieb even existed.

The story is that, of course, Gottlieb was this very restless intellect, always looking for new poisons, new toxins, new mind-altering drugs. He became fascinated with LSD. He thought at one time that it might be, as one of his collaborators put it, the key that would unlock the universe. In other words, the drug that would allow us to find a way to control other people's minds. So Gottlieb not only was fascinated from a scientific point of view, but also a personal

one. By his own account, he took LSD more than 200 times himself. But he also started out by thinking that it could be used to somehow distort enough people's minds so that the CIA could accomplish its goals in the world, either with individuals or with masses. So what did he do? In 1953, Gottlieb convinced the CIA to buy the entire world supply of LSD from the company that made it in Switzerland, Sandoz. And that's what happened. The CIA bought it all. It came to the United States, and it was under Gottlieb's supervision. So there were two things he wanted to do with that LSD. One thing was that it should be used as part of his coercive tortures and experiments.

So you could be locked into a room where it would be 100 degrees and they place you inside a coffin and they give you electroshock. Then they give you a high dose of stimulants. And then they inject you with sedatives and massive depression and what depressive and while you're on the transition phase from hyperactivity inside the coffin to comatose you get fed LSD would that somehow implant a new mind in you Wow but he carried out these terrible experiments. He's also included experiments inside the United States. I found one in which he got a prison doctor with whom he was collaborating to give triple and quadruple doses of LSD to a group of seven African-American inmates over a period of 77 days, if you can imagine that,

with the goal of trying to see, presumably, would this destroy a human mind? And I'm sure the answer is yes. We never found out who those people were, what happened to them, did they ever realize that they had been given this terrible overdose? So that was one half of what Gottlieb did. He used LSD in these horrifically brutal experiments, along with every other drug he could imagine and every other toxin he could extract from the bark of trees in Burma or the gallbladders

of crocodiles from Africa, the kind of thing that he used to look for as he searched for natural toxins. But he used LSD for something else as well. He wanted to know how ordinary people in a clinical setting would react to LSD. But since the CIA does not have lots of clinics, it subcontracted this work out and Gottlieb set up a couple of bogus foundations that wrote to major hospitals and university clinics and told them we have this new drug called LSD we want you to test test it we pay you for this what we'll do is we'll send you the LSD you then advertise for volunteers to come in and

take it you tell them exactly what it is and for volunteers to come in and take it, you tell them exactly what it is and what's going to happen, and then you give them the LSD, and you just write up reports and send them back to us. Not, of course, these hospitals being aware that that was the CIA. So, given the generosity of the offer, many hospitals and clinics quickly signed up, and they started this series of LSD experiments, where you could go in and take it. So who were among the first people that went in to do this? One was Ken Kesey, who you just mentioned, the author of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

He was one of the first people to get fat LSD. Another one was Robert Hunter, the lyricist for the Grateful Dead, who then went home and turned on the Grateful Dead and all their fans. Another one was Allen Ginsberg, the radical poet who went on to become a great advocate of LSD. None of these people had any idea where their LSD was coming from, or that they were part of a large CIA experimentation project. In fact, while I was writing my book, I came across an interview with John Ryman, in which he was asked about LSD, and he replied, we must always remember to thank the CIA. Now, he had never heard of Sidney Gottlieb.

Nobody had. But if he had, he would have said, we must always remember to thank Sid that Gottlieb and the CIA thought might give them the tool to control the world actually wound up fueling a generational rebellion of the 1960s that was aimed at destroying everything the CIA stands for. Yeah, yeah. Lysergic acid, diethylamide. I remember that. They were really hitting it hard when I was in junior high school.

They were very concerned about it. And, of course, it also was the impetus for the drug war. They scared everybody with LSD and things that were happening with that as people were having bad trips and committing suicide and things like that as they were hallucinating. It was fundamental to the radical change of our society, wasn't it? I've got a question here for you, Mr. Kinzer. This is from a listener who said, can you ask Mr. Kinzer if he knows anything of Ewan Cameron and his devilish experiments in Canada?

Was that connected in any way to CIA and Gottlieb? Yes, it was you even Cameron was a psychiatrist who worked at McGill University in Canada And he became a contractor for MK ultra. In fact, I even found a mysterious memo from one of the lower ranking Liaison people inside MK ultra who had gone to meet Ewan Cameron and he said that it's Dr. G's wish that's godly that any collaboration between us be kept absolutely secret. So Cameron conducted horrific experiments on completely unwilling and unknowing patients. You

would go into his clinic because you had some depression or in some one notorious case postpartum depression, things that are fairly normal and low level in psychiatric treatment. But these people didn't know that Cameron had secretly contracted with the CIA to carry out experiments in which subjects were subjected to massive doses of LSD and other powerful mind-altering drugs over long periods, along with electroshock and other torment. There are many cases of people who never recovered their functions again. We have one famous case of a young woman who was brought in for postpartum depression. By the time Ewan Cameron was finished with her, she could never hold a fork again.

She couldn't recognize anybody in her family for the rest of her life. This was just the human collateral damage of Gottlieb's reckless worldwide experiment. And I had to ask myself again, going back to the beginning of our conversation, how could a person who claimed to be such a humanitarian, be such a lustful torturer. And so I never was able to figure out the answer. The family doesn't speak about these kinds of things, so they wouldn't talk to me. But I posit one possibility.

So maybe, well, you have to put yourself back in the mindset of the time. In the 50s, we were told that the Soviet Union was going to come and bomb us at every moment, and that we were living on the edge of apocalypse, and people really bought into this. They really believed it. So Gottlieb, perhaps, could have thought to himself, I'm an individual. I live my own unusual life, and I'm only able to do that because I live in a wonderfully free country like the United States. Now, the Soviet Union is coming and wants to destroy not just the United States, but the whole possibility of meaningful human life on Earth. They will make it impossible for anyone to live a life like me or a life of any meaning at all.

Therefore, the loss of a few lives or a few hundred lives, there's a very small price to pay to prevent that from happening. So that's the mindset that the threat is so great, we have to suspend our morality and our ethics and our laws for a moment. You can see how it plays into future generations. We heard the same thing in the war on terror that America never tortures, America never kidnaps. 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

America doesn't have secret prisons, but in this special emergency, we have to leave behind all of those strictures. And it seems like the emergencies never end. That's right. It's one emergency after the other. We can always rationalize that we just need to suspend everything and act as a dictator, act as a monster. You know, we always need to remember that it is the structures that are the first things to be jettisoned in an emergency that separate us from the monsters, that separate us from the Nazis. Let me ask you this before we run out of time here.

I know you've got to go soon. I was always curious about the etymology of MK Ultra. What is the MK? I look at that and I always thought, is that some kind of an English-German thing, like English mind and the K for control or something? Is that what it is? Good guess. Good guess, but it's not correct.

Okay. What is it? So the CIA has a series of cryptonyms. They have a way that they come up with names for their operations. And usually the first two letters refer to the place in the world that the operation is planned. For example, when the United States set off to overthrow the government of Iran in 1953, that coup plot was codenamed operation a jack but it was officially keeping a jack

tp meant iran when we went over to the government guatemala that operation operation successful officially tbc because tb was the diptych for guatemala now we the cia also had one of those two-letter combinations for operations that were covering the whole world. They weren't in one specific country, and that was MK.

Wow. So the MK means that it was a global operation. And the Ultra, of course, reflects the view in the CIA that it was the most important thing the CIA had ever done. I guess that makes sense, because they don't want to have anything that has any connection at all to reality, even if it's different languages to tie it back there. So a cryptic two-character preface for that. Yeah, that I think is the key thing, the mind control. And I think we see that in so many different ways. You know, we see governments who've worked on mind control,

whether it is by information tactics and psychological tactics or chemical tactics. Now we see electrical tactics being used. And I think it's very interesting, Mr. Kinzer, the way that we see the DARPA projects going now, talking about how they want to electronically remove memories and then implant memories of things that never really happened, false memories.

And say, of course, it's to help soldiers who are suffering from PTSD or something like that. They can always come up with a rationale for it. But it's the same type of thing you were talking about with LSD, that you first have to destroy the mind. You have to remove what is there and then implant what it is that you want to put in there. We keep seeing these same tactics coming round and round.

Was there anything, when you look at MKUltra, because most of my life, they would deny that it even existed, right? And you were a radical conspiracy theorist if you thought there was such a thing as MKUltra. But is there anything in what you came across that indicates that they were using this to program people for assassinations? Anything about catching the rye? I think that might have been a long-term goal, but by the time that movie, The Manchurian Candidate, came out, the CIA had already decided it wasn't possible. Popular culture took about 10 years to catch up to the CIA.

So to conclude that story, as you talked about, Gottlieb brought MKUltra to an end in the late 50s, early 60s, and he essentially gave up. He, at the end, said, I've concluded there's no such thing as mind control. A drug like LSD is too unpredictable.

There actually is no way to take control of another person's mind. Actually, many scientists have been telling him this, but he didn't want to listen. And mind control, it's a myth. So I thought, I'm reflecting on that. And I think he was right. I think he did a lot of scientific experiments. He did the worst kinds of things in the world and even he concluded there's no such thing as mind control however even though he may well have been right he

was only right based on what was available in 1960 think of all the advances in cyber technology and artificial intelligence and the kinds of experiments you're talking about that have been made since then yes so although i do think gottlieb came to the right conclusion there's no such thing as mind control in a way what really should be adapted to say there's no such thing as mind control as far as we can do it here in 1960 when i research and find out everything that the u.s government was secretly doing to find techniques of mind control in the 1950s, I think it would be naive to believe that the CIA or other secret services are not working on analogs of this project right now. That could be even scarier.

And that maybe it'll be another Poisoner-in-Chief book in 50 years explaining what was happening back in the 2020s. I think that book will be called Programmer-in-Chief, how they're going to reprogram our bodies, reprogram our minds, because that's what the focus has not changed. They've had the same goals. They've used different technologies, and they're pulling in new technologies all the time, and that's the scary thing about it because we understand the nature of human evil, and we understand what their goals have been, and that doesn't change. Human nature doesn't change, but what is changing is the technology, and we always underestimate how advanced that technology is. How long was he at the CIA, and when did he retire, and what happened in his later life?

So he retired from the CIA after a distinguished career. He became the head of the technical services staff, which manufactured all those gadgets and gizmos and tools that spies use. He became Q of James Bond, like the Q guy? Exactly. That's exactly who he was Bond, like the Q guy. Exactly. That's exactly who he was. He was the Q for the CIA. And in 1973,

as the Watergate scandal was spreading, 1974, Gottlieb's position at the CIA became weaker, and the CIA officer, who had always been his kind of rabbi and unofficial boss and protector, Richard Helms, who had become director of the CIA, was forced to resign. This would have left Gottlieb exposed to whoever the next CIA director was. So he decided this was time for him to quit.

And so he went to Helms and said, I'm going to leave with you. And they then made a very fateful decision. We have to destroy all the records of MKUltra. So Gottlieb ordered the person who runs the CIA archives out in Virginia to destroy these boxes, and he didn't want to do it. So Gottlieb got in his car and drove out there and told him to do it. And in the archivist's notebook, it says that seven crates of documents were destroyed, quote, over my spoken objection.

Wow. So I think Gottlieb and Helms realized that although this is a crime, destruction of federal property is a felony, the penalty for that crime is far less than the penalty for the crimes that would be revealed in those seven crates of documents. Oh, yeah. So Gottlieb left the CIA. He went off on a humanitarian mission, went back to his old roots of caring for others.

He worked in a hospital in India. But then he got a note in 1974 that somebody had figured out that he existed. And this was the Senate committee investigating the CIA. He had to go back to Washington and testify. But the interesting thing is that the senators never knew about MKUltra. They didn't want to know about it. The whole idea of MKUltra had not yet become clear.

Almost everything that's in my Poisoner in Chief book had not been made public. Nobody knew that then. So they only questioned Gottlieb about his involvement in assassination plots. He was the one that made all the poison pills to kill Castro, the poison toothpaste to kill Lumumba, poison that was supposed to be put in a rice bowl for Zhou Enlai.

So they wanted to know about that but actually is this a church committee hearing the church committee yeah yeah but they but uh in those cases of assassination godly was essentially functioning only as a pharmacist he just made the poisons in his lab but mk ultra was different it was totally shaped by godly but the senators either didn't know about this or what little they knew led them to believe But MK ultra was different. It was totally shaped by Gottlieb But the Senators either didn't know about this or what little they knew let them believe They didn't want to pursue it and I talked a little about this in the in poisoner and sheep one how? The Senators completely missed the point and Gottlieb lied

Explicitly over and over again. He said he couldn't remember who his deputy was. He couldn't remember what countries he had been in. So he then went back to his village out in Virginia, worked on the planning board, was in local theater production, participated in a then Buddhist discussion group, and was seen around town as clogs, bicycling down to get the newspaper, a very happy kind of gray ponytail ex-hippie with a deep secret. I did find a couple of people who tried to reach him,

reach through the veil, and they were unsuccessful. One woman who was the rabbi in that town said that... 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. 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 She tried to talk to him about what he had done in the past but he absolutely refused and she made an interesting comment. Sometimes I felt that he might have been just as shocked at the reports of what he had done as we were. So this is a highly complex character,

and Poisoner Chief is my attempt to fix his character and his professional work back into the place in American history that it deserves to occupy. It is a fascinating story, and I'm sure that you only scratched the surface. Before you go, one quick question. You talked about how he kind of became the James Bond Q, and he testified there at the Church Committee. Of course, the star of the Church Committee hearing was the heart attack gun that they

all passed around. Was he involved in that? Was that coming out of his department? No. No, that was something else. Unfortunately, I wanted to use that photo in my book, but actually that particular gun was not made in his workshop. Nonetheless, he was a highly creative gadgeteer.

And I'll tell you one funny story just to finish. There used to be, during the time that Gott that godly was running that was the cue that the mastermind the maker of gadgets for spies it was also a period in the united states when there were a lot of spy shows on tv oh yeah there was the man from uncle uh mission impossible there were like three or four of them that were very popular get smart and he used to run yeah that was another one just used to run they used to run on the weekends, on Saturday, or especially on Sunday night.

And Gottlieb had an extra operator on the phone at the CIA on Mondays because agents, CIA officers, would be watching these TV shows and then they would call up Gottlieb on Monday and say, I want that thing. Can you make that real? That thing that I saw in Mission Impossible?

So you talk about fiction imitating reality and vice versa. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. I wonder if they ever got their shoe that they could use as a dial-up telephone. I was thinking of the same one, Maxwell Smart with the shoe and his phone and his shoe. But they probably did. It was a little bit more sophisticated than Maxwell's smart head. It was delightful talking to you.

You are very knowledgeable about a very important and complex subject. I would like to get you back on and talk about some of your other books about Iran and other things like that and what the CIA did there. Thank you so much, Stephen Kinzer. And the book is Poisoner-in-Chief Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control. That continues on to this day. The Common Man. They created Common Core to dumb down our children. They created Common Past to track and control us.

Their Commons Project to make sure the commoners own nothing. And the communist future. They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find

at thedavidknightshow.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. TheDavidKnightShow.com All right, welcome back. We have our guest, Dr. Ted Bear. He is founder and publisher of Movie Guide. Many of you know that before I got into this,

Karen and I used to own several video stores. And so I used to rely on his publications quite a bit. And I'm real excited to talk to Dr. Baer, you know, because of the influence that our movies have on our culture. And that's really how he is focused. His tagline is he who controls the media controls the culture. And of course, politics and everything else is downstream from culture. I think when we look at this, we have to be wise consumers if we're going to be consumers at all of media.

And of course, it's inescapable that we're going to consume it. So thank you for joining us, Dr. Baer. Appreciate you coming on. At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar, and the chance to reward you. Appreciate you coming on. 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 It is a great pleasure to join you, especially somebody who, you know, comes from the video store business. Yeah, that was a lot of fun while it lasted. Yeah, it was.

It was good. Well, you know, what we have now really is is kind of a great reset of distribution isn't it you know they they changed the distribution they got rid of the video stores which they were never really very happy about frankly uh but uh now you know i think they they put the bullseye a few years ago many of them uh you know there's a disagreement within the industry but they kind of put a bullseye on the movie theaters. And now we've got, um, we got number two, Regal has declared bankruptcy chapter 11. Uh, you've got number one, AMC with a thousand movie theaters. Uh, they are trying to, uh, you know, issue some new financial instruments on

wall street to kind of keep going. Um, what do you see happening, uh, with a movie distribution in the near future? Uh, is it going to go streaming completely? Are they going to get rid of the movie theaters? Well, you know, I have a lot of studio heads who speak at my class on how to succeed in Hollywood without losing their soul, because studio heads usually know what's going on. And, you know, they say that it's it really is difficult without the theater release because streaming doesn't give you a box office

so you know most of the money made by a movie is overseas if you've ever gone to the Cannes Film Festival which I've done a couple of times and friends of mine are you know little European distributors etc they buy films based on the box office here uh if it's an a movie you know they'll pay a couple of million dollars if it's a b movie they'll pay maybe just a little under a million dollars if it's a c movie they'll pay a couple but that's the way you sell movies in territories all the way from china to germany to to Africa to wherever else if we're still selling in China, which is a gigantic market. So people who come to me who are

studio heads, and the next one I've got one of the best studio heads in the business speaking in November, and one of the biggest film financiers, etc. And they say, you know, when we try to recoup overseas, we've got to have a number and we can't get a number from streaming. In fact, Netflix just fired one of their people because he was jockeying the numbers. He was headed that to determine what was succeeding or not. So you don't know what's succeeding on streaming. It's invisible. It used to be more visible when Facebook and everybody else was giving you access to getting the numbers, but Facebook was criticized for that because it doesn't do it anymore. So you have a tremendous

problem without the audience that you know what the movie is worth overseas. And if 60% of the box office is overseas, you're in big trouble. So that's where we are today. We are in big trouble today. And it's not been easy. Now, the theatrical business is always a tough business, running theaters.

I had a friend who was my daughter's godfather who was head of MGM and people like that. And he wanted to go into the movie business because they're showmen. They like to be showmen. That's what they want to do. You know, my parents were movie stars during the thirties. So my father won the box office award and they starred in 62 movies. And then they started on Broadway. The show must go on the grease paint, the smell of the grease, the roar of the crowd. Yeah.

I grew up in all that business. So you want to be a showman, but the theaters are subject to the studios, and the studios have really created the problem here with, you know, and they've got to get out of it. For Regal and others, Regal used to be owned by a friend of mine, and then the company before that that they bought was United Artists. That was owned by another. These were presbyterians out of denver what are presbyterians doing owning in the case of my daughter's godfather who bought the theater in

atlanta you know he bought one movie and you get to bid on them any and if it's a big movie like any you've got to give them 100% of the box office for the first two or three weeks. And if Annie is a bomb, which is what it was, it got bad reviews. You're giving 100% of the box office. Nobody's coming to the theater. You've got to make your money back through overpriced popcorn. So people wonder why popcorn is overpriced because the theater is desperately trying to make their money back. Anyway, we do the economics of the industry. So we do a detailed economic report and you probably don't want to hear more of that, but I can give you all the economics in and out. And so the theater is by saying, okay, this is Avengers. This is a

big movie, or this is, you know, avatar two or, you know, whatever it is. Uh, Tom Cruise, the latest, whatever it is. And we want a hundred percent for the first three weeks with that movie bombs, which often they do, you know, you can't guarantee it's going to be a success when the theater is left with a empty theater and not enough popcorn. And they're in big trouble. And they had a lot of empty theaters and it's one of the things that's gotten them both of these chains for about $5 billion

in debt because of the lockdown. But I think even more important than the money This weekend is going to be worse because you've got two movie guys, minus four you've got Bro, which is about homosexual love and

actually shows fellatio and all that, opening. And that's their big movie from Universal. And then you've got Smile, which is a horror movie. And two friends of mine made it. And it's so negative that we gave it a negative four and only three stars. The first one we gave two stars and negative four. So they're abhorrent. They're just awful so

you know you've got to be a real addict to go to a theater when the movie is just awful yeah that's right and and that's why you know even though uh we always enjoyed movies and we got into the movies in the mid 80s when they had um you know kind of capitulated because the supreme court decision and said all right we'll allow the video rental business to exist. And they opened up their vaults. And so we were excited because we were doing all the classic movies and we had a field day with that. It was a lot of fun. But then that started to die down and, you know, we started paying more attention to what they were putting out and it's the content. And the content has amazingly gone down and really accelerating downhill as you're just talking about there, the darkness of Hollywood.

And your movie guide, you look at not only the quality of how the movie was done, but you have a separate rating in terms of essentially the moral content of it, right? Yeah, the acceptability of the movie. Yeah, last year, just let me give you some quick figures. 90% of the top 10 grossing movies of the box office contained overt or Christian or strong biblical values. 90% of the overseas, it was like 2.1 billion, and I've got to look at my figures if I'm going to get that correct. 2.1 billion out of 2.6 billion at the box office contained strong Christian or biblical content. Streaming, strong Christian, biblical. Now,

that's not because the movie companies, which are insane, and I love a lot of them. I'm not trying to be mean to them. I want to get that content to do well. It's because Christians, like your audience, want good movies. So they're choosing good movies, and they're choosing them out of the field of movies. And, you know, like last year, Quiet Place 2 started off with The Lord's Prayer. And, you know, and Belfast Academy Award winner had strong Christian content. All these movies that were good at the box office, I can go through them all. Because, you know, one of my favorites is Boss Baby 2, where the parents have to go undercover. And it features Christmas and

everything else, to rescue their kids from a Marxist school. That plot sounds so completely Christian that you think it must have been made by some independent filmmaker out of Texas, but it was made by a friend of mine who's made The Boss Baby, and that's his beliefs. A lot of times, the Christians behind the scene in hollywood who make these movies are not the people yelling and screaming and it's the same way with schools and everything else we've allowed the tail to waggle the dog and because we have not spoken up and we've let the negative nabobs and the and the confused and the pervert or the psychopaths

speak up we've lost the culture. Well, let's talk a little bit about, you know, you see the gamut has run all the way from right now. We've got in the movie theaters, we've got Life Mark with Kirk Cameron. And then we have that's about to stream out Little Satan. As I look at this, based on my experience, there really wasn't any really good quality Christian or family films when we were in the business. That has really picked up, and there is some good quality stuff that's out there. But the bad stuff has gotten much, much worse. And so I look at this, and I see a real polarization in terms of content. And unfortunately, most of it is the really bad stuff, like Little Satan.

I mean, how do you view this? And I think it's one of the reasons that I think your movie guide is very important, because people need to understand that a well-made film that has a really evil worldview with it, like something like Little Satan, is something that's really dangerous because of how well it's packaged, right? Well, here's the story on that. A friend of mine was the producer of Hacksaw Ridge, and he's produced a lot of movies.

And he says, you know, Hollywood now makes two movies, one to make money, you know, to support 61,000 people at the Warner Brothers lot. You've got to make money. They've got to get paid. The lot has to get paid. You know, all the loans and everything else have to get paid. You just said that about the theatre industry. 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 So, you know, they'll make a movie that'll reach a broad audience and they want those. So even streaming like Andor is a very good streaming and some of them are excellent.

They make those to get the audience, but they also make a second category of movies to win uh oscars and academy awards the one reason the academy award business is going down is since 1991 and you don't want all this background but anyway since 1991 when they finally moved from honoring the big movies you know like in the golden age sound of music etc or my father's movies you know crime and punishment etc et cetera. Now they're honoring movies that are, that are quirky because the guys who are, uh,

the main voters of the Academy are now the little independent producers. So you make two types of movies in Hollywood. They still have to make the big ones that are clean and wholesome. And those ones will do well. You've still got Sonic coming out with marriage and you know family and trying to be good um but you have a lot of negative coming out and you even have movies that are that are nice twists and turns of fate like bad guys so it's not like they disappear they need those movies to pay their bills um but the audience has to be clear

that there are good movies and bad movies, and you've got to choose. You know what I've said all the time? That's right. You can't just, you know, be presumptuous. You can't just stereotype. Because every company, you know, like Universal, puts out a lot of good big film films,

and now it's putting out Broads, which is, you know something that a major studio um it's such an evil film um pro-homosexual fellatio all of that would not have put out 20 or 30 years ago so they're doing both they think that because variety loves bros all the insiders love bros all these quirky people who have become psychopaths themselves love bros, all the insiders love bros, all these quirky people who have become psychopaths themselves love bros. They want that to win an award. But as long as those people win an award, the Academy Awards is going to crater, and

it's been cratering since 1991. That's right. That's right. That's what they want to see. And you're exactly right. That's what we've seen, really, with Disney. Disney has made so much money by doing broad appeal things like Pixar used to be, but now

they just can't seem to pull themselves back from doing the art house self-congratulatory propagandistic type of films. I'd love to talk to you sometime about what has happened with Disney, but I know that we're out of time. I know you only had 15 minutes today. You're very busy. I appreciate your time.

I appreciate you coming on again. This is Dr. Ted Bear, and he is a founder and publisher of Movie Guide. He's been around the movie business his entire life, knows many, many people from the inside there, and he's got the inside scoop on what is happening with the films. And he'll help you to discern the content from the sizzle. I guess we could say, you know, the,

the packaging, they can make it, they can package the worst stuff and make it look really sizzle and pop. So thank you so much for joining us. Very important service that I'd highly recommend to anybody. Thank you very much, Dr. Bear.

Have a great day. Look forward to talking again. Thank you. All right. Bye-bye movie guide.org. Talk about good versus day. Look forward to talking again. Thank you. All right. Bye-bye. Movieguide.org. Talk about good versus evil. You know, as Christians, we need to think about what we're going to do. You know, you can have a couple of different responses and usually some kind of a combination of those. You know, we can just isolate ourselves and walk away. But of course,

you know, Christ says, well, I didn't come to remove the people, you know, my followers from the world. But so we can engage in the worldview. We can engage the culture. We can try to expose that. Some people will try to create content that transcends it. And I think there's an opportunity for us to do all three of those types of things. I really hope I can get him back to talk about what's going on with Disney because he knew a lot of people who were in and around Walt Disney back in the day, and Dr. Bear has been around for quite a while. I'll just say that what he was talking about in terms of how they would make a movie for a broad audience and try to make it a general entertainment film.

And then they would make a movie for themselves. So one to make money, one that was the movie that they were going to make for themselves and for their peers. And that's what all these awards are about. It's really about being celebrated by your peers. Our personal story about that was we,, we, uh, when we got into the video business, it was all VHS stuff and some beta beta was kind of on the way out,

but it was still a factor we got in there that early. Um, so was it going to be beta barn or VHS village, you know, as the symptoms, but, uh, we bet our money vhs and we went the right way um and then uh you know as as laser discs came out we carried laser discs and um because again we would we were focused more on catalog titles on older classic films and things like that and um we had about 200 different genres at one of our stores packed into a small, that was a real, how do you convey that to people so they can find it? And how do you store all that stuff? You know, the store is about 6,000 square feet, but still we had 200 different genres and we had about 15,000 titles and things like that.

That was how we competed against Blockbuster. They were all about the new release. We were about the catalog. But we would also get into the alternative media. So as Laserdisc would come out, we'd get into that. As DVD came out, we were very excited about that because of the programmability of it and the small form factor of it.

And as they were talking about their capability to be able to branch around things, and of course, you know, you've had companies like Clean Features out of Utah that set up a business model doing exactly that, hated by Hollywood. So they would, with Clean Features, they would grab the movies and you could say, well, I don't want to see sex. I don't want to see violence. I don't want to, you know, this or that you could check off different things that you didn't want to see.

And, um, they would, um, they had a player that, uh, they could program. And so they would come in and they would essentially on the fly, make an airplane version of a film. You know, we've all seen that they'd would put out something that would be R-rated, and it might have nudity or something like that in it or some real heinous violence. And so they would edit that out, or they would reshoot the scenes. Because, you know, and when they would do that, you'd say,

well, why didn't they do that in the first place? Well, you know why they did it. Because they wanted to flaunt the nudity. That's how they would get people to go to the films. But they would reshoot the films. And, you know, without the nudity, they'd reshoot some of the same scenes and they'd create an airplane version. And, uh, so you could basically create an airplane version of your own. And what they would do is you, you buy the player from them and then you would subscribe to their, uh, system and you would say, well, we, um, uh, we want to watch this

particular film and you download the instructions for it. And then it would just branch around those particular types of things. And Hollywood hated that, hated that with a passion, uh, my experience with it because I knew that existed and people were talking about that was going to be a capability. So we started renting the DVDs and I was telling customers when they're coming in the store and I talked to them about it. Uh, cause I loved're coming in the store and I talked to them about it. Uh, cause I loved hanging out in the stores and just talking to people, uh, about movies. It was a good starting point to talk to people.

And, um, and so we really kind of got to know people. It's kind of like, you know, cheers people, you know, uh, come in, you get to know them and you'd start kind of get a good idea kind of films that they like so I was telling people that that was to decide if they've got the movie and you you know, you wouldn't, and something you could watch with

your family. So everybody's really excited about that. So we went to a VSDA convention, Video Software Dealers Association. It was a trade organization for people who had video stores that rented videos. And they would have studio heads there and at one of these um uh one of these meetings they had one of these conventions they had a guy who was from new line cinema you know they're the ones who produced um lord of the rings and uh some other things and so he was there trying to sell everybody on doing dvd in their stores because most people were not doing it in their stores. It was still early technology. And so after the presentation, I went up and I talked to him and I said, so I've got a lot of customers. I said, I know you can have different versions. It doesn't, you don't have to have two different complete movies. You can just have it branch to different

scenes or you can have it branch around scenes. And I said, I know that you have the capability to do that. I said, you guys have any plans to do that? And he said, no, absolutely not. He said, all the directors hate these airline things. They hate that with a passion. And so he goes, we get a lot of resistance from there. We're absolutely not going to do it. It's like, oh, I was really shot down. And within a couple of months, they took a film. Um, I think it was called crash at James Spader in it, a really degenerate film. If ever there was one, it was about some guy who follows, um, he he's got some kind of a weird fetish where he follows around car crashes. He loves to get around car crashes

and he finds it to be erotic or something like that. And what they did was when they offered that to us when it came to video, New Line produced that. At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar, and the chance to reward you. that. Cheltenham with LiveScore 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. 18plusgamblingcare.ie And they offered their sick R-rated version and a much, much sicker X-rated version so that you can have it. It's exactly what I had talked to him about about four or six months earlier,

exactly what I talked about, but they went the other way. And so when you look at it and you look at Hollywood and you look at how dark these people are, and that's one of the reasons why we've seen this continual downgrade and downward spiral in the content, because as Hollywood itself gets darker and darker, their idea of a general,

uh, film that, uh, the public would like to see gets even worse. And I was surprised. It was an excellent series that was put out by the BBC. It was narrated by James Mason, and it was about the early days of movies, silent films. One of the best documentary series I've ever seen. They talked about special effects. They talked about the lighting. They talked about the camera work. They talked about what it was like to work in the early days of silent films and things like that.

I can't remember the title of it. Something about silver screen or something like that. But one of them was about the morality of Hollywood and what brought us, uh, I think it was, if I remember correctly, the Hays code, uh, which, uh, they didn't have that in the early days of Hollywood. And they were doing some pretty, um, um, crazy stuff, especially considering where the country was, right. Uh, they're putting nudity and orgies and things like that in a lot of early silent films. And that caused the Hays Code. Again, if I remember, I don't know if that, I think that's what it was.

The code that came in that got very strict, you know, so you've heard them talk about how on a television program, it was a married couple, they would have twin beds, they're not going to be in a double bed, and they had things like one character had to have, if they're sitting on the bed, one character's got to have one foot on the floor, that type of thing. You know, they had rules like that that were very specific, and that was a reaction to what had happened to Hollywood in the 1920s. Because when you bring in people who basically have a theatrical background, other things like that, that's really kind of the culture that's going to be there. So you take somebody who is flamboyant exhibitionists,

because that's what the actors typically are, and then you mix in large heaps of money and a lot of fame, these people go off the rails. I mean, it's just human nature. Very few people can handle that. And it just destroys them as we see over and over again. Look at all the different stars who've, you know, their personal lives are messed. They're addicted to drugs and all the rest of this stuff. I mean, we look at them and we elevate them and yet we should pity them. They have horrible lives. They really do., we look at them and we elevate them and yet, uh, we should pity them. They have horrible lives. They really do. And you look at this documentary and say, oh, that's awful. I mean,

I would not exchange places with any of these people. And if you're thinking about it, neither would you really understand what's going on with them. And, um, so, um, that type of thing has always been there and, and it went underground because of the Hays Code, and people didn't see the dark underbelly of Hollywood. And yet it was getting worse and worse all the time. I think it's not properly understood if you don't understand the spiritual dimension of it. And I think Hollywood has been one of the most effective evangelizing and proselytizing tools for Satan that has ever been invented.

And it really has become dark and very, very powerful. And yet, there is, you know, we're not called to run away from darkness, but to confront it. And, you know, we've had some spectacular successes from some very Christian films, uh, where the people have gotten the, um, the, the technical capability up. I mean, that was, there were the first Christian films were laughable in terms of how poor they were. And, uh, as the, um, the story telling capabilities and the videography and other things like that, the acting have improved and now there's a lot of actors out there who are desperate to not be a part of that culture so

there is an opportunity as i said you know that hollywood in general has gotten so much darker but there now is a glimmer of light that is it's, it's a good thing to try to support, uh, some of the people who are doing the right thing. And, uh, there are films out there now, as I mentioned, I haven't seen it, but, uh, life mark with Kirk Cameron, that's gotten very good reviews. Uh, it's about, um, uh, it's about a young guy who was adopted and things that are happening with his, um, and things that are happening with his... The common man. They created Common Core to dumb down our children. They created Common Past to track and control us. Their Commons Project to make sure the commoners own nothing.

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

Please share the information and links you'll find at thedavidknightshow.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. thedavidknightshow.com All right. all right and joining us now is guy ralphard with the law offices of guy ralphard in carmel indiana and uh he also has a local radio show there and uh one of his most recent shows he was talking about the uh the new moves by and this is actually being driven out of New York, I believe, Guy, where

they have demanded these codes so that they can see what people are buying, that they're buying from gun shops and essentially track any kind of ammunition or gun purchases. But this is part of a bigger agenda to try to identify anything that they want to control. And of course, controlling speech and controlling guns is right there at the top of this. So joining us now is Guy Relford. Thank you so much for joining us. It's my pleasure, David. It's a pleasure to be here.

Well, thank you. Yeah, let's talk a little bit about that. What have you seen in terms of these kind of financial controls? Because that's one aspect of it, and it was the first one that was done back under the Obama administration. They started talking about Operation Chokepoint, where they're going to shut down the ability to access things financially. I've been shut down from PayPal because I talk about the vaccines, and I talk about other things they don't like me to talk about, like gun freedom. So, you know, this kind of financial control is now spreading and metastasizing in a very real way.

Isn't it? Well, it really is. And as you mentioned, uh, operation choke point was a very, uh, defined, very deliberate effort to go after the second amendment by attacking second amendment related businesses. And the whole idea is if we can put the gun industry out of business we can put all the gun stores out of business um then we can essentially uh do what we haven't been able to do in the legislatures um which is to eradicate second amendment rights in

america i mean that's what they're clearly attempting to do and and they don't apologize for that and they're very specific about it but it's really started with going to financial institutions as you mentioned david um and saying you know you just shouldn't do business uh with any business that's associated with with selling guns or even get this i'm also in addition to being an attorney i'm a certified firearms instructor and i own a firearms training business i wrote gun safety for dummies several years ago i've had credit card companies and financial institutions say they will not process payments for my students to come take gun safety classes. Consider that.

People who just want to be safe and responsible and law-abiding citizens. I teach a class on gun laws so that people can stay on the right side of the law if they're going to be gun owners. And there are financial institutions out there that will not do business with me, just as you mentioned PayPal, not wanting to do business with you. I was turned down. There was a credit card processing company called Square. And they said, oh, no, you teach gun classes. We want nothing to do with your business. I've had fellow instructors. One is a police officer with no criminal history whatsoever. He got a letter in the mail, a certified letter in the mail from his bank enclosing two certified checks saying we've shut down your accounts your business

account your personal account here are certified checks for the balances in each of those two accounts we no longer choose to do business with you and he was completely baffled he thought perhaps his identity had been stolen or something and he he called them and eventually he got to the bottom of it which is the financial institution just chooses not to do business with him as a finance as a firearms instructor so that's where it started but now we've gotten even more specific by going um to the international association that deals with credit card processing and these credit card codes and and they've they've taught them that organization into creating a new credit card code that the credit card company will see anytime anybody uses a credit card for any purchase. This could be to buy a t-shirt, a box of ammo, whatever it might be, a training class.

But if they use that credit card or debit card in a gun store, that credit card company is now notified. And you have to wonder, what is the purpose of that? And I've got some definite theories on that. Well, I do too. And I think that's why when you look at the Second Amendment and you look at the First Amendment, those are the canaries in the coal mine. And we know that what they want to do is control everything that we do. They want to use the financial system as a way to track everything that we do with the central bank digital currencies to give us all a de facto global ID, but to also prohibit what kind of food we eat and

how much we travel and what our lifestyle is. It's going to extend out to all these things. Right now, they're focusing just on free speech and on the Second Amendment. And that's one of the reasons why I talk so much about the Second Amendment is because these two areas are perceived by them to be a threat to their power, the First Amendment and the Second Amendment. And so they focus on them first and foremost, and they try to get everybody scared of these things, saying speech is dangerous and firearms are dangerous and all the rest of this stuff, so they can justify coming after them. But once they come after them, they're going to go for everything else, and they've already made it clear. They're moving their agenda so quickly that it makes it easier for us.

We don't have to – there isn't a question that we are theorizing about a conspiracy. The conspiracy is in plain sight, and we know exactly where they've laid out their roadmap and publicly talked about it. So we know exactly where this is headed, don't we? You're exactly right. They're not subtle about it. You know, as my grandfather used to say, it doesn't take a gypsy to read those tea leaves. And, and we, we, you know, we see what's going on, you know, on this credit card coding business, a lot of people have come out and they said, well, this is a backdoor way of creating a new database or registry of gun owners. So they're going to put you into this database and track your purchases.

I think that could very well be an intent of the system. But the breakdown on that is that the credit card company isn't told what you bought. They've just told an amount and that you used your credit card at a gun store. And so a database of guns doesn't really come out of this. They said, well, we need to track suspicious purchases. 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 what's a suspicious purchase if i go in and buy a new, very nice, expensive rifle, and I spend $3,000 on my rifle at a gun store, great. The credit card company's told I spent $3,000 at a particular gun store, but they don't know whether that's $3,000 of $20 boxes of ammo or $3,000 in t-shirts or $3,000 of what. So the justification for it in terms of tracking suspicious purchases so as to cut down on mass shootings, that's an ostensible reason behind this, makes no sense because how do

you identify what's suspicious when all you see is a dollar amount and the fact that it was made at a gun store? I really think, David, that's why I think you were wise to mention Operation Chokepoint at the very beginning of this discussion, I think it goes right back to trying to put gun-related businesses out of business. Because at the end of the day, if that credit card company sees, oh, look, here's a purchase from a gun store, what do they have the option of doing? Decline. That's right. Just decline. Yeah. They want to end private ownership of guns, just like they want to end private ownership of

cars. But right now, they're saying, well, the guns are just like they want to end private ownership of cars. But, you know, right now they're saying, well, the guns are dangerous. We've got to get rid of them because of blah, blah, you know, whatever reason. But once that what they're doing is they're also setting up this this control mechanism. And if they can come in and say, well, we saw that somebody was they want to be able to control what you buy, how much of it you buy, who you buy it from, and that type of thing. So if they can set up this control mechanism and say, yeah, but we're just doing this because guns are dangerous, then as soon as they've got that up and working, one day you're going to wake up and find out that they're tracking the meat that you buy.

And that is going to be extendable to every aspect of your life, and they're already talking about how they want to do that. So when we look at this, there is definitely a prohibition for guns aspect to it, and definitely a prohibition of speech, but it is so much broader than that, isn't it? And it really comes back to how they're using corporations to do things that they are prohibited from doing by the First Amendment, by the Second Amendment. They're using corporations to censor people. They're using corporations to destroy businesses. Talk a little bit about that and where you see that line drawn.

Because, you know, that's something that's kind of controversial, even amongst people who are supporters of freedom. Where do you see that line being drawn between what corporations are allowed to do on behalf of government, even if they don't make that connection there? Well, it's really, I think, an interesting plan on their part, and it puts conservatives, and in particular people like me who are hands-off conservatives, who I don't want the government in regulating private industry. I want the government to leave private industry the hell alone. However, when private industry

starts operating as a branch of the government, where you have the credit card industry decide that it's now associated itself with a government push to eradicate Second Amendment rights, that suddenly puts me as a conservative in a very tough spot, doesn't it? Because I want to say, wait a minute, the credit card company shouldn't be allowed to have these policies that jeopardize my constitutional freedoms at the same time. They're private organizations. So it puts me in a catch 22. Am I now going to advocate for the government to go in and restrict what these credit card companies can and cannot do? Am I going to push for government control of private industries?

That's not in my DNA. So I think it's nefarious, but to some degree, you have to give credit where credit is due. It's somewhat intelligent because it puts hands-off conservatives like me in a very tough spot because they'll say, gosh, they're a private. It's like Twitter's a private entity. They can sanction anyone. They can censor anyone they want to. Facebook's a private entity.

But then it puts us in this position of starting to say, well, when private entities are no longer being used as a private entity, but as a branch of an overreaching government, then constitutional freedoms then apply to that situation because they are by extension operating as the government in order to eradicate constitutional rights. But that's an argument you don't see out there very often. And that's something we're going to have to come to grips with because the more big industry and big tech aligns itself with those who would eradicate our constitutional freedoms, the less I think they should be treated like private companies and private organizations

and more like an extension of an overreaching government. I agree. We saw this with the censorship by, you know, the internet companies and social media companies and everybody saying, well, they can do whatever they want. And at the same time, you had Jack Dorsey and multiple hearings before Congress saying we are the digital public square. And, you know, we've had situations where we've said you're not going going to exclude somebody, even as a private company, you're not going to exclude somebody. You're not going to kick black people out of the restaurant. You're not going to put them in the back of the bus, refuse service to somebody like that. Uh, and so we said, there's certain things that you can't do

because you are in the public arena and because, uh, you know, you really don't have, and this is where I think, uh, the line is drawn. I'd like to know what you think about this have, and this is where I think the line is drawn. I'd like to know what you think about this guy. I've talked about it from the standpoint that human institutions, especially corporations that are created by, you know, given government privileges, they have privileges and they're created by humans. They're created by institutions. And so they don't have rights like human beings do. Human beings are given rights by our creator, as the Declaration of Independence says. So that's something that's different. These other people who are in business, you know, when you open up a business, you get

what? A privilege license. The government has given you a privilege to operate that, whether you're operating it as a corporation or you're operating it as an individual, they recognize that they are authorizing you to do something. That comes with some requirements in the same way that when we did federal deposit insurance, it came with requirements that they couldn't engage in speculative activity. So if they've got this business privilege license, then there are certain restrictions about what they can't do to actual people. I think that's one of the ways that we need to understand that. But look at the way that this is spread.

First, it was Operation Chokepoint. That went away. Then they went after speech and said, well, Twitter is just like a person. And so they get to decide who they shut out of the public square. Then it moves back to guns. And then down the road very soon and coming at us very quickly is ESG where they say, well, we don't, you know, corporations don't really even have to, uh, provide value to their stockholders anymore.

They just need to do what the government says to do, you know, ESG environmental and social goals of the government, you know, which is where they're headed. So I think there has to be some kind of a, we have to pull back, I think, as conservatives and people who support liberty and free market. We have to also understand the distinction between these people who are acting as agents of the government and these corporations that are not the same as human beings, are they? What do you think? Yeah, it really, I think, is a fascinating discussion because, like I said, it puts people who are normally hands-off, and as I do, I mean, my foundational position, David,

is that more government control of anything is always bad and less government control of anything is always good. And that's just where I start, right? And so whenever I hear myself advocating for more government control of anything is always good. And that's where I start. Right. Right. And so whenever I hear myself advocating for more government control of anything, you know, that that immediately sets off little triggers. I think I think I think the preference ought to be and where the fight ought to be first is always in the marketplace and let let let let capitalism let

market demand, let the consumer dissuade these people from having, these people meaning these corporations, big tech, big companies generally, from having policies that we as consumers disapprove of. If Twitter lost half their followers overnight because we just said, we don't choose to engage in this because of the censorship anymore. If people stop using Bank of America or Citibank or whatever the other uh and i'm not naming them individually but so much just by way of example if we stop using particular credit cards if i cancel all my credit cards from those companies that i see engaged in the businesses um in the in the practices espoused by operation chokepoint and 50 million other

people do exactly the same thing can't we influence those policies so i think a first priority ought to go to the marketplace and go to the consumer and say you are going to make less money and to a dramatic extent if you engage in these practices if that fails because people just aren't willing to give up their credit card or people just aren't willing to give up you know going on twitter and, as, as much as I despise the practices of Facebook, I still have a Facebook account. So I'm guilty, uh, in that respect myself, if we, if we're not successful there, I think we need to get creative and go, you know, and look at some of the options you're talking about, but man, it's tough for me to get off my foundational position of more government

control of anything is always bad. That's a, that's a, that's a tough, um's a tough issue for me to get past. I agree. Yeah. It's not necessarily telling them what they can do, but it's telling them what they can't do. And as the way I look at it is you've got, we don't really have a free market anymore. The government has allowed these corporations to establish, if not a monopoly, an oligarchy. You know, if you look at the social media companies, if you look at the banks, we have a few banks that are too big to fail. All these banks are getting together to push this ESG stuff.

And we've seen in the last couple of years, we've seen corporations come out in open defiance and contempt and hatred of their customer base, you know, pushing some of this CRT stuff to a customer base. Look at what NASCAR has done, what Coca-Cola has done. You look at this and say, what are they doing? That doesn't make any sense from a business standpoint, unless you look at it and say, well, I think we've moved beyond the point where it's a free market and they have to care about what the consumers want.

They're only pleased with one customer. They've got one customer, and that's government. And if they get the government happy with what they're doing, then they're going to be fine. But, you know, they can get to the point where they have such contempt for the consumers because it isn't really a market situation anymore. So I think, you know, it is important for us to get back to the foundations of, you know, what our country is really about with the Declaration of dependence. And, and we need to go back and start to, I think maybe, uh, clarify what we understand by, uh,

rights and privileges and, and other things like that. I've got a comment here from a listener in Australia. Thank you for the tip harps. Uh, he says, uh, don't let them start a firearms registry.

Uh, too many times here in Australia, the info gets leaked and farmers and other firearm owners, houses get robbed. And that's the key thing that everybody should be concerned about because anytime somebody is collecting any kind of information, there's a lot of different ways that that information can be gleaned and mined and cross-referenced, isn't it, Guy? You know, that's-

No doubt. No doubt. One point on our discussion on looking into this discrimination against lawful firearms-related or Second Amendment-related businesses is I would have advocated strongly for a bill that we've introduced in Indiana two years in a row now. We haven't gotten it out of committee yet, but we're not giving up. And that is when talking about big tech or big companies just discriminating as they do against lawful Second Amendment-related related businesses i think the government can provide a series of carrots or sticks and by that i mean by way of example the the bill we offered said if you're a financial institution and you discriminate against a firearms related industry whether it's a firearm instructor or a gun shop or whoever it is that's fine You can have whatever practices you want.

However, you are now off the list of companies that are eligible to do business with the state of Indiana. In other words, you want your credit card to be used when people renew their license plates at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles or whatever governmental entity might be involved, then don't engage in these practices. But we're not telling you what to do. You have whatever practices you'd like, but we will not do business with you as the Indiana state government. I love that concept because that's allowing them to have whatever policies they'd like, but it provides a big stick as opposed to a carrot. And let's let free market

in that aspect with the state of Indiana being a big consumer of these same services from these same companies influence them in that way. And I think we can look at carrots and sticks and having a real influence. And that's why I helped develop that bill and fought very hard for it in the legislature this year. And I think we're having a real shot at getting it done this year. That's good. I think that's a good approach. And in a sense, you could even look at it, you know, it's not only just a carrot and a stick, but you could look at it as, hey, we're going to remove some of your privileges. You know, you've got access to this database here. Well, you know, that's a privilege that we're going to grant you. But, you know, if you're going to engage in that kind of behavior, we're not going to do it. of action directly by the ATF. Even people inside the ATF have talked about how the Biden administration is pulling people's federal firearm licenses over

minor paperwork issues that in the past would just be a fine. So we know that this is an agenda. Talk a little bit about that and what do you see there happening in Indiana? Have you seen this happening there? Oh, absolutely. See, the nature of my practice, my law practice is only Second Amendment related that's all i do um and so when things like that start happening my phone rings a lot and let me tell you on that exact issue david it's been ringing a lot because i'll give you a good example a gun store here locally i'm in a suburb of indianapolis my radio shows out of indianapolis but i got a call from... 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. 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 A gentleman who's having issues with the ATF on renewing his license and his local ATF guy. ATF, think of ATF as kind of being divided into two big groups when it comes to gun stores. One is industry operations.

They go in and they help them with their paperwork and they make sure their inventories are straight. And, you know, and just what it sounds like, they're helping the gun store stay on the right side of the law. And then there are the door kickers, right? They're the guys who carry guns and they're the guys who show up with an armored vest and kick doors in and do the things that ATF does. In terms of the industry operations, folks, and this gun store, this client of mine has had the same guy that they've worked with since they opened. So for years, he's been doing it for 25 years for ATF. He came in and he said, let me tell you why I don't think I can do this any longer. He said, under the Biden administration, he said, my job has changed.

My job historically was always to come in and help you with your paperwork, help you make sure your records are straight, help you make sure you're submitting everything you need to submit timely, helping you maintain your records in a searchable database as you're required to do or searchable form. He said, my job was to keep you on the right side of the law to keep you in business. He goes, since Biden's been in office, from my superiors, my job description has fundamentally changed. My job now is to find an excuse to put you out of business. Any excuse. A different gun store, something I was working on this morning before having the privilege of coming on your show,

an ATF found the fact that the owner of a gun store had an arrest that did not even result in a conviction. It was an arrest from 1982. I kid you not, 40 years ago for shoplifting. Shoplifting as a misdemeanor from 40 years, literally 40 years ago. They came and they said, we will not renew your firearms license because we see this case was dismissed by something we call judgment withheld. That was a teenager. A lot of times I'll just put judgment, meaning they let you off. Essentially, the case is over for all intents and purposes.

They said, well, since it's judgment withheld, that's still an open case. They could amend the charges to be a felony, which means you wouldn't be eligible to have a gun store. So we're not going to renew your license from a 40 year old shoplifting charge. They're going to put this guy out of business. Well, he called me and let me just tell you, they are not going to put him out of business. I'm going to hang some scalps before that's over because this is absolutely

ridiculous, but it's a perfect example of how the ATF now is their job is to put you out of business. So if we can use a radicalized government agency like ATF and then get the financial institutions on top, all gang up on a given industry, including disallowing them from even using credit cards, I think that's the ultimate objective of this new coding system. They'll just start denying it charges. And now that we're going to so-called cashless society, right?

What's the likelihood of staying in business if you can't take credit cards at your business? It's designed to pull them out of business. And if you and I can't go buy a gun somewhere, that's a great way to eradicate the Second Amendment. You know, it's kind of interesting as we see this happening, this ought to be a wake-up call to all of us to start thinking more about how we're going to operate in a parallel society. Because, I mean, the ultimate approach that they want is to control everything that we buy.

And when we can buy it, how much we can buy it, who we can buy it from, that type of thing. We know that is their plan. And so if we can't stop them with elected people, because we've got a lot of elected people who don't seem to be aware or care, or maybe they're on board with that. I don't really see a whole lot of awareness or talk about that on the Republican side about how are we going to stop this CBDC stuff? I mean, that is a full on agenda from Biden.

He's got every branch of government operating on that. So that's coming, but right now, you know, it's affecting just the gun stores and stuff. And so, you know, we need to start thinking about how we're going to start operating outside of the system somehow, you know, operating simply on cash or something. Or, you know, if they take away the cash, you know, how we operate with gold and silver or something like that. It is kind of, as I've seen them lock down the schools, that's been something that has been a boon to homeschooling,

people getting a chance to see what the schools are really about and kind of moving them into another. So we could look at this as kind of an educational opportunity. We hope that we don't have to do that. But I've got a comment here from Greg. He says, I've got a friend that has a pawn shop and a gun shop for 25 years. Recently, they shut it down. The feds are scrutinizing every little aspect of the deal, trying to find some kind of a mistake, some kind of an infraction.

Then the financial stuff started. PayPal shutdowns. Credit card stuff. He finally just said, the heck with it. That's exactly what they're trying to do. They're trying to pressure people out. But it's not going to stop at the guns. Right now it's at the guns.

And they do want to ban firearms, but they want to ban everything in our life. So they have absolute total control. Have you seen, go ahead. I'm sorry. I was just going to agree with you and say that, uh, but it's not something I've been saying for years and years and years on my radio show. And otherwise is that gun control is not even about guns. It's about control.

Yes, that's right. That's why they're, they're, they're exercising it right now. They say it's all about the guns, but no, it's about people control. When we're talking about what they're doing with the gun stores, there's also something else that we've been seeing happening. And that is in-person visits to people who have had multiple purchases. And I've played this several times where you get a knock on the door and it's like, you just recently bought four firearms. Show me your firearms. Have you had any clients that have had a situation like that?

Yes. And there's a very simple response, which is show me your warrant. No warrant. Get off my property. Come back with a warrant. That's right. And because there's absolutely nothing about buying more than one gun at one time that gives any authority probable cause either for a search or for an arrest um so there's you know it's gonna be hard pressed to find a judge to sign

off on a warrant simply based on uh a multiple firearm purchase so it's you have a warrant no get out and get the hell off my property end of story because you know the more the more people say well i don't have anything to hide and well you know, I lawfully bought these guns and I still have both of them. And so why shouldn't I cooperate? It's because they're asking you to relinquish your constitutional freedoms. Here, we're talking about the Fourth Amendment. You know, that is an unreasonable search and seizure. That's exactly what the founders did not want happening.

They did not want, you know, that government agent showing up and knocking on your door saying, you need to justify to me your decision to exercise a constitutionally protected freedom. That's not okay. And we shouldn't concede that and we shouldn't give up that fight. And yes, I've seen that happen. And the other thing that is going to exacerbate that dramatically, David, and the FBI is doing this under the auspices of this new so-called Safer Communities Act that was just passed that is gun control. There's no question about it. But it expanded background checks for juveniles. And we're going to now look at juvenile records to see, well, if they have a violent crime

when they were a juvenile, some violent crimes can now cause you to not be able to buy a gun as an adult. So we're going to look at some increased juvenile records. And they've looked at that and they said, well, we've expanded background checks. So what we now need, even though there's no real connection, it's just an excuse, is they're now telling gun stores that if the gun store gets either a delay or a deny on a gun purchase, in other words, let's back up. The way that system works, I go in to buy a gun then

i fill out what's called a 4473 form that's got my identifying information it also has the information on the gun itself that i'm buying all the gun store then sends to the fbi so that there's a background check under what we call the national instant criminal background check system they just send my identifying information my name my social security number if i gave it to them my date of birth that where i was born that type thing they use my identifying information, my name, my social security number if I gave it to them, my date of birth, where I was born, that type of thing. They use my identifying information to do my background check. Now, what the FBI is telling gun stores is, well, we'll back up one more time. In response to that background check, the gun store receives one of three responses.

Proceed, which means sell them the gun. Delay, which means there's something here we need to take a longer look at. So don't give them the gun now. We'll tell you sometime within the next few days whether you can give them the gun. Or deny, which is this guy can't buy a gun. If a person now gets either a delay, which could mean simply that they're busy at the FBI, I mean, and that you'll go try to buy a gun on black Friday. You'll probably get delayed. So, I mean, it's a volume can cause delays,

but anytime anybody gets a delay or a deny, the gun store is being told they have to, at that point, send the FBI, the person's street address, their home street address so that the FBI knows exactly where that person lives. And why do you suppose they want that information?

Yeah, that's right. Yeah. My son, every time he goes to buy a gun, he gets a delay. He says, that's kind of suspicious about that. I mean, it could be that he, the time of year that he's buying, as you pointed out, but again, there, there's nothing, uh, nothing criminal about that. Uh, and, and, you know, when you were talking about the appropriate response to somebody being at the door, I remember the very first one of these that I saw, uh,

the guy was very, you know, he, he had it all recorded on a, uh, a door camera, you know, that was there.

And, and when he, uh, put it back up, he says, I got really angry with myself that I complied, but he said, the reason I did it was because,

you know, there's three guys there in uniform. It's kind of intimidating. All the neighbors are looking out like what's going on here. This guy's getting, you know, rated by the police or whatever. And he just, you know, I've got nothing to hide type of attitude and the intimidation that was involved in all of that. And he got really angry with himself that he did comply because as you pointed out, that is allowing them to do searches without warrants and other things. And it's a very dangerous precedent that's being set there.

But I've seen that type of thing, Guy, when I've reported people who have been wrongfully accused of something with CPS. And one of the things that the advocates for parents will say is like, I know that when they come to you and there's an accusation you want to show that look i've done nothing at all i'm completely innocent but uh that frequently becomes something that they use to attack you and uh so you know the appropriate response they're coming to your door whether it's like show me your guns or show me your kids or whatever it's like get a warrant i'll call my lawyer and before before we talk, people shy away from that because they think, well, that's, that's like, it looks like I've got something to hide.

No, we have to keep these people, um, obedient to the law because the worst kind of criminal is a government criminal. When the government is acting criminal, acting outside the law, that is the most dangerous kind of criminal, isn't it? It is. And listen, I say often, and I couldn't agree with you more on this point what i've said to people often is what we need to get our heads around is that innocent people have constitutional rights to do and and this whole idea well i have nothing to hide um so i'll just you know roll over on any government request to search my vehicle search my home you know demand by atf to show guns. No, as an innocent person, I also have constitutional

freedoms. And our founders of this great country wanted us as innocent people to be as protected as people who did have something kind. In fact, perhaps even more, where probable cause a crime has occurred is an exception, right, to prohibition against a search or a seizure. So the idea that I don't have anything to hide, so I should willingly give up my constitutional freedoms, that's as repugnant to me as it could possibly be because the founders wanted me to have the same freedoms and wanted me as an innocent person with nothing to hide, be able to stand on the constitution and tell the government to go pound sand. And government, I'll even I'll give you

some inside baseball here there's something that law enforcement I've seen this in traffic stops over and over I've seen it on personal visits when they come to someone's home law enforcement officers and and I've seen this in some of the videos of ATF showing up at people's houses after either a denial or a delay now or with a multiple gun purchase, but they'll show up and they'll use the phrase, David, I'm going to need to, they'll say, I'm going to need to search your vehicle. And it sounds like, well, you've, they've got a right to search my vehicle. So they're just telling me they're about to search my vehicle. And then what do I say? I'm going to need to search your vehicle.

So I'm going to need to see those two guns. That sounds like he has the authority to demand that. So I then say, okay, or, you know, a traffic stop, you know, I'm going to need to serve. You know, I see a guy that your license plate says to a attorney, which it does. Right. So he says, well, that gives me a reason to believe there's a gun in your car. So I'm going to need to search your vehicle to find that gun. Okay.

I'm going to need to, if I say, oh, well, you're going to need to. So you're not asking my permission. You if i say oh well you're gonna need to so you're not asking my permission you're just telling me what you're gonna do anyway and i say okay he gets me out of the vehicle he searches my vehicle his police report will be written exactly like this that consent to search the vehicle was requested from this from the individual the individual then gave permission and for the you you know, gave consent to the search. You can always consent to any violation of your constitutional rights. If as soon as I say, okay, to I'm gonna need to,

they will write it as I gave consent. That's a very important point. And I've had that be pulled. And I speak to law enforcement officers a lot on constitutional rights. And I'll say, I know what you guys do. You use that phrase essentially to trick people into giving consent when they're not really giving consent. They're just acknowledging something that you've said. And they all smile and wink and look at each other like that's exactly

what we do. And I don't think law enforcement officers are necessarily out there trying to frame innocent people necessarily, but I think an awful lot want to stretch what they're allowed to do under the constitution as far as they possibly can. Maybe they justify that saying, well, they're trying to catch bad guys, but guess what? In the meantime, if you're violating my constitutional rights, that's not okay. So I'm going to need to, should they always be responded to as, if you're asking me for consent, sir, I do not give that consent. That's right. But first I'm going to need to see your search warrant. That's a better response. I wish I'd said that.

That's exactly right. Yeah, I remember years ago, a really egregious case in New Jersey. A guy was moving, and he had a concealed carry license and all this other kind of stuff. He was moving from one state to another state. He stopped in New Jersey to visit relatives. He was late. They were concerned about him. So they called the police. The police pulled him over. They saw him and pulled him over. And then

they said, I'm going to need to search your car. And he had in his trunk buried under clothes and all kinds of stuff that he was carrying locked in the trunk. They found a gun and they came after him. They wound up putting him in jail, you know, because New Jersey rules and things. So yeah, you don't need to show them anything. They need a search warrant. That's, that's exactly. Yeah. New Jersey.

I might, the story I always tell from New Jersey is absolutely true is a person was flying from Minnesota to Pennsylvania and they had legally declared a firearm in their check bag because they could legally carry in Minnesota and they could legally carry at their destination in where they were flying to in Pennsylvania. And so they declared their gun, which is all according to TSA regulations and whatnot. But because of weather, they got diverted to Newark. And so he had to land in Newark. It was the last flight in. There were no more flights going out.

So they said, we're going to put you up at the airport hotel. Since we're putting you up at the hotel, we're going to give you your luggage back. So you've got your toiletries and a change of clothes and whatnot. Guy spends the night in the airport hotel. It goes back to the ticket counter in New Jersey and says, I need to declare the unloaded firearm in my check bag per TSA regulations. There's a cop standing right there who says, I'm going to need to see your handgun license. Your New Jersey handgun license. He goes, well, I don't have a New Jersey handgun license.

Took him to jail. He goes, I didn't want to come to New Jersey. That was not my intent. Nobody wanted to go to New Jersey. Nobody ever wanted to go there for any reason. The airline brought me to New Jersey. I didn't want to come to New Jersey. And they put him in jail.

That's what we're faced with they put him in jail. Wow. So, I mean, that's what we're faced with in some of these states. Wow. Well, we've got an election coming up. I mean, what is on – is there anything concrete? You know, we've identified a lot of problems. Have you seen GOP politicians identifying these same problems or other things to roll them back? What are your expectations? I mean, we're, we're hoping that, um, uh, that, uh, the, the house is going to turn,

uh, perhaps and shut down some of these things. But of course the dangerous thing is that Biden is still going to be there. And even if you had, um, second amendment supporters, uh, you know, um, you know, we had GOP who really supported the second amendment and they had a majority in both the House and the Senate. We've now established this idea that the president can do gun control by executive order. That was set up by Trump, and now Biden has done that with a brace. You know, Trump did it with a bump stock. Biden did it with a brace.

Now he's done it with, you know, something else and indicates that he plans on continuing to do that. I mean, where are we politically? How do you see this as somebody who focuses on this very closely? I think that all our real advancement on Second Amendment rights, where we actually, you know, we actually move the needle in advance of our rights and in furtherance of our rights that's all going to be done at the local level um at the state level and the local level i you know where indiana this last year became the the 24th state to adopt constitutional

carry and and after we did alabama did so now half our states in the country have constitutional carry so you don't have to go beg the permission from the government to exercise a right you already have which is to bear arms or carry a firearm um to get Congress if we let's say we if Republicans uh take a majority in the Senate and the house as you said you're not going to get anything past a Biden veto for two years unfortunately where I think um there's a huge failing in the National Republican Party is that even if we see, you know, a President DeSantis or Trump again in 2024, I don't think this Congress and Republicans in Congress, the majority of them, or at least enough of them, have a real will to advance our rights because they're so deathly afraid of being criticized for somehow, you know, enabling the next mass shooter, right? They are so afraid of being connected to some act of violence out there, even though that act of violence is solely the responsibility of some lunatic, you know, who wants to go murder people and people simply blame the instrumentality. Our national politicians are

so afraid of that connection that I don't have any real optimism in getting like something like national reciprocity, which just makes sense. If, if my driver's license is recognized in all 50 States, why shouldn't my, my, my carry license? Yeah. The carry license is harder to get than a driver's license for sure. Exactly. In fact, and I got to tell you, the Obergefell decision on gay marriage, however anybody feels about gay marriage, take that issue off the table. The analysis of why every state, not only do states have to marry people of same sex, according to the Supreme Court in that decision, but why every state has to recognize those

licenses of same sex couples under 14th Amendment principles. The court's analysis is directly online. If you took marriage license out of those two paragraphs of the Supreme Court's opinion and put in carry license or license to carry handgun, it reads perfectly under the analysis that they laid out. I would like to litigate that issue and win it, but failing that, there's no reason why my carry license shouldn't be recognized in all 50 states. That just makes sense. We've had bills pass in the House and not get through the Senate in the past or vice versa, depending on majorities. There's no reason that shouldn't happen. It should happen as soon as Republicans have control of the government again. Do I have any faith it will? No, because I think our GOP politicians at the

national level just simply lack courage on the Second Amendment. Oh, I agree. Yeah, yeah. Where is the bill to outlaw SUVs because of the Waukesha, you know, killer gun, you know, running people down at the Christmas parade, right? They didn't do that. They didn't blame that instrument of death. Of course, they do want to outlaw SUVs, but for different reasons. But let's not push that analogy too far because they just might take us up on that.

But, you know, I think you were absolutely right when you said the good stuff is going to come at the local level. And I think that's even true, even when you look at Obergefell, you know, when they, when, um, uh, when you had, uh, Scalia and Thomas, especially Thomas talking about, uh, Roe v. Wade, he said, look, there's certain things that need to be decided at the state level. And even they recognized that the Supreme Court had overstepped its authority in terms of defining that. But, you know, once they defined it, you've got a marriage license here, you've got a marriage license there, you've got a carry license there, carry license there. But I think the real power and what the conservative movement should really be doing is trying to do things at the state level and asserting the 10th Amendment to say we have these these powers and this has not been delegated to the federal government. And so even if Biden does some kind of gun control by executive order, not just vetoing what the Republicans might do in the Congress,

but if he proactively creates some new kind of gun control by an executive order, because Lala Harris promised to do that when she was running for president. She said, I'm going to give them 100 days, and if they don't do what I want, I'm going to do it by executive order, because Trump had done that with bump stocks. And so he'd set the precedent. She was going to carry through with that. The way you stop that is with the 10th Amendment, isn't it? Yeah, it absolutely is.

And I got to tell you, I mean, to get completely on a philosophical soapbox, I think the greatest travesty in the many years of this country has been what the Supreme Court has allowed Congress to do under the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause simply allows Congress to regulate any damn thing it wants to. If there's some remote theoretical, hypothetical connection to interstate commerce, that's never what the founders intended in the Commerce Clause. And what they intended was the meaning and intent of the 10th Amendment, which is exactly as you laid out. It's either expressly, specifically within a constitutional delegation of authority to the federal government, or they don't have that power. I mean, I tell people and they look at me like I'm crazy. I said, do you know that there is no police power delegated to the federal government and the constitution? They look at me and go, how could

that possibly be? I mean, we have more people running around with federal badges and guns than we have United States Marines, right? FBI and ATF and postal inspectors that are armed. I mean, we have more people running around with federal badges and guns than we have United States Marines. Yeah, that's right. FBI and ATF and postal inspectors that are armed. I mean, we have we have we have more people running around with federal badges than we have United States Marines. And there's no federal police power that founders always intended the police power to reside in the states. And we have turned that on its head. And I think that's the greatest travesty. And that combined with the fact that we've allowed through the executive branch, the creation of what is really a fourth branch of government, which is executive agencies. Yes. And we've given them legislative ability. We've given them judicial ability, which means they can interpret not only their own regulations that they pass, but their own delegation of power.

They can. That'd be nice. I wish I could find my own delegation of authority that my wife gives me, right? I know what you said, but I'm going to define that however I want to. And then they can obviously execute, which is their only job is defined by the constitution. So we've given all three constitutional powers, legislative, judicial, and executive to this fourth branch of government. And that's why you have a rogue ATF. That's why you have a rogue IRS. And I'm hopeful. I have some vague hope, a glimmer of hope that this West Virginia v. EPA case that just came down this term under this Supreme Court, and I'm excited about this Supreme Court, it came down and they

said, oh, hold on. There has to be an express delegation of authority by Congress to the administrative agency, to the executive agency. You can't just make it up as you go. That's right. And I read that and I said, oh, let's talk about ATF now because we got to rein those people in too. And that's just, you know, that's what my particular ox being gored. But that gave me a glimmer of hope that this Supreme Court may start reining in on this absolutely unfettered delegation of authority to federal agencies.

Because that just scares, not only as a Second Amendment advocate, but just someone who loves freedom and loves the country. That, I think, is our greatest threat right now. Oh, I absolutely agree. You and I are on the same page. I have talked about that for the longest time, about how they basically become little governments, each of them to themselves. You know, they write the rules, they enforce the rules. They, you have no, because they call it a rule because they call it a civil rule. They say, well, it's not a law because it wasn't passed by your elected representatives. So you don't get any presumption of innocence. You don't get any protection against excessive fines. And we will determine what is there. You know, we've gotten into this situation, Guy, I always talk about. I say we now not only have taxation without representation, but we have regulation without representation. Because that's what these people have done.

The Congress has really abdicated all this stuff. Remember when Nancy Pelosi said we have to pass it so we can find out what's in it? And everybody said, is she crazy? What's the matter with her? No, that's the way the government works. They pass these broad guidelines and then they turn it over to the bureaucracy and the bureaucracy fills in all the devilish details. That's the way the thing, she was actually being honest with people for once.

Totally. And by the way, then the elected official has no accountability because when we don't like what the IRS does to us or the ATF does to us, if we don't like that, we go and we say, we don't like it. The government official says, well, that's the FBI or that's the ATF, that's the IRS. I didn't do that. Don't vote me out of office. So it's a way to avoid any accountability for what our government is doing to us. And consider the word, you mentioned the Declaration of Independence. And I always go back, not the wording that even though biden can never remember it right but the the

primary you know phrase that people talk about with you know the unalienable rights and endowed by our creator when people people think about that what i think about i think about the governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed from the consent of the government i think about those words all the time david because because when the irs does something that that causes me real you know real harm i mean it takes money out of my pocket could potentially put me in jail right how do i withhold my consent like my elected official i can say well i don't like that vote on that bill or i don't like that bill you introduced or I don't like the fact that you refused to support my billing in that committee hearing that I watched.

So I'm going to withhold my consent from you in the next election. And that's what the founders had in mind. How do I do that with these administrative agencies? How is an administrative agency accountable to the government such that we're either giving or withholding the consent of the government? That's our system of government. And this fourth branch of government through executive agencies has eradicated. People talk about the founders spinning in their graves.

I think this would be the number one thing that would cause them torment. No doubt. Oh, yeah. They put their rules through a comment period. And you can comment if you know about it. And then they can look at it and say, yeah, I don't care. Just pitch it over their shoulder. You know, that's, that's, I guess they're, they're little, uh, uh, ritual to, to pretend that they're somehow, uh, you know, under us, but, but that's a key thing. You know, when you talk about,

uh, the, uh, how many people in, in all these different federal bureaucracies that are armed as the report came out, you know, more than we have armed Marines. And we have all these different armed bureaucracies. And there's not really anything that Congress is doing to keep them under control. For years, you had Rand Paul introducing the REINS Act. He did it on a regular basis when he first became senator. And there would be people in the House that would introduce the same thing. But they could never get anybody to really help them much. I mean, there just really wasn't a consensus for doing anything about it

because they can always come in. And first of all, they, as you point out, they denied that they've gotten any responsibility for it. But if it gets really bad, they can come in and pretend they're going to protect you from this, like some kind of a night on a white horse, right? Uh, oh, I saw how the bureaucracy got after you. Well, we're going to fix that. They should never have let the bureaucracy get that far out of hand.

Exactly. And that's why, again, this EPA v. West Virginia case by this Supreme Court does give me that little glimmer of hope because this is where the EPA was just making up, I think it was clean air. I always get clean air and clear water turned around, but they just made up, I believe it was a clean air regulation within EPA such that they could put people out of business,

companies out of business with this regulation. And they said, well, we're the EPA. That's what we do. And we're going to pass this regulation. We're going to enforce this regulation. And this Supreme court said,

hold on. We can't find an express specific delegation of authority from congress to you to do that that thing right there that's not okay that's inconsistent with the 10th amendment that's inconsistent with the limitation on express delegation of power to uh to the executive branch um and while congress can delegate its legislative authority, and as you and I have been discussing, does far too often, we're going to make them expressly and specifically do that before we let a regulatory agency run wild. And that's music to my ears,

even though I have no direct involvement in EPA regulations as far as my law practice goes. That extends to all walks of life for Americans if we can start reining that in. Oh, as far as my law practice goes, that extends to all walks of life for Americans if we can start reining that in. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. We saw a lot of that during this pandemic stuff and the CDC putting on moratorium on evictions and all that kind of stuff.

Grabbing power, they'll take it whenever they can get it, anywhere they can. It's great talking to you, Guy. And tell people, you've got the Gun Guy podcast, right? Is that anywhere you find podcasts? Where can people find you? Yeah, it's out there. It's on iTunes. It's on Omni.

I think it's about anywhere you find podcasts. What that is is I have a live radio show in Indianapolis, David, on Saturday afternoon. People can listen to live at wibc.com. And then each show we post as a podcast out various places. It's a live radio show, but people can find that podcast on iTunes or Omni or

any of the other platforms. That's great. And is your radio program, is that on the internet so people can join it and make comments online or something like that? Yeah. Good. Yeah, wibc.com. Absolutely. Well, it's great talking to you. Thank you for what you're doing. It is really the tip of the spear in terms of freedom. They're setting up the examples coming through Second Amendment, coming through the First Amendment. So it's very important what you're doing. Thank you so much, Guy.

Gun Guy. Thank you. It's an honor to be here. Thank you. The Gun Guy Show. Thank you very much, Guy. Appreciate that. In the little bit of time that we got left,

I would just want to talk about this particular essay from Dr. James Alexander. He said, there is no coherent conservative doctrine. So arguing about how conservative leadership candidates are is pointless. This is coming out of the UK. And as this guy is talking about the history of conservatism in the UK, he says, well, so what is it? He said, there is a phenomenon which we'll call X, and this X is the resistance of society to taxation and to coercion. So is that what conservatism is? He goes back and he looks at the history of conservatism. He says, you know, what conservatism has come to mean, really, he said in 1826,

you had John Cam, Hobhouse, joked about the existence of His Majesty's opposition standing against His Majesty's government. But people immediately recognized the truth of that system. Government and opposition were no longer the government, the court within, and then the country that was from the outside. It wasn't this juxtaposition. Both of them were within the same system. And furthermore, he said, originally, conservatism was compromised, even corrupt. He said men who had opposed the French Revolution now accepted these things, like the Reform

Act. They'd been convinced not by truth, but by time. And conservatism became a word for the attempt to recognize the political significance of time. I think that's a very important insight. Because I've talked about it for the longest time, the problem with conservatism, and I say it often, I say, well, you know, the Democrats have become the communists of my youth, and the Republicans have become

the Democrats of my youth. We see this continual movement, this ratcheting, if you will. The conservatives will resist what the left has put in until enough time passes, And then they will never go back to the previous state. They try to always conserve the status quo. And so they're convinced not by truth, but by time. And we need to get past that kind of thinking. Well, that's it for the program today. Thank you for joining us.

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

Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find at thedavidknightshow.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. and joining us now is christian gomez he writes for the new american he had a an article i i covered this a few weeks ago um uh i I cover the Constitution of States on a regular basis, but he was talking about, in this update to it, how the John Birch Society is being represented by the Council of States, some of the people who are the Convention of States,

the people who are pushing this Constitutional Convention. I think it's something that we all need to be aware of, and I think that New American, John Birch Society have done a better job than anybody in terms of nailing this. This is something that's been going on for quite some time, but it's a very dangerous idea, I think. So joining us now is Christian Gomez. Thank you for joining us, Christian. Thank you for having me on today, David. Thank you. Let's talk a little bit about kind of the history of the Constitutional Convention. We've had one of them in the past, right? And that's kind of insightful as to what might happen with this one. Does that cause you a little bit of concern as to what we saw with the original Constitutional Convention and these other calls for it? Absolutely. So as we all know from history, there was the first Constitutional Convention,

the Federal Convention of 1787 in Pennsylvania, specifically in Philadelphia, where the convention delegates from 12 of the 13 states met because Rhode Island didn't want to participate. They wanted to keep the Articles of Confederation. But nevertheless, all of the state commissions and the resolution passed by Congress at the time reminded all of the delegates that would be assembled there at that convention that they were going there for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, to make amendments to the Articles of Confederation to improve it. And when they were there, many of the delegates admitted that they didn't have the authority to do more than just make amendments, but they did so, unfortunately. Well, I guess not unfortunately,

it was fortunately, because we got a better document, we got the US Constitution. But they didn't have the proper legal authority going in, in terms of what they were told to do by their sending states and by uh the confederation congress or congress assembled as it used to be called so they created a new constitution and when they ratify that constitution the one we have which is a which is a better document of course they ratified it using article 7 of the u.s constitution article 7 states that uh that's conventions of nine of the states will be sufficient to rat of the U.S. Constitution. Article 7 states that conventions of nine of the states will be sufficient to ratify the U.S. Constitution, but under the Articles of Confederation, which was still the law of the land, so to speak, Article 13 of the Articles

of Confederation specifically stipulated that any alterations had to be made by the Congress assembled and then agreed to by the legislatures, not conventions, by the legislatures of all other than 13 states. And the Constitution was ratified, completely ratified before the ratifications from even North Carolina and Rhode Island. In fact, the first Congress under the Constitution and George Washington's inauguration occurred before Rhode Island had ratified the US Constitution. So learning from history, the fear is if you have a new convention today, whether you call it a convention of states, which I think is an erroneous name, or a constitutional convention or amendments convention, whatever you want to call it. The fear is that the current delegates would hearken to the idea of the sovereign will of the people to say, hey, our Constitution needs more than just amendments to fix it. We have all these problems with the

Electoral College and balanced budget, whatever excuses that they'll use, abortion, whatever issue side they want to take on that, and say, we just need a whole new constitution and produce a new constitution. And rather than using three-fourths of the states to ratify it, as Article 5 stipulates, they'll appeal to, in the name of democracy, perhaps say, oh, let's have a national referendum to ratify the constitution. In fact, most of the world's modern constitutions are ratified through national referendums. And considering the results of the 2020 election, I think many of us would pause at the thought of having a new constitution voted on in a national election. Yeah, you know, and that's the thing. When you look at, as you point out in that history, once they started this convention, they just rewrote all the rules.

They were not going to modify the Articles of Confederation. They were not going to use the process that was required to modify it. They just rewrote everything from the get-go. And so a lot of people will say, well, you know, this is, they mentioned having a constitutional convention to modify the Constitution, but there's no definition really of how this works. Well, I think a pretty good definition of how this is going to work is to look at what was done to create that document by the people who said, oh, you can have a constitutional convention. You don't like the one we just had? So I think maybe that is very insightful that, you know, you're just going to completely reset the table. You know, Christian, earlier in the program, I was playing a long statement that was being made by Joe Biden to John Roberts as part of Roberts' confirmation hearing back in 2005.

And in it, he was lecturing over and over again. You could see the contempt for the Constitution that Joe Biden had. You know, this horrible document. Look at all the wonderful things that we've done, and we did that because we ignored the Constitution. Look at all the horrible things in our history, and those were all there because the Constitution didn't fix it. And so I want you to know, Judge Roberts,

that you're going to be faced with all kinds of things, like implantations of microchips and all the rest of the stuff. And you're going to be ruling on that. And I just want you to know that you're not going to be held prisoner by this written document. You can just make this kind of stuff up. These are the kinds of people that are going to be writing a new constitution in a constitutional convention they don't obey the constitution as it's written and they take pride in the fact that uh in their mind it's a living document so you can only imagine what these people do in a constitutional convention where all the rules are gone right that's absolutely correct

if you look at uh the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, she said that when she made rulings, she didn't even look at the U.S. Constitution. She looked at the constitutions of South Africa or the constitution of the European Union's human rights document instead for rulings. So we have justices on the left, especially, who are already looking at foreign documents to guide them in their principles. And look at Chief Justice Roberts, nominated by Republican George W. Bush, and he was the one who gave us, he was the one who somehow found the constitutionality of same-sex marriage in there. Somehow he found it. I haven't found it, but he did. So these people do have contempt for the US Constitution, and they would be the ones,

or at least a type of people, they perhaps aren't the same old people, because Peter Ginsburg is passed away, of course, but these would be the type of people, that kind of mindset that would go into the convention today. We don't have George Masons and James Madisons and people like John Lansing, these other famous delegates that we know from history. We have people who think that we have a democracy rather than a republic as our form of government. And these would be the people crafting, whether it's new amendments only or a brand new constitution. Either way, it's a scary thought for what would emerge from such a convention. Yeah, you know, you go back, you mentioned Ginsburg saying, yeah, I don't even take a look at the constitution. And you go back and look at Roe v. Wade 50 years

ago, and they began that decision by saying, you know, it really doesn't matter. We could look at all these different things. We could look at other countries' laws, and we could look at their traditions and other cultures' traditions about abortion. But you know, we have to make this decision as the Supreme Court based on what the Constitution says. And then they ignored anything about the Constitution and did exactly what they said. We could look at all these other things. They looked at all those other factors, right? And came up with their decision about Roe v. Wade that was completely divorced from any constitutional considerations except for that nod at the beginning,

but now they don't even bother to do that. And so this Convention of States, this constitutional convention, I like what Phyllis Schlafly called it a con-con because it is a big con job, but it's really coming from conservatives. It's coming from Republicans. Talk about who supports it and the justifications that they're putting out there, Christian. Absolutely. So the biggest proponent right now we see for a convention,

most of the loudest voices are coming from people who claim to be on the right, conservative Republicans, so they claim, right? So people like Mark Meckler from the Convention of States Organization is one of the leading voices. And if you look at the 990 tax documents from that organization, you see that they pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees and speaker's fees

and whatever other fees they're using to label it to various people who've come out to endorse the concept. So surprise, surprise. People like the former U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, for example, even people like Mark Levin, who is a bright proponent of the convention, wrote the book Liberty Amendments, and they've paid him quite a large share of money to support the Convention of States. And if you look at...

Yeah, even writing a book. Talk a little bit about Mark Levin's book. I'm not familiar. I know that he wrote a book to push the idea, but talk a little bit, tell people a little bit about what is in Mark Levin's book. Just very succinctly, well, he's written several books, but very succinctly, the key book is the Liberty Amendments, plural, book that he wrote. It was several years ago, around the time the Convention of States was founded. So around that 2013 mark. Anyway, in the book, Mark Levin outlines a number of

amendments that on the surface may sound pretty conservative. But when you delve deeper into some of those amendments, they actually would expand the power of the federal government. For example, Mark Levin and also many of the people who attended the so-called Convention of States mock simulated convention that they held, they proposed an amendment where the states could override a law from the federal government. Three-fifths of the states can override or nullify a federal law. On the surface, that sounds good until you realize, wait a minute, right now under the present constitution, under Article 6 and the 10th Amendment, one state alone can nullify an action from the federal government and say, no, that's unconstitutional. We're not going to abide

by it. So that raises the threshold even higher. They also propose limitations on the power of the executive branch in terms of executive orders. Well, executive orders are unconstitutional to begin with. So if you limit them, you're accepting that they exist in the first place. There shouldn't be any executive orders to begin with, at least none that have the power of law. Like if the president wants to make an executive order saying everyone from the Department of Energy wear a blue tie on Thursday, okay, whatever, who cares?

But when it comes to using it to enact legislation, like we've seen so many presidents on both sides of the political spectrum do, that's clearly unconstitutional. And the amendments that they propose, perhaps unintentionally, they're sloppily written, perhaps you could say at best, but at the end of the day, they expand the power of the federal government and all you need. Yeah. Well, you know, we're talking about executive orders, Christian. I began my show every day with a countdown from the amount of time that we've had since Trump did that executive order, national state of emergency over COVID.

It's now 915 days ago on a Friday, the 13th, March 2020. And it's interesting that this student loan thing that's just been put out by Biden, if you stop and think about it, what he did was he created a new entitlement program. Everybody's entitled to get this money back if they meet a couple of different criteria that he's put out there. He did it by executive order.

And so he's created an entitlement program by executive order. And Christian, his Department of Education based that on the ongoing COVID national emergency executive order that Trump put in 915 days ago. So they are pyramiding and stacking these things. It's a bipartisan thing. It goes from administration to administration, and it is a horrific thing. But as you point out, it's unconstitutional. They should not be allowed to give themselves this type of power. Yes, I'm glad that you brought up President Trump's executive order making COVID-19 a national emergency. That's an excellent example why we shouldn't have the balanced budget amendment of that. Many conservatives are hawking,

so-called conservatives. I know it sounds like a good idea. Yes, we at the John Birch side of New American admit that Congress is a runaway Congress and they have runaway spending. That is true, but a balanced budget amendment is not the answer because all of the balanced budget amendment proposals that have ever been put out, they all include a provision for in the event of a national emergency, you don't have to abide by this. So essentially, by building in a loophole, you're constitutionalizing a method to never balance the budget. So Thomas Massey has described it this way, that if they had that balanced budget amendment in the Constitution, the Congress, day one, the first vote would be, well, obviously it would be the Speaker, but the second vote would be to declare war on a foreign country or declare something to be a national emergency automatically, so then they wouldn't have to balance the budget.

That would be the very first vote of consequence at the start of any Congress. That's right. Yeah, the emergency doesn't even have to be real. You just declare it. And, you know, we've got three dozen executive orders and national emergencies that are ongoing now since this whole thing started back in 1976. So, yeah, that would be no problem at all to get around it. And that gets to the real issue of all this stuff, Christian,

and that is the fact that these people don't want to follow the law as it is. And they're the last people in the world that I would want to have write the Constitution or rewrite the Constitution. That's the key thing. These people have no integrity, who have no intention of following the Constitution. That's the key thing. These people have no integrity, who have no intention of following the Constitution. Everything that they have done is a device to get around the Constitution, and they openly oppose it, as Biden did 17 years ago in the Roberts confirmation hearing. Absolutely. Then if you look at the folks who are uh it's not just mark meckler who's behind it but uh there's another organization not as well known called let us vote for a bba that wants a

con con uh as well and uh the two co-founders of that are a man named david bidoff and david walker and um david walker particularly he was a member of the Trilateral Commission, which was an organization which believes in one world government. He was also the comptroller for the US and the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. But David Walker is a strong proponent of a balanced budget amendment. He was a former member of the Trilateral Commission. Now, the Trilateral Commission was started back in the 1970s, about 1973, if I recall correctly, when David Rockefeller created it, when he, after he had read the book

by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, which calls for uniting the communist and non-communist world, and as the first step towards achieving that, having a trilateral alliance of the US, Western Europe, and Japan, and that that network has to be solidified, and the first step to do so was the creation of a trilateral alliance of the U.S., Western Europe, and Japan, and that that network has to be solidified, and the first step to do so was the creation of a trilateral commission.

Well, that same book, Between Two Ages, on page 258 of the first edition, which is the hardcover edition, the author, Zbigniew Brzezinski, specifically calls for a national constitutional convention. On page 258, he says a good time would have been either in 1976, because the book was written in 1970, or the 200th anniversary of America's founding, or 1989, the 200th anniversary of the Constitution's ratification. Obviously, those dates came and passed, and we didn't have a new Constitutional Convention then, praise the Lord that we didn't. But however, what was happening just around the

1970s and 80s was the BBA movement, the movement for a constitutional convention for the specific purpose of having a balanced budget amendment under that excuse, that really took off. So while they didn't get the outright convention in 76 and 89, the movement for a balanced budget amendment became the impetus for calling a convention. And even today, Convention of States, that's one of the main amendments that they're peddling is, oh, we need to have a fiscal restraint amendment, balanced budget amendment. That's the number one amendment, along with term limits that they're always pushing.

And we can talk about term limits if you wanted to as to why that would be a bad idea. Yeah, yeah, yeah. When we talk about the balanced budget, I mean, how are you going to balance it? Are you going to cut spending in agencies or are you going to increase taxes? That's the other thing, right? They could use that as an excuse to raise taxes to such a confiscatory level that, you know, Biden's army of 90,000 auditors could take everything that you've got. I mean, you know, this is, uh, uh, that's, these are, are, are fake solutions, uh, to real

problems when the reality is, is that if these people wanted to solve these things, the tools are there just, just like you mentioned about nullification. It only takes one state on a state-by-state basis. These states could these states could nullify anything the government is doing because of the 10th Amendment. They don't have the willpower to do that. I've talked about that and mentioned it again today, Christian, when I was talking about abortion. I said, you know, the appropriate response to Roe v. Wade was to assert the 10th Amendment and to stop it. Texas could have saved lives over the last 50 years, but they didn't do that. And they waited for the Supreme court to tell them that the 10th amendment says

that you can do that. And so they, they play this game partly because they don't have the backbone to take these issues here, but let's talk a little bit about term limits, because that was one of the things, you know, they're starting to talk again about having a, uh, kind of a contract with America. Uh, you've got Kevin McCarthy saying, yeah, we're going to put, uh, I forget what they call it this time, but it's, uh, uh, he wants to come up with a plan that they're going

to offer, you know, vote for Republicans to try to nationalize the election in the way that, uh, new Gingrich did with his 10 point plan, uh, contract for America. And, uh, one of those, uh, things that he had on his contract, which of course, they promptly forgot about was the term limits. As soon as they got elected, they that was the first time they throw off as term limits. So yeah, talk a little bit about term limits because that's, you know, these people that, well, we just can't summon the will to do term limits.

So we're going to have to create something that has power over us that forces us to do a term limit. Talk a little bit about that. Yes, of course. Well, the idea with term limits is that we have all these bad rascals in Congress. So if we just term limit them out, automatically and magically, we'll get these fresh new constitutionalists who will replace them. And that's kind of living in fantasy land. Because look at the example of, let's just take Hillary Clinton, former first lady. She then becomes the senator for the state of New York, right? She runs for president, loses to Barack

Obama, but Obama graciously nominates her as secretary of state. So she resigns as the senator from the state of New York. Now, she was elected in the 2000 election to the U.S. Senate in New York, and she was reelected by the voters of New York in 2006. When she left to become secretary of state, creates a vacancy in her seat, in what was her seat. So Christian Gillibrand becomes the new senator for New York. Now, at the New American, we have something called the Freedom Index, where we rate the constitutional fidelity of members of Congress based on the top 10 votes they cast in the last quarter of the Congress for half of the year, last six months. And you look at the scores that we have for Christian Gillibrand and Hillary Clinton, because you can go back and look at former members of Congress.

Gillibrand's score is virtually the same as Chuck Schumer's score, which is a very dismal lowest score. There's no difference. So even though Hillary Clinton term limited herself by leaving the U.S. Senate, she wasn't replaced by some constitutional conservative Republican or someone who respects the Constitution limited government she was replaced by the same voters got to reaffirm the choice of gillibrand in uh in the subsequent election she's been re-elected again several times uh so if you term limit out an aoc a nancy pelosi at a chuck schumer who replaces them they'll be replaced by a younger version of that same person perhaps even more to the left. And because they're younger, they'll likely be there even longer than would Schumer or someone who was already up there in age who might have left in the next election because they would decide to resign. So now we're building up a new leftist globalist. The real solution is in term limits. That's just a bad bandaid that falls off right away. What we need is to educate the electorate, because without an educated electorate about the issues, they're going to keep

electing bad individuals to represent them. Someone like AOC is elected in her district, because the constituents that she represents, the majority of them at least, do not understand or appreciate the Constitution constitution so they will vote for someone like her because it reflects their lack of understanding of the constitution whereas in a congressional district like one represented by thomas massey let's say his constituents have a better grasp of the constitution and they re-elect someone who represents the values in our constitution that's right yeah the whole fantasy behind that you're pointing out with Hillary Clinton,

uh, the whole fantasy is, is that, well, we got somebody that's bad. Uh, we're going to get them out of government and she doesn't get out of government.

She. It's gone from place to place, you know, uh, she just changes where she is. And, um, uh,

so these people are not necessarily going to leave government, uh, when they're there. And so that's another part of the aspect of that, I think, that is difficult. Where are we right now in this process? Because I've seen some press reports from the people who are supporting it, talking about how they're adding states one by one and getting momentum. And we're seeing more talked about it all the time. Where are they in this process?

There are several different organizations behind different particular worded applications. So the position held by almost everyone in this fight for a CONCON, whether you're for it or against it, is that the application wording has to be the same. So when you look at an organization like Convention of States, they have 19 states that have passed their particular worded application. So they only have 19. But another organization on the left that wants a convention is called Wolfpack,

and they have far less states. I believe maybe three or four states. That's appropriately named, yeah, the Wolfpack, and they have far less dates. I believe maybe three or four dates. That's appropriately named. Yeah, the Wolfpack, yeah. And actually, the Wolfpack organization is very interesting because it's the creator of that organization. The founder is Cenk Uygur, who's the host of the Young Turks program. Oh, yeah.

I call him Stink Uygur, and I him the program The Young Turds, but yeah. So he wants a convention. He got the idea for a convention at an event called the Harvard, well, at the conference on the Constitutional Convention, the Con Con Con at Harvard University, that was co-hosted by Mark Meckler from Tea Party Patriots, who later founded the Convention of States Organization, and also by a liberal Harvard law professor named Lawrence Lessig.

Lawrence Lessig is the advisor to Wolfpack, and is with a convention where everyone on the left and the right can come together, sing Kumbaya, and we can fix the subject of translation, and he argued that the U.S. Constitution as written should be rewritten because it's written in a language that we no longer understand. So in 1993, Lawrence Lessig called for a brand new constitution. He's the lead guy, along with St. Uger, promoting the convention for Wolfpack, and he's really close friends with Mark Meckler. So when Mark Meckler tries to accuse the John Birch Society of being on the side of the left because we oppose the convention that he's peddling, he's actually the one going around with Lawrence Lessig, an avowed leftist who ran for president, by the way, as a Democrat in the 2016 election and failed and also who's a man who attended a builder group meeting lawrence lessick so this is the kind of company that mark meckler

keeps in peddling the idea of a convention and mark meckler you said it was a tea party i don't know i don't remember yeah he started the tea party patriots organization before he left that to start the uh convention of states project in 2013. So that was my problem with the tea party from the very beginning. Uh, taxed enough already. Okay. Well, you know, uh, what, what is your solution? And they didn't have any solution. I mean, there wasn't, it was just, uh, you know, taxes are too high. You know, it was like the guy that, uh, ran in, uh, for an election. I forget what he's running for, uh, in New York. And it's like the rent's too damn high. That's all he would say, you know?

And it's like, okay, so what do you want to do about it? And are you talking about rent controls? Are you talking about getting rid of the government restrictions so people can have a higher supply of places to live? You know, getting rid of some of that that's causing the stuff to be more expensive. The Tea Party never really offered any solution. That's why, you know, you look at the John Birch Society. They said, all right, here's the problem.

Here's the principles. Here's a solution. Tea Party is just like, well, I don't like this, you know, and it never had any intellectual core to it. I knew it wasn't good. That's why I didn't even know who the guy was. I never, it's like, well, what are these people? Well, they just think we're taxed enough already.

Well, it's like, yeah, what are these people? Well, they just think we're taxed enough already. Well, it's like, yeah, everybody thinks that. But it was essentially a non-solution from the very beginning. So there's essentially that group and then the convention of the COS. It's a convention of states, I think is what it is. Yeah, convention of states. So there's the two of them. The convention of states has 19 states that have signed on to theirs. The other one has only four.

Is there any other groups that are pushing for a constitutional convention? There's a group called Let Us Vote for a BBA. That's the one that has David Bidoff and David Walker. And David Walker is the individual who was a former member of a trilateral commission and served in both the Clintoninton and george w bush administrations um so that group is is fighting specifically for uh bba uh and there are some other smaller groups that are around as well but but really the it's the convention of states is the largest organization uh pushing for it on on the right and the largest one the left is one called wolf pack and um and there's also another other groups on the left like the largest one on the left is one called Wolfpack. And there's also other groups on the left like Move to Amend

wants a campaign finance reform amendment. So they said they want it through a convention. And then the very Marxist news magazine called The Nation, back in 2018, they had an issue where they came out in favor of a constitutional convention to have all these changes to the constitution, including abolishing the electoral college campaign, finance reform, codifying abortion and all these leftist wishes and so forth, transporting the US formally into a democracy. And what's funny, in that article in the Nation magazine from 2018, they had a little quote

from Mark Meckler on the corner of the first or second page of the article to push forward the idea that yeah it's time to just change the rules and break down the system completely and just start all over again so uh it's interesting that they would quote mark meckler in a marxist publication yeah i think if uh if the nation were able to have a role in this, I think they wouldn't call it the Constitution. They'd call it a manifesto. So to get to this point, so the real threat seems to be coming from the COS,

because they're the ones who are starting to get, you know, at 19, they have to have, you know, what is the number? 34. So they've still got a ways to go. How does it look in terms of the remaining states, the remaining 15 that they've got to have? Yeah, Mark Meckler, in recent interviews, he's discussed that they are going to target states like Virginia,

which they expect to have both legislatures be Republican, because they typically go after the Republican legislature controlled states. So they're going to focus on states like Virginia, Montana, South Dakota. Of course, they tried it several times in a row to get it passed in places like South Dakota and Montana, and each time have failed to do so, not because the Democrats stopped it, but because conservative constitutional Republicans stood up against it. In the state of South Dakota, when constitutionalists defeated it there in that state, Mark McClure went on the radio, on Mark Levin's program actually, crying like a baby,

discussing how they wouldn't even debate the subject. They wouldn't even debate the bill, which is ironic because in that same state of South Dakota, one of our JBS constitutional educators and experts and former regional field director for the John Birch Society, Robert Brown, who's done so many videos

on this topic for us on the ComCon, he's an expert on the field. He has challenged Mark Meckler to a debate on multiple occasions and Mark Meckler has refused. And there are other friends on our side who have likewise challenged Mark Meckler to a debate, like Sean Meaham of a very good organization that we recommend called Guarding the Constitution. Sean Meaham has challenged Mark Meckler to a debate, and Mark Meckler has refused. So Mark Meckler will sound like this is the right solution. But when it comes to actually debating the individuals who can challenge him on it, he runs away in the other direction.

And right now he's got former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum peddling the convention alongside of him. And when you look at Rick Santorum's voting record, go to thefreedomindex.org or thenewamerican.com. Click on the Freedom Index, type in the name Richard Santorum in there, and you'll see his Freedom Index score was dismal in the 60 percentile area. That's 63, 65, 68 percentile area.

When you look at his votes, this was a guy voting for unbalanced budgets for massive deficit spending. And now he's going around saying, oh, the problem is that, you know, we don't have these amendments in the Constitution. It was the lack of amendments that caused me to be so reckless in the past. Yeah, yeah. Put me in there and we'll get this fixed. Now, of course, you know, the one organization, let's vote for a balanced budget amendment. They're a single issue. But the Council of States or Convention of States, they're not a single issue.

They've got several different issues. What are the other issues that they've got besides a balanced budget amendment? Yeah, so they have a balanced budget amendment also, fiscal restraints. They have the term limits for – it's funny, they don't specifically say term limits on Congress. Well, they do say term limits on Congress, but they also talk about term limits for members of the left could jump on that because and jurisdiction of the federal government. And as Robert Brown has explained in our JBS videos in the past, a limit doesn't necessarily mean that it's lower. You can raise the limitation of the government's power. It doesn't always mean you can lower it.

So Mark Meckler, he'll go around these interviews saying, oh, if they try to increase the scope of the government, well, that'll be thrown out because it's not germane. Well, the question I have to him is who will throw it out? He assumes and he wants his supporters and those watching him to assume that the convention will be controlled by conservative Republicans only, no Democrats will attend. And if Democrats do attend the convention, they're just gonna go along with whatever the Republicans are doing and they'll be absolutely powerless because of the letter of the application says, oh, it has to be germane to only this, as if Meckler's interpretation or supposed interpretation

is the only interpretation that will be there. Look, if there's really a convention, states like California are going to send delegates, states like Michigan, states like Hawaii, New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey, they're not going to send delegates. States like Michigan, states like Hawaii, New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey, they're not going to send constitutional Republicans, even so-called Republicans. Yep. Well, it looks like we had a freeze there. But that was an excellent point he finished up on. I had a couple other questions I wanted to ask him,

but see if you can reestablish contact with him because it looks like we lost that. But that's exactly the point. When he talks about Rick Santorum, big advocate now for the Constitutional Convention, because we have to have a balanced budget, and yet he never voted for it. These people don't support the Constitution when they're there. There is an alternative motive of this, and I think that is a very dangerous thing. And again, I think the reason I wanted to have Christian Gomez on was because New American, I think, has been really spot on and taking this from the center, and the issue is one of education. If you really understand the history of this, if you understand how this can just completely go off the rails and the danger of this, and I'll just say this, just as I said yesterday, a lot of people

say, well, it doesn't matter. We don't have a constitution right now and they're not following it. And of course they don't follow it to nullify laws that are happening out there, but it is important for us. Okay. We do have them back. Okay, good. Let's get, let's go back. We lost you there for a second, Christian. But go ahead and continue where you were. We were talking about the conventions. Go ahead. Yeah, I'm sorry. I don't know what happened with my internet connection

but anyway, what I was saying was that you're going to have a lot of blue states, New York, et cetera, send delegates to such a convention and even the so-called red states that we think are so conservative. If you look at the leadership of a lot of the legislatures of those states,

you have a lot of, you know, rhino establishment people in charge. In a state like Wisconsin, we have, which is where JBS is, our headquarters, Robin Voss is our assembly speaker. And he is a deeply part of the establishment. He's someone who, the day after he won his primary not too long ago,

he shut down all of the investigations into the 2020 election. So these are the kind of people who would be in charge of setting a Republican delegate, assuming the Convention of States is accurate in their assessment that only state legislators will be delegates, because Article 5 doesn't say it will be state legislators, but there's other methods to consider. But nevertheless, the convention isn't going to be controlled by only the most conservative Republicans. Look at how most states reacted to the COVID tyranny.

Most state legislatures did not push against their governors. Most state legislatures did nothing all these years about, you mentioned before, abortion. And how the 10th Amendment and even Article 6 of the Constitution duty bounds them to nullify unconstitutional federal acts for all these years and decades state legislators have sat down and let the federal government uh control the show so would state legislators assuming that they're even the delegates would they even uh restrain the federal government as we're supposed to believe of course not they haven't stood up before they're not going to stand up all of a sudden now that's a good example you when you look at 2020 uh you take, I think, one of the best examples of that I've mentioned to people many times because I want to get people

over this idea, well, it was just the Democrat governors who did it to us. It's like, no, the money was coming from Trump. He kept the money coming, so he agreed with it. But if you look at Idaho, for example, Brad Little, who is the governor there, was given money from the federal government from Trump that was several times the entire budget of the state. And it was to be used at his own personal discretion. And so when the Republican legislature that was not meeting that year, and it's interesting that they chose a year in which a lot of Republican legislatures were not meeting, Several of them, like Idaho and Texas, only meet every other year.

So they were going to come back to stop this emergency order that was there, and he told them they couldn't come back, and so they didn't come back. And then he wrote some legislation for them, which was really very bad, and told them to come back, and they rubber-stamped it. So having a Republican governor, having a Republican legislature didn't do anything for us throughout 2020, just a handful of people. And when you look at the trillions of dollars that were spent, Christian, you only had one congressman who stood up to that at the time, and that was Thomas Massey. And what happened to him? Well, you know, Trump was so furious at him, he wanted to primary him out.

But all the rest of the people just rubber-stamped trillions of dollars to subsidize all these unconstitutional things that are being forced on us in 2020. That's what people need to think about when they think about a constitutional convention. You know, forget about the Democrats. Of course, the Democrats are going to have a big say, as you pointed out. But just take a look even at you Republicans and how you were betrayed in 2020. I think that's one of the key things to remember isn't it yeah when you look at just look at who's supporting the convention look at which republicans are supporting it and which are the republicans opposing it when you look at the republicans supporting it people like rick santorum david walker um uh people like Jim DeMint.

These are people whose voting records are not constitutionalists. When you look at those who oppose this thing, like Thomas Massey, he opposes the Convention of States, Constitutional Convention, to be accurate in the terminology. He opposes it. He's one of the most constitutional-rated members of the U.S. Congress. Also, even former, the late U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater, he warned against calling a constitutional convention in the 70s when states like Arizona, his home state, wanted one for just a balanced budget amendment. He strictly warned that you'd have everyone up,

left and right, up and down, trying to get their two bits in the convention, and that he doubted that whether our republic could even survive coming out of a constitutional convention. That's right. So that's the kind of people who oppose this thing goldwater uh thomas massey the john birch society phyllis shafley eagle forum um and our good friends even at the guard the constitution like sean mian and uh robert brown with the john birch society these are constitutional folks here and we're the ones warning you hey let's not do this if you love the constitution don't open up Pandora's box to allow the left and the rhino establishment uh fiddle with it because it's not going to be good for us at the end I agree I agree I look at

this and and as I've said many times a lot of people say why are you even talking about the constitution because it's gone right uh and but it's there as for? But it's there for two reasons. It's there as a model of what we need to get back to, number one. And number two, because these people have ignored it, they don't have any authority. And that's one of the things that we need to understand, that authority is on the side of the Constitution. They still acknowledge that, and they still swear to uphold that

as a condition of their office. So when they don't uphold it, that gives us the moral high ground, which is very important that we're acting in a moral and legal way. And it is a great model for us to try to get back to. But the danger is that they will take that away. And if they take that away and we no longer have that to even hold up as a mirror to their hypocrisy, as a mirror to their rebellion and their oath breaking, if we don't have that anymore because they completely rewrite it to suit themselves, that is a very dangerous situation indeed. So thank you so much for joining us, Christian, and thank you for what the newamerican.com, where you're writing there,

John Birch Society, you guys have really been on point in terms of defending the Constitution from this very dangerous rewrite. They're doing enough to rewrite it and ignore it as it is, but we don't want to make that an official thing, which is I think what would come out of this. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you so much for having me on. Thank you. The Common man.

They created common core to dumb down our children. They created common past to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future. They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary, but each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find at thedavidknightshow.com.

Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. TheDavidKnightShow.com. We have this evolved society where all are equal, except for the unvaccinated versus the vaccinated. 31-year-old is in desperate need of a heart transplant. Because he has not received his COVID-19 vaccination, he is no longer eligible according to the hospital policy. Hospitals began firing or suspending healthcare workers for defying a state order to get the COVID-19 vaccine. I have not had a vaccination.

I did not want to have a vaccination. October 7th, 2021, I watched as one of the major hospital systems in New York fired 1,400 hospital workers for refusing to get an experimental vaccine. As COVID cases spread and emergency rooms fill up, hospitals have to make some tough choices about who gets seen and who doesn't.

About a year ago, there was a mother who called me up. She was in tears because she could not get her six-year-old daughter into the pediatrician's office because her six-year-old was unvaccinated. These people have been basically discarded like waste for refusing to let someone else mandate what goes into their body. This is insane. Being told what you can or can't do. This is not a left or right issue. This is a very simple ROA society that values the constitution, the bill of rights, the fundamental

concepts that America was built on. The medical industrial complex is broken. The worry, the paranoia, the fear, the expenses, the wait times, government overreach, mandates, lockdowns, tyranny. And it just could not sit with me. And I was like, this will not stand. Let's bring in Adam Hartage, CEO of Remote Health Solutions, a veteran himself. Adam. Mr. Hartage, first of all I want to thank you for your service to our nation. Hospital systems become overburdened. The world is going to look more and more frequently towards telehealth. Medical is one of the pillars of society that must hold. Honest, ethical medical care, access to that care must hold or society does not maintain itself.

We're going to figure out how to hire every single healthcare worker in this country that stood against medical tyranny and were fired as a result of it. We're going to offer a service that allows patients to be seen by those people. Complete remote virtual diagnostic examination of a patient anywhere on the globe. All right, and joining us now is Adam Hartage. He is CEO of Remote Health Solutions. You can find out more information about it at rhsusa.com. It's a great documentary. That's just one small part of it, laying out the problems.

Thank you for joining us, Adam. Great to have you. Absolutely. Thanks for having me on the show. I appreciate it, laying out the problems. Thank you for joining us, Adam. Great to have you. Absolutely. Thanks for having me on the show. I appreciate it, David. You know, we've been looking at the meltdown of our medical system for the last 866 days as we've had these lockdowns and, you know, channeling people into one choice and one choice only.

We've seen people purged out of the medical system, as you addressed in that clip. You're going to hire the people with integrity who have been pushed out of that you want to bring them in with this and we've been looking for solutions and and you started this actually before the lockdown began didn't you uh yes sir we've been in business for about five years but what was really interesting is so we started out as a technology company we've always been in the telemedicine and healthcare space, but we've never really been focused on the direct consumer sort of retail e-commerce business. And it wasn't until last year when they started firing healthcare workers for standing up against medical tyranny. I came into the office and I told everybody that we were going to change everything about the way that we did business. And they said, what does

that mean? And I said, we're going to build Noah about the way that we did business and they said what does that mean i said we're going to build noah's ark for medicine and they said that's great but what does that mean i said i don't know how we're going to do it but we're going to find a way to hire all of the providers that that had the backbone and the integrity to stand up against medical tyranny and what's most interesting about that David is I never understood the biblical term like casting pearls to swine before and and that that term just kept spinning around my head over and over and over because it made so much sense I mean you've got these these doctors these nurse practitioners nurses you know PAs on and on that have been trained and have served for a year a decade 20 years.

I mean, with incredible experience these people have. And I just said, wait, these are the most talented people ever. And you're just going to let us have them? Like we can work with them in our network? I was like, how stupid are you people? That's right. And so now we've got probably about 150 providers in our network. And frankly, I'll tell you that, you know, as a company, as a network, we fear God first.

We support the Constitution second, and they like to provide medicine third. So I think it tends to work well in that order. Absolutely. It was only about a week and a half ago that I talked to a physician who is a listener to this program and he left the hospital as many of them did after decades of working there because he wasn't going to have them dictate how he's going to practice medicine. And we're seeing this over and over again. We're seeing this from people who are physician instructors. And so the question is, and has been, as we start to look at this corruption and we look at how the bean counters have really taken over the institutions and driven out the actual health care providers of people actually know medicine, they're being purged out. the lockdown orders. They're getting bonuses for using the types of COVID ventilators and other medicines that are being prescribed by the government. And they're taking away the doctor

physician relationship. I found this to be very interesting, Adam, because in our personal experience, we kind of use as a general practitioner, a person who was local to us when we were living in Texas. And for most of the ordinary things, we would go to her. And she could pretty much do like 95% of everything that we needed. And then when all this stuff started happening, we started contacting her by phone. If we needed any kind of medical help or the type of thing that you would normally go to a GP for. And then even after we moved out here to Tennessee, we'd still contact

her a couple of times for something that we had, and she was able to give us some help. And she said, yeah, I can't really do that because you're too far away. How does that work in your system with remote health solutions? Sure. And that's a great question. But I'll tell you too, going back to it, you nailed it when you mentioned the money aspect of it. So in all things, we say follow the money. And we know just taking COVID, for example, the hospital system has a financial incentive

for you to have a positive test. They have another financial incentive for you to go get on remdesivir, then to get intubated and thrown in the ICU. And ultimately the biggest financial incentive is when you die. That one's a good six figure payout. Whereas if you look at a company and a business model like we have, our financial incentive is to keep you healthy and well and off of our service. So, for example, we have we offer a direct access primary care unlimited program called Pocket Care. And so if anybody wants to sign up for that, it's ninety nine dollars for an adult, fifty dollars for child per month.

And it provides unlimited access to their medical provider. And that's within our network. And that's just rhsusa.com slash pocket care if they'd like to sign up. And what's really interesting about it is if a patient comes to us in our service and they need to see our doctors maybe six, seven, eight times in a month, that hurts me financially because I don't charge the patient any more money but i still have to compensate the physician for their time so i'm the one that gets hurt in that not the patient that's right and so it's my best it's in my best interest to keep that patient healthy and well and so that's when when we provide advice and guidance it is there is no ulterior motive

because that patient knows if this clown tells me the wrong thing, he's going to go out of business and no new shoes for my kids type thing. So we're very excited about this offering. We think this is it is it is it is the true sort of liberation of medicine. And we basically just took everything that the existing medical industrial complex does and we flipped it on its head. So now we put a patient directly

in front of the doctor very quickly. They don't have to wait six weeks. They don't have to deal with all the inefficiencies. We have doctors all over the US licensed in multiple states. So you can take, we call it pocket care because it's, you know, you take it with you wherever you go. And according to healthcare law in the U S, uh, the physician must be licensed in whatever state the patient is physically located in. That's right. That's why we can't use our physician. That's why we can't use our physician in Texas. You know,

we've always used her for these, these types of GP type of things, but now we can't do that anymore. So, uh, you got people in every one of the states. Right. So at least licensed in every state. So whereas if you were in a network like ours, you could still be seen. And the continuity of care continues. And so, again, you talk about that 90% solution model. That's what we do.

We handle the 90% of things. We handle, you know, it's Sunday afternoon and little Timmy gets sick, you know, and you don't want to go to the ER and spend a thousand dollars just to walk through the door and the solution for that. That's not an exaggeration. Uh, it's even less than that. My wife cut her fingered pretty deeply on a, on a can and needed to have stitches. And it was like $2,000, you know, just to go in and do that kind of a physical thing. So it really is what your care does and the way that we've used our telecare physician in Texas when we were there was kind of to triage things and to have somebody who's a medical professional that you can talk to and you can find out, you know, and most of the types of things that people would typically contact someone for. Skin rash, insect bites, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation. Something immediately happens to you. You can call them up, and that's been our experience.

She can kind of walk you through this and interrogate you with questions and find out what's going on. You may need to go get some in-person care somewhere, but most of the time, that's not really what is happening. Correct. And what we find is most of the time, a patient is really looking for advice and guidance and counsel and then potentially a prescription. Right. So if they need to go to a prescription, we have an e-prescribed system. We have excellent pharmacy discounts. In fact, the best I've ever seen in the industry. At about 35,000 retailers, when you sign

up on our service, you're issued a pharmacy discount card, which you can take to any of the big box stores. If it is something specific to, let's say, COVID, and we do support early and preventive treatment protocols for COVID things such as ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamin D, C, B, all those things. And again, I should also say I'm a businessman. I'm not a doctor. So don't take this as medical advice to anybody in your audience. If you do want medical advice, come see our doctors, sign up for our program. I think it's the best thing since sliced bread, but of course, I'm biased and I'm paid to say that because it's our company. But I mean, I think it really is.

It is great. And it's the thing that our providers love most and that our patients love most is that they are able to be themselves and not be in a system that is trying to force them to subscribe to some kind of treatment that they just don't want it's i've never i never thought in my life i would see anything like this what we witness now but i have i had people calling me constantly with horror stories literally horror stories about losing a relative a lost one that know, they couldn't get in and see the individual. They, they were refused service or taken off a kidney or a heart transplant list because they weren't vaccinated. I mean, all these, these crazy, crazy, crazy things.

So absolutely criminal. At least in the gap. Yes. Absolutely criminal. What we've been seeing happening. And I've been reporting on this for the last 800 some odd days, and it only got crazier once they started pushing the vaccine to the exclusion of all other things i've talked about the lawsuits people trying to get a sick relative to allow the hospital to allow them to have ivermectin sometimes they succeeded and they had really kind of a miraculous turnaround in many cases but in other cases the hospital adamantly refused even to the point of being held in contempt by the judge. And it's like, what is happening here? What happened to the doctor-patient relationship? But I think one of the key things is that anybody, we've all had

situations where something comes up quickly and it might be kind of a minor thing, but it is very, very difficult to try to get anything done at these emergency care centers or these emergency room, but they've got a lot of instant care centers and that type of thing. They typically, they don't know you. And so that is a big part of it. And so that was one of the things that we found so helpful. It's one of the reasons why I wanted to talk to you about this. But this really, as you point out, is a hill to die on. Our healthcare is going to be a hill to die on, literally, in both different ways. But it is something that we have to focus on and we have to oppose. But it's important to see that the people like you that are entrepreneurs

are coming out with alternative systems, something that is going to be a different structure, something that's going to be oriented towards wellness, something where you're going to be able to get consultation and emergency care from people who know you. That's a big change, and I'm glad to see that there are solutions that are being put out there, but it really is a hill to die on. Talk about your background and what got you into this. How did you get into this type of business? It was an accident. I was a military and a government guy for about 20 years. I spent most of my career in the special operations and clandestine worlds, much of that post 9-11. And so I've done four wars and six deployments. And I left. I always wanted to be an entrepreneur after my military service,

but 9-11 kept me in a whole lot longer than I imagined that I would be. And then when I finally was able to leave the service around 2016, I think it was, I enrolled in business school and at the same time happened to have a lucky opportunity to start this company after having bumped into an American businessman in the Middle East who was getting his FDA clearance in Jordan for some new technology that was good for remote medical care. And that literally was the, that's called the virtual exam room. It's like the flagship product that we started with six years ago.

And we looked at that and we just said, wow, this is amazing. Because this technology can actually allow, let's say a medic in Afghanistan who's dealing with multiple casualties on a battlefield. It can allow that person to talk in real time over very low bandwidth to a surgeon 10,000 miles away, let's say at Fort Bragg or something like that. So we saw the military implications and then the implications for the airline industry and for the offshore remote oil and gas and transportation industries. And we said, wow, the sky's the limit with this stuff.

And that's really how the business started. And it wasn't until all this government-imposed nonsense and the nonsense the last two years that we said, hey, we're going to pivot and we're going to support all the providers that we can. And we're going to support all the patients that we can. Because people need access to honest care. I mean, it's just very simple.

Yeah. And then with Fauci and the CDC, everybody became remote, right? In the last couple of years. You know, he's talking about his retirement these days. And I think he needs to retire. I think that'd be good. I think he should retire to a 10 foot by 10 foot cell. Exactly. Along with Burks and Wal a 10 foot by 10 foot cell. Exactly.

Along with Burks and Walensky and the rest of them. That's right. Oh, absolutely. They're all criminals. They're all criminals. And it's all going to come out how criminal they are. And it's willful criminality, not even negligent. It is willful. That's right. Well, you know, there comes a time, we go through these cycles where people reevaluate the institutions that they've had. And this whole lockdown and remote stuff has caused people to reevaluate the way they do education.

You know, parents have been able to see some really bad stuff that was going on in their schools and to think about how they want to do that. We've now seen really bad stuff that's going on inside the medical establishment, especially in the hospitals. And so I think that is the key thing. It really is an opportunity. And so I'm glad that you've seen this opportunity. This is really expanding your remote health as they make everybody go remote. Talk a little bit about the virtual exam room and how that works. Because when we've used our remote physician when we were in Texas, we would just do that over the phone and, you know, texting and then phone calls and stuff like that, would it just be an interrogation? What does the virtual exam room look like? Sure. Well, the legacy sort of flagship

device that would be, or any of the devices in the virtual exam room family are more and as far as diagnostics and including things like a 12 lead EKG or a remote stethoscope or things like that. And I'll tell you that that's that that technology, while we still absolutely use it, we don't employ it typically for the pocket care network that we do, that we use direct to consumer. And the reason for that is because modern technology has made it to where, you know, whether I'm looking at my little watch right here to where I can check my own pulse oximetry and my own heart rate, you know, all day long, it's counting my steps and it's also recommending certain things for me so the the the availability of technology really has taken away the need for us to provide even the hardware devices because so many people now have access to it through an apple watch through a wearable like a fitbit or um and and the technology is getting very very good if you look at if you just combine

something simple like a simple finger pulse oximeter device with a 40 blood pressure cuff that you can get from walgreens or cvs you can have 95 of all the diagnostic equipment that you're going to need right there in your own home to where if you jump on with one of the doctors or whatever else so So we also sell these little kits that include those things, those devices. So you can have a blood pressure cuff, a temperature probe, a pulse oximeter, and a weight scale. Those are really the big things that you need. We also have a remote patient monitoring chronic care management program. But the point of it being technology, while we started out as a

really focused on the hardware piece, the widespread availability and open market of technology has just really, really sort of democratized people's access to those things. It's fantastic. So for us, we don us, what we say is we don't really care too terribly much about the platform now. We just want to have the information so our doctors can have that knowledge of what their blood

pressure is and then either potentially prescribe an increase or a decrease in medications or whatever. Because again, wellness is the name of the game for us. That's right. Long-term wellness. So you're focusing more on how they get there.

You're focusing more on the service side of it. And you've now got a large pool of patients and of physicians and nurses who have been excluded because of the politicization of our medical community. And so that's a great way to evolve. And as you're very right, people have so many devices now that can measure vital signs in so many different ways. And if you've got some kind of a diabetic condition or some kind of a heart condition, you probably already have something that's going to measure those metrics. And it's easy to get that if you don't have it.

So one of the key things that you're going to go to one of these emergency services places or to an emergency room is going to be for a referral. And just to kind of get a scope as to where things are, you need to have a GP who's going to kind of give you that idea. How does that work? You've got people that are in your network. You've got, what did you say, 150 physicians or so and across the U S and so they, they are already set up to refer you to individual specialists. Is that how that works? Right. In fact, one of the, one of the best,

I think sort of ancillary benefits of being a member and a network like ours is that it doesn't take six weeks to set up an appointment with that GP, if you will. It doesn't take six weeks to get in to see your doctor, you know, just to have them order a lab set. I mean, we can do all that right there and have it done and to where you're, you know, having your labs, your appointment, your prescriptions, everything else, next day type service. And then if you need that referral to a specialist whether it's in our network or just any other specialist that's maybe in a patient's area they can provide that and and it's it's seamless it's simple we just try and deep and and remove the complications from providing medicine

i i don't know how or why the medical industrial complex got so overly burdened and complicated and unnecessary bureaucratic. Actually, I think I do know why. And it's called Obamacare. It's called money too. Yeah. Everything is focused on money. And that's the thing I like about it. Just follow.

Follow the money. Always follow the money. That's right. And so it's a wellness orientation. It's a triage service. And, of course, you, access to homeopathic, natural medicine, education, empowerment series, and all kinds of education for, for patients as well. Uh, but it is important, uh, to, to have somebody who is a medical

professional to triage those things and to help guide you along whenever something like that happens unexpectedly. It's a great service. It's a great idea. And, uh, I can see this really expanding. And of course, um, you know, it's, it's a monthly thing,, right? You don't have to sign up for like an annual contract or anything, right? Nope. Quit anytime. So we think it's the first way. It's the most transparent way because transparency in medicine is a big issue these days. And you just don't get it a lot of places. So for us, we say we're just not very bright business people because we're willing to not put you in a contract. And we don't charge very much money. So we don't make a lot of money and we don't require any long-term commitments. Nobody has ever accused me of being a really good businessman. Well, I think it's a great idea, and it certainly shows that you are confident in people giving it a try and sticking with it if they don't have to commit to a contract with it.

It's on a monthly basis. And so that, along with the fact that you're focused on a wellness orientation as opposed to a sickness model, which we've seen out the wazoo this last year, they're really focused on getting you sick and essentially medical kidnapping is what we've seen over the last 866 days with this COVID stuff. So it is, it's, it's crazy. It is literally, it is crazy. So I mean, one of these days, maybe we should do a documentary series on all of the, all of all those stories that we have had over the last couple of years.

And it's heartbreaking. You know, it's also what's amazing is how much we've been canceled and shut down and shadow banned. Then a clip of myself speaking on OAN was tweeted out by President Trump when he was still president. And that was enough to get me banned for life on Twitter. I didn't even send the thing. Yeah. So there's that. And then Facebook, we've had multiple ads rejected. Our account's been locked.

We've been prevented from promoting our services because we say medical freedom and we say liberated medicine. That's right. And we're not allowed to talk about those things on social media. So we have to be very careful about how we phrase things or else we are completely banned. Well, it's a monopolistic cartel. It's a monopolistic cartel. Sorry. Well, and it's monopolistic cartel. It's a monopolistic cartel. Sorry.

And it's a communist cartel. I'm sorry, but just even listen to some of the Project Veritas stuff that's come out. I love it when the guys from Twitter says, oh, yeah, we don't do free speech at Twitter. We're commie as F. Yeah, that's right. do free speech at Twitter were commie as F, you know? And, and I thought, wow, from, I'm not, I'm not the conspiracy theorist. You said it. I'm just repeating your words. Oh, that's right. Yeah, that's absolutely right. No, it is a very monopolistic cartel. Uh, they don't want any other opinions out there and they don't want anybody else, uh, helping anybody with healthcare.

And so that's the thing that has really been concerning my listeners. It's like, we see what it is, but what is the alternative? Where do we go for healthcare? And so I'm really happy to see that there's an entrepreneurial solution that's being put together. It's great talking to you, Adam Hartage, CEO of Remote Health Solutions. And you can go to their website. He's got a great documentary talking about what they offer and where we are with this and how to get around this. It's at rhsusa.com. rhsusa.com. Thank you very much, Adam.

Appreciate it. Yes, sir. Thank you, David. God bless. Thank you. And good luck to you. We hope for all of our purposes that this succeeds. We're going to see a lot of different models out there

that are going to get outside this control system that is not serving us very well. Thank you, Adam. We'll be right back, folks. Stay with us. Yes, sir. 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. We'll see you next listening. Thank you.