The David Knight Show - Fri Episode #2236: Best Of The David Knight Show: DNR Without Consent, Drone Profits for Trump's Sons, and the 1913 Communist Takeover

Episode Date: April 3, 2026

──────────────────────────────────────── [00:08:21] Hospital Killed 19-Year-Old With Down Syndrome Using Hospice Drugs Without Consent Grace Shera died after doctors gave her end-of-life drugs without parental knowledge. An expert called it the worst clinical decision in 46 years. An illegal DNR order prevented resuscitation. ──────────────────────────────────────── [00:10:09] First COVID Wrongful Death Trial Lost 11-1 — Hospital Brought Johns Hopkins Experts The first wrongful death trial using COVID as cause of death was lost 11-1. The hospital spent hundreds of thousands on five experts. The plaintiff's expert worked for free, finding the case too egregious to ignore. ──────────────────────────────────────── [00:19:10] Secret Medicare Rule Forces Doctors to Hit Statin Quotas or Lose Reimbursements Doctors must prescribe statins to a minimum percentage of all patients to maintain Medicare reimbursement rates — even for non-Medicare patients. Those who refuse can be fired as clients to protect the practice's income. ──────────────────────────────────────── [00:34:19] Adult Protective Services Seized a Woman, Put Her on a Ventilator, Left Her Unable to Speak A woman was sent to a hospital over an hour from her family, placed on a ventilator, and now has a permanent trach. A state guardian worked to remove outside advocates. Without intervention she would have died. ──────────────────────────────────────── [00:45:08] No War Declaration Means No Treason, No Accountability, No Stated Objective Charles Goyette argues that without a congressional war declaration there is no legal treason, no accountability for bad judgment, and no defined war objective — making the Iran war constitutionally rootless. ──────────────────────────────────────── [00:54:11] Trump Sons Investing in War Drone Production During the Iran War Trump's sons are reportedly taking a stake in war drone production — adding to a pattern that includes Hegseth's failed attempt to get BlackRock to invest in defense ETFs before the Iran strikes. ──────────────────────────────────────── [01:06:16] Why Are Taxpayers Securing Oil Lanes for China When We're Told We're Energy Independent? Goyette asks why US taxpayers secure the Strait of Hormuz for China's benefit while being told America is energy self-sufficient — costs land on Americans, benefits go to the world. ──────────────────────────────────────── [01:08:18] China Has Cut US Treasury Holdings by 50% — World Moving to Gold China has halved its $1.3 trillion in US treasuries. Foreign central banks know the US can only repay debt by printing money, so they are moving reserves to gold instead. ──────────────────────────────────────── [01:14:51] 2002 Pentagon War Game: Low-Tech Team Beat the US Military — Exercise Called Off in Humiliation In Millennium Challenge 2002, General Paul Van Ripper's primitive asymmetric team defeated the US high-tech force using couriers and speedboats. The Pentagon called it off before declaring a winner. ──────────────────────────────────────── [01:20:57] Deep State Goal: Restore Shah's Son — Whose Father's Secret Police Were Trained by CIA and Mossad The CIA and Mossad installed the Shah and trained his Savak torturers — with Schwarzkopf's father involved. Today's war is argued to be aimed at restoring the Shah's son over a country that suffered under US-engineered despotism. ──────────────────────────────────────── [01:28:06] US Armed Saddam to Fight Iran — Then Called Him Worse Than Hitler The US gave Saddam chemical weapon precursors and targeting technology during the Iraq-Iran war. The US also shot down Iran Air flight 655, killing 290 civilians, and awarded the captain a medal. ──────────────────────────────────────── [02:12:30] 1913: Federal Reserve and Income Tax Were Both Communist Manifesto Planks Two of Marx's 10 planks — central banking and progressive income tax — were enacted in 1913, the same year the 17th Amendment eliminated state representation in the Senate. ──────────────────────────────────────── Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

Of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. It's the David Knight Show. Right, joining us now is someone who is no stranger to the show. We've had Scott on many times, Scott Shera. And he's written a book, however, now, about the ordeal that he's gone through with his family and what happened to his daughter, Grace. We've had him on many times, Our Amazinggrace.net.

It's his website. And you can go there and pre-order the book. it releases on Monday. And so we're excited to see that. We've got a little bit of a preview of the book, and we're going to tell you a little bit about what's in it and why he wrote it. And if you haven't seen Scott before, you really need to hear about his experiences. It's heartbreaking, and it is something that every American needs to know

because we need to understand what this system that they've created is capable of doing and actually incentivized to do. So joining us now with Scott Shere. I thank you for joining us, Scott. Well, it is really a pleasure to be here, and I am so thankful to see you. Well, thank you. Thank you. Scott was a really big help in terms of when I had the stroke.

He was very helpful in terms of advice and things and warnings and other things like that. One of the things that we never talked about before, and we can touch on that today. I don't know if you want to do it later, but we can talk about adult protective services. So many times we've talked about child protective services and how families can get caught up in something like that, but they have the equivalent for each and every one of us. They can grab us at the end of life as well. And so the book is government legally killing you. And that's a rhetorical question, isn't it, Scott?

Yeah. You could, the way I understood it from the people that helped me put the book together, they said, I think you'll sell more copies if you put it as a question. It's no longer an open question for any of us who've been paying attention since 2020. and things that have happened at that point in time. You now have a podcast, of course, as well. And the podcast is deprogramming with Grace's Dad, and you can find that on Rumble and all the regular podcast platforms.

What did you do before this happened to your family? Yeah, nobody ever asked me that question. That's a great question. I have been a business owner for most of my life. I own a business right now that's just a small business. I have four men who work for me and praise God, I've been able to turn the business part of it over to them. So I only spent about three hours a week in the business, and I do this full time.

My background, though, before the current business, which is a pond management company, I had a CPA firm, and then I did strategic planning. And, you know, when you think about the book of Esther and the line everybody quotes when Mordecai said to Esther, how do you know God has it made you for a time such as this? all that background has really helped me to be able to do this. So, you know, as a CPA, you're used to audit trails and proving things out. And, you know, the book, when you write a book, I never thought I'd write a book. But when you choose to write a book, you can't just start blabbering.

You've got to have the facts. And you've got to find the source documents. And so I did all of that for the book. We have 70 end notes in the book. And that background helped tremendously. the strategic planning background also help because, you know, this is a long-term project. You know, Grace died. Grace is a martyr, and she died so that other people's lives can be saved.

And so this is our long-term plan. This is the rest of our life plan. Yes, that's right. So tell us a little bit about Grace's story. Give us a brief overview because we know we've had you on several times on the show, but there's a lot of people that are always coming on board the show. And so they may not be familiar with what happened. If you could tell us briefly what happened with her,

just to give us an overview. Well, so first, Grace was only 19 when she died on October 13th of 21. Grace had Down syndrome, and she was, you know, to be blunt, she was the best thing God ever gave us second to salvation. And I was on an earlier interview today, and I told the host that if God chooses to do an Abraham-Sara situation with my wife and I, I would want another Down syndrome baby because Down syndrome is an absolute gift. 90% of Down syndrome babies are murdered in the womb in America today.

So, yeah, that's my plug for Down syndrome. And when I've had you on in the past, we've talked about a very, very close friend of ours who had a daughter with Down syndrome, and fortunately, our friend died of breast cancer. not too long ago, but that was their experience as well. You know, it's a challenging thing, but they really, it's such a wonderful thing. The Downs kids have, there's just something about them, the innocence that's there that's in a child, you know. Well, it's what God calls us to be.

I mean, he says to come to him like a child. And, you know, Grace, I just, I can't say enough about her. she just had a way about her that was always encouraging, always loving. She always found the good in people. You know, she was special. Yes. You know, so she makes it easy. You know, the work that I'm doing now, it makes it easy because, you know, I think about grace every single day, obviously.

And I miss her tremendously. But she becomes quite a motivation to make sure that nobody else loses their best buddy. So you asked what happened to Gray. So this was during the COVID scam. I had no idea at that time. I was just the typical person. You know, I'm just an obedient slave to the system. Trusted the medical system.

I didn't know anything. And so we had been following the frontline COVID critical care doctors protocol. And that protocol said if your oxygen saturation drops below 94% admit yourself to the hospital because it's an emergency. So we dutifully did that. And Grace went in with 88% oxygen. She just had a cold. Her and I were goofing around.

And seven days later, she was dead. And so how did she die? They gave her a drug combination that should not be given. It's given to people at end of life in hospice care, Presidex, lorazepam, and morphine. And, you know, in the jury trial, our expert, Dr. Gilbert Berdyne, he said, when they gave Grace Morphine, she didn't even have a blood pressure. He called that the worst clinical decision he's ever seen in 46 years of medical practice.

And they could have still revived Grace after giving her the morphine. But they refused because the doctor had put an illegal, do not resuscitate order on Grace's chart. And praise God, we had the first and probably the only wrongful death jury trial with COVID as the cause of death on the death certificate. And of course, we lost. That loss came down via the verdict on June 19th of 25, and we lost 11 to 1. So it was a significant loss. And, you know, at the time, you know, of course I was shocked because we had a better team.

We had the truth on our side. We were extremely well prepared. We were all shocked with that. Yeah. Yeah, I'm not surprised. Yeah, go ahead, David. Well, I was just going to say, there was such high expectations because you were right. And it was the first time, as you said, that anybody had been able to come after with a wrongful death

rather than just malpractice or something like that. And all the facts were on your side. And it was so important to establish that precedent as well. And I imagine that that had a lot to do with the reason that they went the other way because it would have been a very, very important precedent, very damaging for the system itself. It would have been. Right. And that's, they brought in the big guns.

They brought in five experts, two were from Johns Hopkins. You know, they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their experts. Our expert was so gracious, he had never worked for a plaintiff before. He only had worked for the defense representing doctors. And he thought Grace's case was so egregious. He didn't take a penny. Wow. It's hard to give and grasp.

But, you know, it's part of the, it's part of the beast. system. You know, the anti-crace system has a lot of tentacles. And in the book, of course, I'm exposing the medical industrial complex and the legal industrial complex. But there's a lot. The world is full of these deceptions that we've bought into. And it's amazing. It's just like we look into the vaccine thing or the, did they put her on a ventilator? Was that part of it as well? Because they had a very high rate that people that they killed with that. Right. It was 90%. Yeah. And, you know, praise God, Grace was never on a ventilator. And the reason I say that relative to the story isn't because of whether Grace needed or didn't need a ventilator.

But the fact is a ventilator was a covered countermeasure under the public health emergency. So consequently, the PEP Act immunity takes over if Grace would have died on a ventilator. And so the reason we had a lawsuit is because Grace wasn't on a ventilator. So if she would have been on one, of course, she would have died on it, and then we would have not had a lawsuit. Yeah, and that's what we're seeing right now. Trump has used exactly the same legal pervarication, this Defense Act thing that he's got, that he used to push the production of these ventilators, that one pulmonologist said, we've never done that before. Why would you do that? Didn't make any sense at all, but they pushed that.

And as you point out, since they pushed it and demanded that it be made, then they could not be. held a liable for that. He's doing the same thing now with glyphosate. He's compelling the production of glyphosate under that same act. And under that act, they also get immunity. It just makes your headspin that people don't wake up to this. It's insane. I am blown away by it myself. But, you know, I'm reminded of 1st Samuel chapter 8 when I, you know, I don't want to throw other people under the bus that don't get it. Yeah. Although it's hard to not. But, you know, 250 years after God parted the Red Sea, the Israel's didn't want the king. They wanted a king instead of the king. And, you know, we're suckers for man's way. And, you know, politics is not the way out of this,

folks. You can't legislate morality. We can't vote our way out of this. We have to come to our senses. That's right. So, you know, it's a trap. And you talk about the trap and how it's a very long process that they get us all into. It's like, you know, a grooming process for everybody, really. Talk a little bit about that process that gets us so dependent and reliant on conventional medicine. And what do we need to do to inoculate ourselves against that? Well, you have such a way of asking questions. I enjoy it. I forgot how much I enjoy you as a host. It's great. Yeah, so they do this through. So that's a good. So that's a great. So that's a good. So, That's why my podcast was called deprogramming.

They program us. And we don't realize it because it's so subtle. And we end up becoming the boiling frogs in the end because we can't recognize this happening over time. And in the book, I lay this out, and I start with 1905, even though the eugenics model was already in place in Plato wrote about it in 375 BC. And so the idea of eugenics is nothing new.

but modern eugenics started in 1905 with Jacobson versus Massachusetts. And in that Supreme Court case, the Supreme Court said, quote, the rights of the individual in respect to his liberty may at times under the pressure of great dangers be subjected to such restraint to be enforced by reasonable regulations as the safety of the general public may demand. So when you hear that for the first time, you think, well, that's reasonable. It's pragmatic, but it's not right. What that is is collectivism. And collectivism has become the quote law and quote of the land.

This is the legal standard. It's not lawful because God is an individualist, not a collectivist. But then, okay, so now how does that doctrine, how does that get integrated into our society? And I mentioned earlier that Down syndrome babies are murdered at the rate of 90%. So collectivism relative to Down syndrome, I'll just give you the 401. And the young couple gets pregnant. They have not established any biblical roots. So what happens is they go to the doctor.

The doctor congratulates them on the pregnancy and says, let's do an amniocentesis. Yeah. And the young couple without roots, the only question they really ask is, does my insurance cover it? And the answer is, yeah, your insurance does cover it. I'm just going to add my two cents. Your insurance covers it because they're in on it. That's part of the scam. So now the amniocentesis comes.

back positive for Down syndrome. The doctor has a meeting with the couple and says, your son, we expect him to have Down syndrome based on these test results. And they have a training document that I don't have at my fingertips right now, but there's a training document that doctors wrote for other doctors as to how to view Down syndrome. And so Down syndrome is looked at as this negative thing, this burden on society, a burden on the family, all of that. So he sells that lie to the young couple and suggests they have a abortion. So that's what collectivism looks like in real time. All of us have bought into it. And I'm gonna, we'll go right to the end game. So just process this as a, so first maybe I'll just ask you

the question, David, you know, if you were going to have your windows cleaned at your home, you know, you would expect, I presume that, you know, if you don't have a referral, you'd look up to a company and you would expect them to give you a quote. And assuming you hire them, you would expect them that if the team that came out to clean your windows, if they broke one of them, you would expect them to fix it. That's reasonable, right? Well, think about in the medical system, can you think of any other industry? So this is the norm.

The window cleaning situation is the norm. But in the medical industry, they don't disclose any pricing. They don't give you any quotes. And if they screw up, they have immunity from liability. That's right. In your analogy, if they had a history of breaking out half the windows that they cleaned with their ladder, you would never be able to know that if it was a medical situation. Right, because they hide it.

It's all hidden. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah, truly is amazing. So that's how, you know, we've all tacitly approved all of that. And so consequently, on a macro level, I believe the only way out of this nightmare is repentance. for our participation in that system. You know, from a micro level, you know, what can people do?

I mean, obviously, I encourage people to not participate. So what does that look like? We don't have medical insurance anymore. We chose to go with a cash pay provider. Somebody that's not, they do not accept Medicare or Medicaid. That's critical because if a provider accepts Medicare or Medicaid, they have to tow the line or they, lose their license. They don't get paid for any recommendations outside of that standard of care model.

And that's for the whole country. That isn't just if you're on Medicare and Medicaid. And I'll share a story with you that I share in the book that will really get your listeners in the mindset that, okay, is what this guy saying true? Yeah, it's true. And I interviewed a doctor for my book just to make sure that my anecdotal story is in fact the case today. And he said, yes, he, and you'll hear about the statin in my story. And he said, I refuse to prescribe the statin, and I get financially punished for not prescribing it. Because the statin is, as you're going to learn here shortly,

is the standard of care for heart disease. Oh, I know that. They tried to push that on me real hard. Oh, well, then you are. Every time I go, she gives me this whole spiel about the Framingham study. And I politely sat there and nod my head. And after this happened two or three times, I told Karen, I said, we're not ever going back to that.

I've had enough lectures about the Framingham study. And I know about statins. I'm not going to take these things ever. Yeah, so I mean, it's absolutely critical that, you know, so you asked how do, what do we do? I mean, we've got to do our, we've got to take the freedom that we gave away to the government. We turned over our birthright. We got to take it back.

We've got to reclaim the ground that we lost. And, you know, you do that by asking, questions. You stand firm on your beliefs. And, you know, the story, I'll just share this quick story so you understand where I'm coming from. So this is back. I'm still programmed in the medical system, May of 2018. We still had conventional medical insurance. I went in for the recommended physical at $300 for your physical. And so, okay, I do that. The doctor said to me, Scott, do you want to do a CT scan of your heart? I said, well, I don't, why would I? I feel fine. He said, well, we got a deal. It's normally $2,000. It's only $80. So I said, sure, I'll do it. And the day

after I did the CT scan, they called and said, you need to come in immediately. I said, oh, boy. So I went into the doctor's office, and they said you have a 1,200 calcium score, which is the OMG level for heart disease. So I said, what's the cause? And they said, well, you have high cholesterol. So, well, what's the solution? The statin. So, you know, praise God, I didn't roll over then. And Cindy, my wife and I graduated from high school with a lady who's a doctor. I called her. And I explained what I just said to you. And she said, my husband just had a heart attack two months ago. I'm researching this myself. Let me send you some things. And I looked at what she sent. I started researching at a couple hundred hours in and realized high cholesterol

is necessary. It's not even in the top 10 of the causes of heart disease. And of course, the statin causes dementia. And interestingly, if we tied dementia back to Obamacare, which was passed on March 23rd of 2010, Ezekiel Emmanuel is the chief architect of Obamacare. And he said that if you have dementia, you're a non-contributing member of society and don't deserve medical care.

So it's not a joke. When I say the government is legally killing us, that's an example. So anyway, here, just to finish the story, I went into the doctor then after doing the research and said, I'm not going to do the statin. And the nurse, his nurse, and I thank her for this. This is so good because she walked me out and said,

Scott, I'm going to tell you something. I'm not going to want to hear. I said, what is it? She said, you have to take the statin. And I said, what? I don't have to do anything. And she said, our Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates are based on what the percentage of our patient population that follows the standard of care.

and the standard of care for your level of heart disease is the statin. And I said, I'm not on Medicare and Medicaid. She said, you didn't hear me. It's based on our entire patient population. And if there's enough people like you who won't follow the standard of care, we have to fire you as a patient to keep our reimbursement rates up. And that's the secret I reveal in the book. That is how the federal government, through the Center for Medicare and Medicaid services,

controls the entire health care system in America. Wow. We see the same things over and over again. You know, when you look at childhood vaccines, for example, they've all practiced their speech about, they've got a little speech to convince you, right? And again, you know, when we go back to, I remember in the summer of 2020 with the COVID stuff,

there was a Yale study and it was a psychological study. It wasn't a study of COVID. It wasn't a study of mask or ventilators or the vaccine or anything. It was a psychological study. How do we convince people to get this vaccine that we haven't finished yet, that we haven't tested yet, that we haven't found out that it's safe or effective? And they went through and they tried different statements on people. And they broke them into two different groups, you know, just like you were testing a drug or something.

We have a control group over here that doesn't hear the argument. And we've got another one over here that does hear the argument. How effective was that argument? And I was just absolutely stunned. It's like, here we're going to rush through this stuff and do no tests of anything. anything except how we can manipulate people to take this. And then I saw very well-known Christian leaders who used these things verbatim after the vaccine rolled out after about seven or eight months after that. I was just appalled at all of that. But the same thing, we go back to the

vaccines, the same thing. They got little speeches to tell people if they are reluctant to get the vaccines for their kids. And then they will fire you as a patient because they will literally put these pediatricians out of business if they don't get a certain percentage of the kids who take the prescribed number of vaccines on schedule, which is the standard of care they have demanded. Truly is amazing to see how that works. And it's all about money. You know, they use, they weaponize money. And that's what I was telling everybody about the way the whole COVID thing worked.

I said, you know, they said, well, it wasn't Trump. It was the bad Democrat governors. I said, well, the Republican governors are doing the same thing. and it was the money. It was incentivizing it. And I said that's how the government always gets around the 10th Amendment restrictions. They bribe people and they blackmail people with money. And they always roll it out that way.

Yeah. It's right on, David. I mean, you hit the nail on the head with the vaccine agenda. But it's, so that's the, from the government's perspective, incentivizing the medical. Well, what do they do from, how do we participate? So I like to cover both sides because they have to get us to participate. So how did they do that?

So go all the way back to World War II. One of the goals of World War II was to get women in the workplace. So why did they want to get women in the workplace? Well, because now we can have a two-earner couple. So then why do we want a two-earner couple? Well, because now they're going to need to send their kids to the public fool system for free babysitting. and as part of the free babysitting service, the indoctrination service, you have to have 80 jabs. So it's a massive population reduction agenda, and once your eyes are open to that, all the puzzle pieces fit.

Yes, yes, absolutely. I love what you call it the public fool system. I saw that and I told you, I'm going to start calling it that way. That's the best description of it I've heard yet. That's better than government school. I like public fool system. You know, it is, and this has been one of my pet peeves all along, which you touched on the public health issue, the difference between this idea of collective health and individual health.

And I've said for the longest time, if you don't have individual health, how do you have collective health? Because the collective is all a bunch of individuals. And if you're going to run roughshod over people and poison them and all the rest of this stuff, they're not healthy, how does the herd get healthy? It doesn't make any sense. It's like the blinding flash of the obvious. Yeah. Right.

Yeah. It's a crazy system and it's an evil system and it's very calculated and we can see it happening in so many different ways. Like I said, the grooming that they do to us as adults and as children and how the profit motive is woven into all of this stuff. Let me ask you because I know that we got pressured when we were having our child Lance is running the board right now. And they wanted us to do an amniocentesis because we were older.

And we said, no, we're not going to do that because we're not going to abort the babies. So there's no point in doing it. And any procedure is going to have certain risks. So I'm not going to do that. What was the situation when you guys had Grace? Did you know that she had Down syndrome? Yeah, boy, am I glad you asked me that question? because so we had been chasing the American dream.

So what did that look like? We had 2.1 kids, 1.7 dogs, no cats, of course. And, you know, projecting out our retirement in the early 50s and blah, blah, blah. Well, God got a hold of us. And when we were 39, we turned the baby department over to him. And five minutes later, Fertil Myrtle got pregnant. and then we didn't do any of the testing because we knew we were going to give, we were going to take whatever God gave us.

And so I was in the delivery room with Cindy. And when Grace came out, I just said to her, I said, I think she has Down syndrome because she had the features. And the doctors had a huddle. And it was my first experience negative with the medical system because one of the doctors came in and said, we suspect. your daughter has Down syndrome, do you want to keep her? Wow.

And I said to him, what are you talking about? Was he talking about adoption or euthanasia? I don't know. You know, I didn't, because I wasn't awake to anything then, he just said, I said, what are you talking about? He said, well, we have people waiting in the wings for children such as these. So we just left, said, you know, we have no interest in anything that you're talking about. And, you know, so it was the end of the story.

Yeah. Wow. Yeah, that's amazing. You were about the same age we were when we had Lance as well. And that was the way we felt about it as well. You just have to, certain things like that, you just have to trust God in it. And I think you had a wonderful experience with Grace for 19 years. I've seen your website, all the wonderful things that you all did with her and how she had a wonderful life that you gave her.

Well, she was, she was a blast. I just, I enjoy just processing all the, I mean, we had so many cool experiences with her. And she was, she was a natural comic to boot. And that's, of course, what I missed the most. I taught her literal humor. And she got it, you know, it was really fun. I mean, just a simple example. I mean, it'll be our 40th wedding anniversary coming up here in,

November. And I remember this so vividly because Grace was so sharp. It was our 29th anniversary. We have an apple orchard, and we were pressing apples, which is a manual process. And so Grace and I are on the Apple Press. And I said, hey, Grace, did you know that it's mom and dad's anniversary today? And she quips back. Happy misery. It just was so funny. I just love that kind of humor. And, you know, just I really thought that someday she would be a stand-up comic because she was so funny. Yeah.

Probably a lot funnier than the stand-up comics I typically see. Most of them are not funny. They're just shock jocks, you know, trying to shock you with their language or whatever they're doing. So it would be a welcome change, I think. I want to share something that I expose in the book. And it's a little bit deep, but it's important. So we talked about the idea of standards of care, and that's how the government controls us.

That's how they control medical care. So standards of care, you know, there can be some good standards of care. But for the most part, standards of care are designed to kill us. So the standard of care for heart disease, the statin, 700,000 deaths a year. attributable to the government killing us with the standard of care for heart disease. 600,000 with cancer. The standard of care for cancer is chemo. If you survive five years in one day, that is, you are an anomaly.

You're one of 2.1% that survives that long after chemo. Yeah. So that's what we're programmed to believe. Okay, so then you've got people arguing for, they're in the trap and they're arguing for informed consent. And so let me set this up just a little bit if you have, as you well know, I mean, you experience good doctors and bad doctors. And, you know, there are good doctors. But for the most part, the doctors believe that their job is to tell you what to do.

So that is not informed consent, right? That is telling you what to do and expecting you to do what they say because they've got all the schooling and you're just a dummy. All right. So that's not informed consent. Informed consent means that they explain the options to you thoroughly. You ask questions and then you process those options and make a decision separate from being informed. That's informed consent.

So people are arguing, so for example, in Grace's case, not only didn't we get informed consent, but we didn't even have knowledge of these meds being used on grace. We had no knowledge of the DNR order. So that's lack of informed consent on steroids. But here's the trap. If people are really pushing for informed consent, the problem is they're in the system. So the doctor can only give you options that are within the boundaries of the standards of care. Okay?

They can't give you real options outside. So cancer, for example, if a doctor gives you a recommendation to take ivermectin for your cancer, he'll lose his license. So they can't give you real informed consent. So that's the scary part about these arguments. I see a lot of medical freedom people making these arguments, but they're inside the trap that they've created. The informed consent trap.

Of course I want informed consent. But I want informed consent outside. I want to go outside the lines. I was thinking about how Grace would color. So you color a picture and you're taught to color inside the lines, right? Well, grace would always draw clouds and little hearts. and things, you know, that's what I want. I want a doctor that's willing to go outside the lines.

Yeah. Yeah. Just to give you an example, you know, when I'm in the hospital, they're giving me a lot of different things. I said, you know, I didn't bring my vitamin C with me. I said, can I get vitamin C? Oh, no, we don't give you vitamin C. You have to be kidding.

Yeah, I can't get vitamin C in the hospital. No. It's even worse than that. You can't get any sleep either. That's the, with the bed and all the rest of the stuff that's there. But no, I'm not going to not going to go outside. that narrow box of standard of care. It's exactly right.

Well, I said at the beginning, let's talk about this situation with adult protective services. You know, we're all aware of the damage that's done with child protective services. I hope at least the people who follow the show are, because I've talked about that many times, but adult care where they insinuate with a social worker and come into a situation where somebody is at the end of life or incapacitated, talk a little bit about that because that played into Grace's story as well, right? Well, it technically didn't because we had our paperwork in order.

Grace was an adult. She was 19, but we did have a durable medical power of attorney in place, and they ignored it. But we had the documents in place so that Grace would never become a ward of the state. But we have firsthand experience now. In fact, my wife is not in the area right now. She's three hours away. she has become a co-guardian for a lady that ended up being captured by adult protective services. And the family were familiar with our story.

They had seen our local billboards and asked us to get involved. And we started to get involved and realized adult protective services captured this lady. They sent her to a hospital. They ended up putting her on a ventilator. she now permanently has a trache and will never speak again because of the medical abuse. And when you become under Adult Protective Services, the court takes over and they appointed a state guardian. And that's, so now my wife started advocating for this lady, the state guardian. You would expect that if you were doing your guardianship duties, you would want an advocate on the ground to give you the report.

as to what's going on with the patient. The advocate actually, or the guardian, the state guardian, actually called, it's a version of adult protective services to do an evaluation to get my wife out of being an advocate. Wow. And so then we took the extraordinary step of contacting this lady's sister and said, hey, I think we should hire an attorney and take over guardianship.

from the state appointed guardianship so that we can get her back on solid footing and back on her own. At the time, she was homeless. And when she got captured from being homeless, they said that, well, you got heart issues. They claimed she had a heart attack, got her in. She was taken to actually the same hospital that Grace was killed at over an hour and a half away from where she was, just to get her away from her family. So that system of capturing somebody is real. And what happens in that system is if you don't have a guardian that is representing your interest,

so you have a state-appointed guardian, they're basically expected to just follow the protocol. So right now, for example, this lady, the system screwed up again. She ended up having oxygen depletion, had to get revived. she ended up being without oxygen for 20 minutes. This was last October, and now my wife has, I just talk with her on the way to talking with you on the phone because she had an appointment with the neurologist today, and the neurologist wanted to have this lady on meds the rest of her life

and be a zombie. And Cindy has fought back, and the lady is now off, she's feeding herself again. It's like you having a stroke. I mean, you've got to go, but you need that type of care. And if you don't fight the system, if she would have still been under state the state appointed guardian, she would be dead today. Wow. So this is a big deal.

That's amazing. Yeah, usually when you think of a guardian, fill in the blank, you know, guardian angel, right? I guess there could be guardian demons as well out there, right? It's crazy. But it's a crazy system. And unfortunately, it hits you. but you have done so much to warn people and to educate people. Really do appreciate what you've done, Scott.

It's a very important work that you've been called to. And it's a way to honor God and to honor the memory of grace as well. And so your book is available on Monday, right? On Tuesday. Tuesday, the 10th is when it's officially released. If people go on Our Amazinggrace.net right now, you'll see a copy or a picture of the cover. If you click on that, you'll see you can only.

order on Amazon, on Barnes & Noble and Goodreads. There's both the Kindle version and the hardcover, and both will be released on the 10th. The way I understand it, and I did my own order just to see how it would work. It says that I will have my order on the 10th, that it's going to ship on the 9th, and I'll have it on the 10th. It's interesting. They have this process. I actually have one here, so I have my complimentary copy. This is the only one right now in the whole world. And they print these one at a time. So they have a, their, their process of printing is they, you know, this is a, this is a color book.

I chose to do it in color because of all the diagrams and evidence that I brought to the table. I wanted to have it in color. And they, they print a full color book one at a time on their press. Wow. Wow. That's amazing. Well, thank you so much for doing that.

And again, your podcast, what, give me the name of your podcast. The podcast is called D.E. programming with Grace's dad. And obviously the name is because that's, you know, Grace, Grace died to wake me up and wake me up to what? All the things that I've been lied to about. And that's what my podcast is about. Yeah, that's good. So people can follow this. And, of course, you see this in so many different areas. It's not, it's not a narrowly defined area. This is permeated from one aspect of the other through the medical community. The standard of care, the box that they have there. And like I said before, it's not just about vaccines. It's about heart

disease. It's about cancer. It's about everything. It's important to understand how the system works before you get into that situation where a family member or you are sick and you're starting to panic and grasp for straws. I think that's the way that they get us in. And they pray on our ignorance and they pray on our programming that they have so carefully put together. which is what you're exposing. Thank you so much, Scott. I appreciate it. God bless you. God bless you, David. You have a gift that's sizing things up. You did a great job. I appreciate you. Well, thank you. Thank you, Scott. Looking forward to seeing this book. Thank you. Thank you. You're listening to the David Knight Show. Elvis and gentlemen, the Beatles, and the sweet sounds of Motown. Find them on the oldies channel at

aPS radio.com. All right, joining us now is New York Times best-selling. author Charles Goiet. His book is Empire of Lies, Fragments from the Memory Hole. And he's had a lot of experience with the military with weapons systems. We're going to talk to him a little bit about his experience with the Strategic Defense Initiative that Reagan had and kind of get his take on what's happening with this anti-ballistic missile thing, as well as where are we going now? Where are we right now in this war? Thank you so much for joining us, Charles. So it's a great pleasure to be with you, David. Thank you very much for having me. Well, thank you. You know, we don't really know we're getting all these contradictory statements every day talking about an empire of lies.

Is it nearly over? Are we just beginning? We get different stories even from the same people in the Trump regime. So exactly where are we? Well, he's got the fog of war, don't we? And I guess it's mainly because we're getting a lot of smoke blown at us by the government on both sides of the war. Tell us what you see in terms of what you're watching. First of all, we're not at war.

But then don't forget that we've been at war for 47 years. That's right. It's a total confusion. The fog of war, I guess. That's not good enough. It's political fog. Just to get off track for one second, there's a great deal to be said for the virtues of the founding fathers who knew the historical precedents for these kinds of events. And they decided that on good precedent, they decided that the American people should have the power to declare war through their elected representatives.

And it was because, first of all, I mean, two primary reasons. First of all, of course, they knew the precedents did suggest that executives, kings and so on, popes even, had a propensity to engage in needless wars. That's right. And that if you lodge the power with the people who had to pay for them and die in them, then there was a certain amount of reluctance that didn't appear in the executive branch. So they moved the war-making authority without ambiguity over to the people. but it had the second advantage of having the debate about the objectives of the war clarified in a declaration of war.

So you know that in signing the Declaration of Independence, the founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. In a declaration of war, generally the authorities, the relevant authorities declare they declare what the objective is, who the enemy is, how much resources their depend. dependent on devoting to it, and then you know how the end game plays out. We don't ever have any of that. And it has the additional virtue of making clear to potential opponents that we're at war with these people, and if you do anything contrary or that befriends them during this period, and especially to our own people, that would be an act of treason. But I hear people bandied about the word treason all the time in the United States today,

and yet there is no declaration of war. And without, I mean, the president can't wake up in the morning and say, you know, I'm really, really angry at the people in Bolivia. And so they become the objects of a war. And you can commit treason by doing business with the people in Bolivia. It's insane. That's one of the reasons why we need a declaration of war. And, of course, we haven't had one since World War II.

I'm sorry, I got off track there, David. But, you're absolutely right. Of course, that's what this president does. I mean, we can wake up tomorrow morning and be at war with Canada or Greenland. That's what we're looking at for the last year. When you put this in, people talk about Taco, Trump always, chickens out. I said this is that Trump always is capricious as well as odious and what he does. And so we never know from moment to moment because neither does he. He doesn't know from moment to moment what he's

going to do. He hasn't made up his mind. And I guess when we look at this war, that's one of the key things. He's back and forth. He doesn't even know where he's going because he hasn't even defined the objectives and what winning looks like in his own mind, let alone for everybody else. And if you had a debate with this, you would expect at least one person out of the 500 and so-and-so-and-com. Congress would ask the uncomfortable question, why are we doing this and what does winning look like? What is the objective in this? And we don't know any of that right now. And so everybody's just wondering, how long is he going to go on this escapade that he's on? Well, you know, he's going to go one, he's going to go one to unconditional surrender. And to two, he's going to go to the point where

oil prices get too high and he becomes desperate to get out. You know, one of the news sites, I think it was political reported the other day that Susie Wiles, the chief of staff, her Hair was virtually on fire trying to figure out, you know, we're calling all the secretaries, what can we do to suppress gasoline prices because we're in big trouble in November. Well, that's funny. Here's what you could do to suppress gasoline prices. Don't go to war. That's right.

Don't set the Middle East on fire. You know, there's so much guidance in the backstory and the history and the accumulated wisdom of mankind to prevent these kinds of things. It's not just a declaration of war. You know, the story of what is her name who let all the sorrows of the world out of, oh, Pandora, Pandora's Box. Well, Prometheus is the one who stole the fire from the gods, the fire of light, you know, that we would be able to use our ration or reason and so on and so forth. Ando was tormented for having done so, but Prometheus means forethought. And then his brother was afterthought.

His name was Epimetheus. So, of course, his bride was Pandora. You think about things later when it's too late. Gee, I wish I hadn't opened that box. So we have this not a Promethean society, but an epimethean society. Yeah. It thinks about everything later. That's right.

You know, when we look at this, again, we go to war and we've got our gas tank as half full. We don't even have, the Europeans are debating as to whether or not they're going to release their strategic petroleum reserves. We go to war with ours half empty. Of course, it was emptied by Biden because he had put sanctions on. and then Trump didn't fill it up, even though he's bragging about low oil prices last year. He didn't fill up his tank when you said prices. And didn't dump, didn't Biden dump the strategic petroleum reserves to make things look better just in time for the November election? That's right. That's right.

You know, this is how they work. I mean, we're all at play and our affairs and our prosperity and our liberties are all at the hands of these guys that don't know what the heck they're doing and will do anything to further their own fortunes. I saw, I saw the story, I believe, yesterday that the Trump family, I guess the sons, you know, I mean, we're already up to our eyeballs in profiteering and crony capitalism's thing. You know, I saw wristwatch TV for Donald Trump. I'm your favorite president. Here's my wristwatch.

You know, one of these days, somebody's going to really look into the cryptocurrency stuff. Yeah. But the boys came up yesterday. They're investing in war drones now. They have some sort of a deal to take a substantial stake in the production of war drones. I mean, you know, would Jefferson or Washington have behaved like this? Or would they have let their family behave like this? Not a chance.

I guess the most disgusting thing I've seen is everybody is talking about who's responsible for bombing this girls' school and killing like 160-something children. and Trump doesn't even have the respect for the American people to try to come up with a plausible excuse or deniability, right? He just makes stuff up like, yeah, we sell the Tomahawk to everybody, and Iran's got him, and Iran probably did it, and all the rest of the stuff. It's just childish what he's doing and a total disregard for human life. He doesn't, we've had the senator from Louisiana, Kennedy, apologized publicly for that, but neither Trump nor Or Hegseth apologized. They just said, well, I don't know, maybe, you know, somebody else. We'll look into it and see what happened.

They don't want to accept responsibility for it. They don't want to apologize. They don't offer any plausible deniability to the American people. They figure we're just going to go along with whatever they do. And evidently, they're right. That's the amazing thing about it. Evidently so. Yeah, and you're talking about privateering.

You know, look at Lindsay Graham gloating about how we're all going to get rich. The we, I guess. Yeah, who is we, David? Who exactly is we? You know, I posted on my ex-account today, I think, or yesterday or today, a stock chart of Raytheon stock, makers of the Tomahawk. Oh, they're doing great. You may be paying five bucks in California or more for gasoline, but, you know, Raytheon shareholders, they're just, they're doing great. So we are going to get rich.

It's a big club, but you and I aren't in it. That's right. Which brings us to replenishing all these arms that they're rapidly running out of. I mean, that's the kind of the subtext of. A lot of this is you had Kane, who's the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was saying as they were getting ready to go. You know, we may not have sufficient ammunition really for this, right? As well as allies.

So they were low on allies and ammunition. They were also low on strategic petroleum reserve. But, hey, let's go to war anyway. We'll let Israel set the timetable and tell us who we have to go to war with. But when you look at this and you look at your experience with the Strategic Defense Initiative that Reagan began, the end of the Indian. missile thing? What is your take? Have you been following what's happening? I've seen a lot of different stories about how this is shaking out on both sides. Which side is running out of missiles

first? Whether we have radar sites that have been taken down. What is your take on that? Well, my take is I simply don't know. And secondarily, I don't believe anything the state says. Yeah. You know, the mutual assured destruction defense policy of the United States that prevailed during the 60s and into the 70s. It was a disaster. You know, it didn't provide any defense. Look at the defense budget that we had at the time. It provided no defense for the American people whatsoever with one small carve out, and that is that the governing classes in Washington were able to provide a small missile defense system for themselves, but not for the rest of the country. I mean, it was an absolute disaster. And, you know, by the game theory, by the game logic of

mutual assured destruction, people that were opponents of it said, well, if we have a defense capability, which is what Reagan was trying to institute, if we have a defense capability, then the Soviets will be at a disadvantage because we can strike them and destroy them and they can't retaliate. And that was the whole standoff logic of that mad period. And so Reagan said, to everybody's shock, Reagan said, well, we'll just give us. than the technology too. So now, the reason, whatever you think of that, and I had been being stunned by it, but there's an internal logic to that.

But whatever you think of him wanting to do that, Reagan genuinely believed that the United States of America is not a country that preemptively attacks other countries. That's right. He literally believed that. There may have been substantial evidence on the other side. I'm not prepared to say, but it's just been gangbusters since then of attacks on other countries. And, you know, we're not very good at it. We make a mess of things. I mean, you know, you can look at Iraq, Libya, Syria, the mess in Ukraine, and now the mess in Iran, and there's

no reason to think that the current mess in Iran is going to turn out any better than the prior ones. No, no. Yeah, it has been a pragmatic disaster when you look at it from that standpoint. No question about it. But it is also a moral disaster. If we can attack people that have not attacked us, Throughout history, that has always been the litmus test for who is justified in their war. Is it a war in defense or is it a war of aggression? And we've taken the aggressor point over and over again. And that's, I think, where we are right now. So as people are talking about nukes and we've got reports about some Trump cabinet members

who are building nuclear bunkers, they've got the guy who makes a lot of money doing that. He signed it for Zuckerberg or whatever. He says, yeah, I've got a couple of times. Trump cabinet members that are asking me when's it going to be ready. And a lot of people are concerned about that. What's your take on that reading the tea leaves that you see in public? Well, I've told friends since before the last election last fall that I didn't think that Trump would last two years of this term.

And, you know, that's a safe bet for somebody like me to make because you win so many ways. You know, there's the ugly way, you know, we know he's been attacked or been assassination attacks, but there's also the matter of his health, which can't be swept under the carpet forever. That's a challenge. There is the prospect that this will go very badly and the people will recognize it pretty quickly and decide to do something about it. There's the chance that his mental deterioration will catch up with him like it didn't

with Biden, and there's provision to remove him. There is also the chance, I think, that Americans, I don't go down this, but, but I don't go down this because I'm not a master of this topic. I look at it and it grows by the day and I guess I alluded to it a few minutes ago, but the somebody's going to have to do something serious about looking at the extent of cronyism in this administration. Oh yeah. It is off the charts. I have never seen anything like this and it's just, it's run rampant. And it's right in your face. Everything that's not nailed down. That's right. And they don't even try to hide it. That's what I said. They have so little respect for the intelligence of the American people because he is

surrounded by yes men and loyalists. So he figures everybody is that way that supports him. So they don't bother to come up with a plausible lie. They don't try to cover up the corruption and the cronyism, as you point out. It's all in everybody's face. It's truly amazing. Yeah. And the Congress, you know, all they care about is their next reelection. And so they're afraid that Trump will endorse their opponent and steer money to their opponent and so on, so they dare not say anything. But at one point, along the way here, it's going to have to reach a critical mass. The American people have, are losing faith in him. The MAGA coalition is toast. It's history. It's dust. It's finished. He has split it so bad. And I don't know what gets reformed out of it. But, you know, now the

Republican establishment is cheering for that neocon deep state figure. Marco Rubio to be the next presidential nominee. And so, I mean, we're just in a mess, but the whole thing is going to fracture, in my view, before the end of this year in some unforeseen way. Well, I think this war is a good start to the big ultimate fracture. When you look at that and you look at, of course, the Epstein files, that is something that's become a big problem for Trump with his base. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. The what files? I'm sorry. I don't recognize the term anymore. It was something they used to talk about last year. That's right. They've driven that off the front pages for sure. Yeah. Haven't driven it out of this show.

I mean, we still cover the developments that are there. But they've done the best they can to make that go away. But that really has broken faith with his base that is there. And I think that's part of the issue. I'm not sad to see the MAGA coalition go away because it is a coalition that is coalesced around an individual, not around principles. not around the Constitution, isn't it? Yeah. Maga is what I say it is.

Yeah. That's what he told, I think it was Tucker Carlson, or in the response to his break with Tucker Carlson, he said, well, he's not MAGA. Maga is what I say it is. Well, that's funny. I remember the expression, Make America Great again long before Trump was out of high school.

Yeah. I mean, there have been Make America Great movements for a very long time. And the idea, you know, this is supposed to be a governmental laws. and not a people. That's right. And that should have been drummed into the American people from the earliest age, but it's not by whim or caprice, whatever the dear leader says. We don't have dear leaders in this country or we're not supposed to.

So when somebody runs on a platform of ending these awful counterproductive, elective regime change wars on a program, he should be shamed by the people to the ends of the earth if he breaks that vow. And he did. He did. And not only him, but everybody that was running with him, you had Tulsi Gabbard, you had J.D. Vance, all of them were adamant that we're going to not do this regime change war. Now what are we doing?

We're doing the regime change war. Yeah, I wonder, and I like Tulsi Gabbard very much. And I debate with myself, and maybe you have a thought about this. But I think, well, she's got to make a statement and she's got to resign. And, you know, they're marginalizing her at every extent, if not insulting her as well. she's got to make a statement and resign. We know on the record what she stood for and we know what she said. And then I think, you know, maybe she feels obligated to stay in there and do what she can to minimize the damage.

I don't know what the answer is. And J.D. Vance, by the same token, I'm not, you know, J.D. Vance has always been a question mark for me. Yeah. I mean, I've trusted Tulsi, but J.D. Vance, I'm not sure. you know, he says a lot of good things, but I've never been exactly comfortable or sure. And now we're watching this. And I think, you know, the only thing, honorable thing he can do at this point, to me, if it were me, I would resign.

I'm not trying to say that that's what he must do. Maybe he, you know, maybe he knows that Trump will be gone before the end of this year, as I surmise. Yeah. And he wants to be there to pick up the, pick up the threads. I guess that could be part of his reckoning, but maybe that's wise and maybe I'm foolish by saying, you know, somebody's got to resign because that has a tremendous clarifying effect on the people. It'll be the topic of discussion for months if he were to do that, and maybe it would have a salutary effect. I agree.

And, of course, when you talk about Tulsi Gabbard, I think resigning would be the best thing that she could do if she wanted to try to minimize what Trump is doing. What better way to do it than to lead people away from this and to foment a rebellion against this illegal war? But for her own personal benefit, I don't see how it benefits her to stay there and deny all of her principles and become a boot-licking lackey like the rest of them. It's just amazing. But speaking in Congress, we talked about Congress being essential to declare war. Look at what our Congress has done. They basically said, I don't want this hot potato. And they kicked it away.

they don't want to have a, they shut down a resolution to hold a vote on this. And, and then you've got Mike Johnson saying, well, they attacked us. They hit three of our embassies. After he unleashed a barrage on them. That's the most twisted thing I've seen out of all this stuff. It's so twisted.

And he's twisted right along the way. You know, he's actually is one of the ones among many who said, well, this is not a war. So, but he's been twisted. You know, and it's not just that. I mean, he is the one that, for example, there was a movement, I guess Nancy Mace led it. There was a movement to open up the slush fund. There is a congressional slush fund to pay off people who charge Congresspeople, elected officials, with sexual harassment.

They don't pay it themselves. Their insurance company doesn't pay it. We pay it. And so there was a movement to open the books, take a look at it, see what John Cornyn has done if he's one of the perpetrators and, you know, see what kind of a rat's nest this place in Washington is. And, of course, they couldn't have that. I mean, that's so flagrant. Oh, yeah. That's so, it's embarrassing to this country.

It's embarrassing to us in our moral character. You look at Dennis Haster, the longest serving Republicans figured out of him. You know, he was a pedophile. They picked him. He was a wrestling coach. and run for Congress and put him in a speaker. And, you know, we've seen this happen over and over again. He was on with Rush Limbaugh defending, what was it,

calm delay, I think, in terms of the pay. Another one. Yeah. And he was saying, oh, it's just politics from the Democrats. There's nothing there. Same stuff that Trump is doing now with the Epstein files. And it truly is amazing that that has become so endemic, the sexual misconduct in Congress and their slush fund that they want to keep all

that stuff. They got their own fun. to pay for it. I guess it's one of the perks of Congress, right? It's, yeah, they operate with impunity. Well, you know, I mean, harken back to where we started about a declaration of war. One of the other virtues of that is that you could hold people responsible for their bad judgment. When they declared a needless war, it cost the American people, and it cost lives. The people who exercised bad judgment or were pressured into supporting the war by their contributors, which certainly happens a lot.

Well, then at the end of the day, when the dust settles, we can run them out of office and they can be shamed for their lives too. But they operate entirely with impunity, and they only get in trouble when they cross the deep state. And then, oh, boy, they unleashed the big batteries of guns. Oh, yeah. What do you think about boots on the ground? We talked about likelihood of escalation in many different ways, and we don't know where this

is going and the guy who's running it doesn't know where it's going, but there's a lot of uncomfortable movement about boots on the ground. What's your take? Yeah, this is the camel's nose in the tent business as far as I'm concerned. They, they, what have I seen recently? They were talking about, well, we're just, we'll put some troops in some special forces on Carg Island, you know, for special operations to protect shipment, protect oil. We'll do that. And then, oh, by the way, we'll arm, will arm the Kurds for an operation in northern, western, Iraq. I'm thinking, you morons, you know, Erdogan is not going to like that.

Turkey is not going to like that. You're going to use the Kurds again for American cannon fodder, as we've done in the past. You know, and that will be the end, in my view. I mean, Turkey is a NATO ally. That will be the end of NATO if they do that, because Turkey, I can't imagine they would put up with that for a minute.

So maybe that's good. I mean, the NATO alliance has been nothing but trouble anyway for several decades. Well, of course, Charles, that begs a question. You know, when we saw everything that was happening with the Strait of Hormuz and being choked off and the people realizing what the consequences are going to be finally. And then Trump throws a life preserver to the market and says, don't worry we'll protect the straight of Hormuz you know first he said we'll do it with the navy and then the Navy shot that down I said we can't operate there you can't put us there so it would be

too vulnerable then he's talking about putting special forces on the island the reality though is it just just emphasizes I think the fact that there was no thinking no planning no strategy to any of this stuff if you wanted to do regime change and use the Kurds wouldn't you've started that right away had them right now they're reacting to what Iran is doing And I think reading between the tea lines, tea leaves, that kind of tells us that maybe things aren't going the way they thought they were going to go. And why, if you understand the importance of the Strait of Hormuz, why wouldn't you try to secure that area as one of your primary strategies? I don't understand any of that. But it looks to me like they haven't thought through any of this stuff.

Well, answer me this. I mean, if shipping in the Strait of Hormuz is dangerous enough to your 10 million barrels of, oil that you're shipping through there that Lloyd's of London doesn't want to insure it at any cost. Why should the American taxpayers pay to secure it and to insure it for oil that we're told we're energy sufficient? We produce our own petroleum this country. Why should we pay to secure that petroleum that's going to places like China and other nations? You know, we're just, it's sort of a global socialism. Yeah. You know, everybody benefits. And, And we, the costs are, the benefits are socialized to the whole world to the global American

military empire, but the costs land in the lap of the American people. That's right. Yeah. Yeah. And, you know, it's not that that would be right under any circumstances, but these are very perilous circumstances. You've got, you know, now we're virtually $39 trillion in debt. That's the visible portion of the debt.

You know, most of the debt is under the water line and unfunded liabilities. but it is debt that cannot be paid. It simply cannot be paid by any of the normal mechanisms. You know, as creditors start to back away, I was looking at these numbers yesterday. China, not too many years ago, it was a creditor of the United States. For your listeners that don't listen to these things

or pay attention to these things, you know, when they buy U.S. Treasury bonds, they're loaning this money. And the U.S. Treasury says, yeah, give us $10 million. We'll give you this bond and we'll redeem it. We'll give you all your money back plus 4%, or 5%. or 5% interest, whatever it is. So China lends us a lot of money.

So not so, and as do a lot of other. In fact, we are dependent on the kindness of foreign nations. But as so many others do, China loaned us. They were one of our top creditors. So a few years ago, they were up to almost, well, over $1.3 trillion in U.S. Treasuries that they had owned. In other words, that they had loaned to the United States to keep the U.S. government, to keep Washington spending,

going. They loaned that money to the United States, and now they're backing away. They know perfectly well. The only expedient available to the United States to pay off that debt is to print more money and devalue the dollar. So they're down 50% in the U.S. treasuries that they owned, and the rest of the world clearly is backing away from the dollar. Look, these foreign central bankers, you know, they know the money printing game, they know the Fiat money game perfectly well, and they don't mind fleecing their own people with it. But they just don't want to be fleeced by. buy our money printing any longer. And so that's why, you know, reserves are flowing to gold and alternative global monetary systems

are being erected and stuff. And, you know, we're our own worst enemies. We're, as they're moving away from the dollar anyway, because it's not a trustworthy vehicle anymore, we're driving them by our weaponization of the dollar, by freezing assets all over the world and claiming that people aren't entitled to their own money. And then when we release their own money to them, Sean Hannity and the other nitwits on Fox starts screaming, we gave them. We gave them all this money. Well, we didn't give them any money. We released the money that they owned that we had stolen from them to begin with.

I agree. Yeah, you said it's like a global socialism. And of course, I think that's part of the goal of government and socialism is to create dependency, right? And so if he can use us and the debt, you know, the massive credit card that just keeps building and building, if he can use that to get people in debt to us. But of course, another thing is kind of surfing. in Lindsay's gloating, and that is the idea that the empire now, as you point out, you know, it's an empire of lies, but it's also an empire that is trying to set up a global hegemony on oil. That's exactly what Lindsay Graham was saying. He said, we're looking at the combined control of Venezuela and Iran's oil, two of the biggest ones that are there. Yeah. I wonder how

the American people could countenance were self-sufficient in oil. We've told been told repeatedly, and yet somehow we can go around the world and steal the production, the oil of other countries. You know, there will come a time when we're not the big gun in the world anymore. That's right. You know, nothing lasts forever. These empires don't last forever. They collapse.

There is a syndrome that I write about in Empire of Lies, Fragments from the Memory Hole. There is a syndrome called Imperial Overset. It didn't start from me. It's well known. It's well recognized. that these empires, in extremists, as they see their global hegemony or their control of places far and beyond their own borders, as they see their hold beginning to slip, they react to it, and they react to it typically violently. But, you know, their hegemony such that they had, their dominance and stuff was the result of their economic might, was a result of their productive capacity, was those of the work of the people and the wealth and the riches that they had produced. That's what enabled the creation of the empire of the first place.

But when it starts to crack, as we're seeing now of the United States, the geniuses in Washington, the status, the deep state, the establishment, they react to it as though it is a threat to their military dominance. And so they divert even more funds from the productive economy to beef up the military. This is exactly what we're doing now in Iran. I mean, we're spending a trillion dollars a day in new money there. I think the president just asked for another $50 billion supplemental. We spend more than the next – I don't even know the number anymore. Was it the next 7, 8, 9 countries of the world combined? We spend more on war.

We call it defense, but it's spending on war. We spend a trillion dollars a year. And three or four weeks ago, the president said, no, we need to bump that up to $1.5 trillion. We need a 50% bump in our military spending. Yes. Yeah. So that's what we're doing. And when we look at this, you know, especially if they want to get into a long war with Iran, the asymmetric warfare is one of the things that has consistently been our downfall. The boots on the ground in trying to do regime change and nation building. I don't know how he thinks people don't see this as they say, well, we're not going to do nation building.

Well, they want to take the oil. They want to change regime. I mean, aren't you talking about putting boots on the ground and trying to control the people that are there after you have rained death and destruction from the sky as War Pete says and boast about it. It's amazing to see him revel in the carnage like this. Yeah, and it's not just that we want to replace the leadership. We want to make sure we name our own guy. Yeah. Oh, that's good. Sure, that'll go over well. You know, years ago, this is a kind of vague memory, but anybody interested in these kinds of issues that we've gotten on now I should look up a story by Malcolm Gladwell in one of his books. I think it was in Blink.

And he wrote an account of, it was Millennium Challenge, was I think 2002 military exercise. And there was the red team and the blue team. And it was a Pentagon-run military exercise. They had to do with the Gulf, had to do with the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, and a war with Iran in 2002. And the A team was what we are today.

Well, we're more advanced, but it was the same thing. you know, was high-tech, electronic warfare, remote missile launching, and whatever they had the equivalent of what we have today that is remote and high-tech. And the B-team were the stragglers, the asymmetric warfare guys, that didn't have anything. And the guy that led the B-team was a general by the name of Paul Van Ripper. And instead of using like interceptible messaging and cell phones and things, he used couriers on bicycles.

And instead of big Navy craft, you know, he used little speedboats that zipped in and zipped out. And, I mean, it was all this downscale primitive warfare against the Goliath, the behemoth of modern technology in America's superior military budget and high-tech equipment. And guess what? The B-team won. And it was so embarrassing before they could declare victory, the Pentagon called off the exercise because, you know, they were beating you believe. by some inventive stragglers using primitive means of communication, smoke signals, light signals, and so on. So somebody ought to look that up. You've got the Machiavellian industrial complex that's out there.

They're making a lot of money off these very complicated, expensive weapon systems. And yet we've already seen at the beginning of the Iran War how Iran did not, the decapitation strike didn't affect them the way obviously the Pentagon thought it would, because they have decentralized leadership, decentralized command and control, and then they attacked our highly centralized radar systems based on what I've heard several analysts say. And that appears to be the case. And so we have these very, very complex systems

that are incredibly expensive. And of course, that's to the benefit of the people like Raytheon who are making these things and the people that they keep in Congress like Lindsey Graham. That benefits them. They are the we who are making, a lot of money off of this stuff, but it doesn't really help the United States. And certainly,

this adventurism, this empire abroad, does nothing for the safety of Americans, which has nothing to do with national security. National security is like continuity of governance and continuity of the empire. It doesn't have anything to do with the safety of the American people because they are putting us at risk by creating enemies everywhere. Yeah, everywhere. It is said that Osama bin Laden's fondest hope was to lure the United States into a war in Iraq, that he hoped to do that, to break the global powerhouse, to drain it, to bleed it dry. Not thinking that, you know, he and a bunch of other guys in fatigues off in the mountains of Kandahar someplace could prevail militarily, but they thought that they could take America down

financially if they could drain them long enough, much like we thought, much like Bersenski thought that we could do to the Soviet. Union with his Afghanistan initiative. And what they're trying to do, the Soviet Union with Ukraine as well, right? We're using the Ukrainians as our cat spa and figured that we're bleeding the Russians dry. And I've heard people like Lindsey Graham boasting about that. Look at how many, you know, soldiers and tanks and all this kind of stuff.

Russia has lost in this war. That's what we want. You know, so it's a war of attrition. And yet we get suckered in by that same strategy on the other side. And it's so short-sighted. It's not even short-sighted. It's blindness. They have no vision at all to wonder.

I mean, what happened to the economically drained and crippled nation of Germany after World War I and with the perpetual payments from the Versailles Treaty of Reparations? I mean, are a broken down people with no hope and no direction susceptible to the, you know, to the, fringe elements like Hitler. Well, of course they are. So what do you think is going to happen? If you topple the Russian government, you topple Putin and everybody else in the Kremlin, and you break the bank of the Soviet, the Russian economy, which is what they openly talk about hoping to do is collapse the Russian economy. What do they think will take its place? It was only a generation or two ago that they had the Lubyank prison, they had, you know, walls and barbed wire,

They had the Gulag archipelago. I mean, what do they think is going to arise in the place of these guys? Have they given that any thought? Well, again, on precedent, no, because they never give anything any thought. It's just destroy, destroy, destroy. That's right. Yeah, what is the regime change going to look like in Iran, for example? And the bottom line is our history with Iran began with regime change.

It began with a coup back in 1953. And that has blown this whole thing up. They always start the clock 47 years ago with the Iranian Revolution against the Shah, the guy that we put in and equipped his secret police. It's just, it was a very bad story. Yeah, I blanche when I hear them say, we've been at war with them for 47 years. Where do they get that number? Do they think, you know, it's the Iranian Revolution. Do they think those millions of people that turned out in the street to cheer on the abdication or the fall of the Shah?

They think that they poured out in the street because they lived under such a benign and lovely government. Of course not. They lived under a cruel despotism. You know, the historian laureate of the Reagan people was a great, it was a great scholar by the name of Paul Johnson. And all the Reaganites read his history books, and they all thought they were great. I guess they've been slipped down the memory hole, too. But Paul Johnson wrote a short account of exactly what the reign of. of Pahlavi, the Shah was like.

We were told, the American people were told because, you know, well, we don't want communism and we don't want to visit communism on these people. Well, the elected government, the Masada government, was no more communist than, you know, the prevailing beliefs in the Republican and Democrat platforms these days. He just didn't want us stealing his oil and not getting paid for it. But in any event, the Shah that we instituted, and I wrote a piece for this, It was published by the Blaze a couple of weeks ago. I was published by the Libertarian Institute and Anti-War.com.

I wrote a piece called The Deep State Wants to Restore the Rain of the Persian Stalin. Yeah. And it's hard to swallow when we've been told that the Shah was so great. But, you know, when we installed him, when Alan Dulles, the head of the CIA, ain't it peculiar how CIA heads always seem to show up in these deals? just like Brennan showed up in toppling the Ukraine regime. He checked in under a false name, but Dulles was out in the open, and he escorted Pahlavi to the peacock throne when the Mossade reign. You know, we hired thugs, we hired revolutionaries,

we hired the worst elements of possible in the streets to foment a revolution there like we do. And then they escorted Pallavi to the peacock throne, and he proceeded to, oh, one of the things he did, was he put the Mossad and he put General Schwarzkopf. This is a good one. People will remember, people of our age will all remember Storm and Norman, General Schwarzkopf from the first Gulf War. But his father was one of the guys that was sent in to help the Shah, along with the Mossad,

learn how to torture his opponents. And that's where the cruel and notorious Savak were born out of that. But of course the expatriates, the people that fled that were, you know, on friendly terms with the Shah and living in Los Angeles now and are urging the United States to go to war and put in the Shah's son, you know, they, of course they want us to do their fighting for them. But the people that turned out in the street in 1979 weren't all there because the rule of the Shah had been so enlightened and liberating and property. prosperous. It was a very ugly time for a lot. And I remember all the mainstream media news events where they would show the Sean his family and show Iran as like, look, he's modernizing Iran. He's making it like America, you know, that kind of thing. And yet when I was in college, that was my frame of reference for Iran. I was surprised to see all these Iranian students that

were at the engineering college where I was. And they could get over here if they were an engineering student, but they were out there protesting Iran. I thought, what are they doing that for? I mean, it's like he's creating the kind of environment that they want to live in. And they were wearing these bala-clava masks. And so I asked some of them, because I had a lot of them in my classes, I said, so what's going on? What's all the masks and everything? That was the first time I'd seen anybody protesting wearing a mask. And they said, well, because of the Savak, I said, what is that? And they filled me in on what was going on there. It's horrific what was done. The CIA massan, as your point, I didn't know that Schwartzcough was, his dad was a part of that as well.

But that has been the history of the empire, the CIA sets up, and that is murder, coups, assassination, torture, secret police, all the rest of this stuff. And we have to ask, why do we think that we're immune to that here? And, of course, we're not. And if you're paying attention, you've already seen a lot of these aspects already in operation. They just haven't become so pervasive and in your face yet. Well, you jogged my memory, by you jogged my memory by talking about your student days because I remember it was after my student days, but being just a little bit horrified about these mobs out in the street, burning American flags in Iran and chanting death to America and the great Satan, I didn't really understand. And most Americans didn't.

And that is the fault of our education, I guess. But it's the fault of the, you know, the media. It's the fault of the state that whitewashes and sanitizes all of its deeds, and it doesn't want anybody to know anything else. But I remember being shocked at what is wrong with these people? And it took a few years for me to really understand. You know, I have been on a book tour talking about my book, Empire of Lies, fragments from the memory hole. And one of the surprising things that I hear, I mean, you would think out of all the all the, all the, sloganisms and the reasons to actually go to war, it would be something more substantial than this.

But I hear, I have heard many times from different people. Well, you know, they call us the great Satan and these are the people that have been chanting death to America for 47 years. And I go, so what? Is that a thin pretext for a war or what? Do you remember Ronald Reagan getting ready to do his radio address? and he said, okay, we're bombing the Soviet Union, and the bombs start falling in five minutes of the criminal leadership was horrified.

But this goes on all the time. John McCain ran around the country going, singing like he was, you know, some crazed beach boy, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb. He was a presidential candidate. Yeah. So they hear what we do, but we don't hear what we do. We only hear what they say. That's right.

And the things don't translate very well anyway. Well, you know, Charles, I've heard some people. I listened to an Iranian official who was being interviewed, and he said he's actually a teacher in the universities and said, we tried to tell the students what it was like under the Shah. They just didn't believe us. They didn't believe what we were saying about the Americans. Now they see it. And that's the issue. When we do these types of things that we're doing, that shows people the character of our government. And now he said, now they understand. If they wanted regime change, The thing to do would have been to just sit back and let it happen. It was already in a process. But instead, they snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory because then what they did was they made themselves the greater enemy that's there. And of course, part of what was happening was also a pushback against westernized abortion and other things like that in Iran coming in.

They didn't like that. That was part of what they were saying was satanic. and we just saw the burning an effigy of Ball, or bail, the pagan god with symbols of the U.S. and of Israel. That's the way they see us. And so they burned that in effigy. They did that at the beginning of the revolution. And you know, when they took over the embassy, that is the starting point of Americans understanding anything about Iran.

To them, basically Iran didn't exist. We don't know anything about these other countries until that happened. And then you had this long thing every day, day number one, day number 10, day number 11, on and on it went through the nightline doing that. And America held hostage by Iran. That was ingrained in the memory of people. And it was done without any context at all as to why they would take over the embassy. And, of course, you know, they held them hostage.

But that was extended because of the Iran-Contra affair. We don't, we certainly don't remember the Iraq-Iran war in which we provided. You know, when the weapons inspectors went into Iraq looking for the missing weapons of mass destruction, what they did find was leftovers from the Iraq-Iran war. They were inert by that time, but they found some, these were, this was technology, these were precursors, this was technology and targeting and stuff that the United States gave to Saddam Hussein. Hussein. Oh, he's worse than Hitler, but we were giving him technology to underwrite his war with Iran. We encouraged it. We provided him resources, illegal resources, I might add, to pursue that war.

And I don't remember the number after all these years. I think it was at least 200,000 Iranians died. They had to send kids out in the battlefield. The population was being drained so much by our, and we don't remember, I remember, you remember, the Iranian airbus that was shot down with 290,000 civilians killed by the USS Vincennes, and Bush had the nerve to award the captain of that awful incident, I think, some kind of metal of commendation. Oh, it was an awful event. I've talked about that many times. You know, that's what the Iranian official was saying, says, yeah, I've told the kids

and he still believes that that that was deliberate, deliberately done by the U.S. and said, well, you know, I've said for the longest time, I didn't think it was deliberate. I thought it was accidental because I thought they did the same thing with Flight 800, having naval exercises. It's just that when it happens over American tech territory,

they can cover it up, but they couldn't cover it up there. And I said, you know, I thought it was remarkable restraint. Of course, what could Tehran really do about that? But the key point that you're making there, about Saddam Hussein is that after they had suffered for a couple of decades under the Shah, which basically just means it's Persian for king. After we overthrew their republic and their democracy and we installed a king who had a secret police that tortured and killed people for the longest time. We did two decades of that. And then after that, we, I think, helped to

instigate Saddam Hussein attacking them. because as it was a new government, new revolution, thought they would catch them at a weak point. And yet Saddam Hussein really wasn't doing very well with that until we jumped in with additional equipment and intelligence and other things like that. And then the tide started turning towards Iraq versus Iran. And so all of that history is just ignored. And all the history of our intervention, our preemptive attacks, our empire wars of lies, all of the that stuff is just forgotten. We don't have any contact for this at all. It's totally forgotten. And the subtitle of my book is, well, it's Empire of Lies, Fragments from the Memory Hole.

And as people will remember from reading 1984 by George Orwell in high school, in this dystopian future, the ministry of love is where dissidents went to be tortured. They took up to the ministry of love. Everything was inverted. The Ministry of Truth is where the protagonist in the novel, Well, his job was rewriting history, and he'd take the old history, we rewrite the history, put out the new truth, and then the old truth was consigned to an incinerator that was called the memory hole. I want to mention, since we were on the topic, the U.S. Embassy in Iran, and I talk about this in Empire of Lies. there is a, it is now a museum of what the people there went through under the Shah of Iran and the spying CIA. They took, oh yeah, at the time, at the time that the embassy was stormed, the employees began

shredding documents furiously. Imagine this, the students, they were supposed to be these crazed out of their mind, students, they went through the laborious process, I think it must have taken them years, of pasting all those shredded things together and reconstituting all the destroyed documents that the CIA and the embassy staff destroyed about what had gone on there. And you see case after case,

they have rooms where there were the eavesdropping room, this is where they did this, this is where the CIA did that and so on. And they have reconstituted those documents so that the people in Iran can familiarize themselves with the politicians that we were paying off. The freedom movements that we were subverting, the measures that would liberate the country, the measures that would empower the central government more at the expense of the people or engage them in warfare at the Iranian people's expense.

All those shredded documents of CIA spying for years and running the government and bribing and paying it off are all there for the Iranian people to see. Now, the American people don't know anything about that. But it's been reconstituted. And so when you wonder why, you know, they say death to America, they have, within the recall of living Americans, they have an idea of what we were doing at that time. That's amazing. That's amazing. Well, maybe they could do us the same favor for the Epstein documents. Why do you think?

Here's an Iranian students that's like, I'm over here and pieced together that. I'm sorry. Epstein, the name rings a bell, but I'm not sure I remember. It's slipping down the memory hole too fast. Well, I guess they can't put together those shredded disc drives that are... Yeah, that's a different challenge. That's right. Tell us a little bit about the book, The Empire of Lies.

Yeah, the book is... It's not just a collection of the sequential lies of the empire. It also covers the media. And the media as the lapdog press that furthers the deep state. I'm pretty clear about these terms. them along casually, the Deep State is identified. I identify the Deep State as the Executive Arm of the Global American Empire. My executive arm, I mean, they call the shots, and they are a collective. They are like bees in a hive. They don't sting one another, but they have different jobs. The Deep State is not coordinated by a central authority, but they all work like the bees in the hive for the good of the hive.

And of course, it is a mistake. It's common enough for people to believe that the deep state is consigned to a few actors, you know, like Brennan and Clapper, who both lied to Congress, by the way, and felt no repercussions for having done so. I remember Clapper. Clapper said, well, when he was caught lying about the U.S.'s surveillance on American citizens, the illegal surveillance, he answered under oath in Congress. I think it was Senator Wyden that asked him. He said, no, we don't, yeah, we don't do that. No, no, we don't do that. And when he was caught up, he offered this excuse.

Well, I gave the least untruthful answer I could give. But when these people are sworn in, they're not sworn in for the least untruthful answer. They're sworn in for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But it's not just those guys. The deep state works its way all the way down through a bureaucracy of minor petty bureaucrats and one of them that I cite just to represent the case is Lieutenant Colonel Arthur Vindman who was on Trump's National Security Council in the first term and he's the one that set the wheels in motion for the first Trump impeachment

and what was his what was the gravamen of his complaint against against Trump? It was this and he told he said this to Congress. It was well the problem with Trump he said is he is not following the interagency consensus on Ukraine. And we have to ask ourselves, what is an interagency? And where does that appear in the Constitution? And how does it operate? And does it vote?

And who gets a vote? And where does it fit in the balance of power and the checks and balances? And who's a member of the interagency? And can I be a member? And who do they benefit? And where are the records of their meetings and so on? I mean, it's pure Balderdash. But that is the deep state.

And that's not just the heads of the state. CIA and the NSA or the FBI, that is all the way down the bureaucracy. And yet it's so typical. And then if you'll indulge me one more thing is the role that the lapdog press plays in this thing. And there is, I identify this, I think it's very worth reading if it were just this alone, is this syndrome. You won't find this in any standard psychiatric diagnostic manuals, but I have identified it. and I think it should be in the manuals, and I call it combat envy.

And it's very, very ubiquitous in the halls of government, this combat envy syndrome. You know, you could run into a guy, I suppose, at a bar at some point in your life that tells you tales of daring to do about, you know, oh, I was a Navy seal or Green Beret in Vietnam and so, and it doesn't do really any harm. But when these elected officials are leading newscasters and opinion makers in the United States make up these lies about where they have been and what they have done and cheering on. on our wars for national television audiences. It's pretty destructive. Fox News had a guy named Wayne Simmons that they used for years, and he was a national security, former CIA expert,

and he came on there with the most nonsensical, war-mongering, crazed advice, and they liked him. And that's why they brought it back year after year, because he fit the network's agenda. He'd come up with stuff about, you know, well, you know, We need a ground invasion, it's 10, 15 years ago. We need a ground invasion of Iraq. So eventually, I guess some of the real CIA guys got a little tired of his balderdash, and they blew the whistle on him.

And it turned out he wasn't a national security guy, and he wasn't a former CIA guy. He was a doorman and a hot tub manager and a felon, too. So they had to get rid of him. But look, you had Brian Williams on NBC. Brian Williams made up his own personal tales of close calls talking about, well, in the first Iraq war, I was part of this helicopter assault, and we flew in, and then the RPGs were flying at us, and it was harrowing, and we had to do a corkscrew landing, and I came within the, and then with each retelling, he would embellish the story, and it got worse and worse, oh, I saw an RPG, and it was heading right down,

I could see the tube, and it was headed right at us, and it was, and it got bigger and bigger, and finally the guys that were actually on the mission, and by the way, the name of the mission was Big Windy. I guess they anticipated Brian Williams' role in it, but the guys that were actually in the mission told the story to Stars and Stripes. So Brian Williams got found out for his embellished tales of combat envy, and when he was found out, he said,

oh, I must have had a brain tumor as he tried to excuse himself. the network that, you know, we trust for feeding us reliable news and information, having known now that their primary anchor was lying to us, they suspended him for a while, they didn't care enough about the credibility of their network or their news anchors or the trust that the American people might lodge in him to get rid of him, to apologize for him. They suspended him, and then they gave him back another slot. I think he anchored MSNBC for years after that.

So this stuff goes on. You know, there are countless officials. engage in this combat envy stuff. There are commentators the next time we visit, or maybe people want to just buy the book and read the story of, oh, there's a good one, Bill O'Reilly on Fox and his combat envy. It borders on the ridiculous. So I chart some of these things so people can see this is the deep state and how it works. This is the establishment, the American political establishment.

This is their role. This is the lap dog press. But the point of it all, I tried to direct people to is if we do not begin to honor to demand and to honor the truth of our press, of our public officials of the so-called American establishment, if we don't demand the truth of them, then this is our fate. And I walk you right up to the ragged edge. This is our fate if we don't. And there is no sign yet that the American people have turned and maybe this Iran war will be the last strong people will wake up. Well, it's hope so. And it is good to go back and to remind ourselves of how we got here and this long trail of lies and deceptions, which is what your book does. You know, we're hearing this week, we've got the psycho chamber throughout media, both left and right of the short-term pain, long-term gain. And they're all repeating this slogan all the time. It's like you talk about the complicity of the media and you talk about people who present themselves as intelligence experts. I work. at a place where that person was Steve Pachennick that kept coming back on and he was selling

one lie, crazy lie after the other. It was much worse stuff than what you were talking about from the NBC anchor. But again, nobody ever pays any penalties for that. The people, they know that if they lie to people and if it's sensational enough, they get viewership. And they know that once they're caught in that lie, that it's not going to affect them whatsoever because, you know, people are entertained by it. And I think there is a certain aspect of it that they don't really care if it's true as long as they're entertained by it, right?

Right. They don't really care if it's true. You know, you mentioned earlier, and we didn't really talk about it, but you mentioned earlier TWA Flight 800. And it was so peculiar amidst all the misinformation eyewitnesses to the event testified that they saw a streak of, you know, come up from the horizon or come up from the sea and hit the aircraft and stuff. And they gave, they gave statements to the FBI. They were, they were dumbfounded later at the end of the investigation when they got a chance to see their statements that they had given themselves, the FBI, and they'd all been changed. Yeah. They were a little dumbfounded by it. But the CIA, this was, unprecedented. The CIA actually put out a video. I remember seeing it on YouTube. And it was this

comical 1950s announcer style and he said and it was in like all caps red letters underscored and stuff in this video they put together the people did not see a missile take down TWA 800

okay whatever you say sure that that works magic bullet two that's right yeah they got Voice of America they're used to that kind of that kind of broadcast style it just doesn't cut it anymore with most people. It also doesn't help when you've got people who are air traffic

controllers saying the FBI came by and stole the records that we had showing what was going on with this missile. So yeah, the FBI, I refer to them as fed's blocking investigation because that seems to be what they're doing more often than not. But thank you so much for reminding people. Again, the book is Empire of Lies, Fragments from the Memory Hole. We need to be reminded of this long history that we have. It's bipartisan, and it is what the true government of our country is. Forget about these elections. It's the true government that's running it, which is the deep state that you're talking about, this bureaucracy that remains there from whoever wins the election. They're the ones who are really calling the shots and calling the coups and the wars as well.

Thank you so much for joining us. Charles Goet, and you have a website. I do. It's CharlesGoyette.com. I have another one, Empire of Lies.com. You can find a little bit of information about the book there and links to to buy it like on Amazon. So that would be great. And I think everybody will find it very compelling. It is actually, I'll tell you, actually, David, it's pretty juicy too. Certainly sounds like it.

I'm anxious to see it myself. Thank you so much for joining us, Charles. Yeah, thank you, David. I appreciate you very much. Thank you. Making sense. Common again. You're listening to the David.

Night Show. If you like the Eagles, on a dark desert highway, the cars, and Huey Lewis in the news, they'll love the classic hits channel at APS Radio. Download our app or listen now at APSRadio.com. Joining us now is Gary Benoit. He has been working with the New American for nearly 50 years, just at the cusp of it. He is now the editor-in-chief of the New American, the publication of the John Burtz Society. We're going to talk to him about his book. I really like the title of this,

The John Birch Society, The Vanguard of the Americanist Cause. I think that's a great way to put it. And I think it's a good description of what they do. But we're going to begin by talking about the constitutional issues about declaring war, since we're looking at this Iran war. Thank you for joining us, Gary. Oh, thank you. I'm so happy being on your program, David. Well, thank you. You know, we look at this. We've talked about so many different aspects, The number one issue for me personally is the moral issue. But of course, there's practical issues involved with all of this. There's also legal issues, which we're going to talk about.

But the only thing they seem to be interested in is lethal issues. How many people can we kill? That's what we hear from Pete Hankseth all the time. He always wants to talk about lethality, lethality. But it never talks about legality that is there. So let's talk a little bit about the Constitution and war because we've had a slight pushback from the House and from the Senate on this. And, of course, with the War Powers Act, the president was supposed to, once they initiate

acts of war against another country, they're supposed to notify Congress within 48 hours. So they had Rubio go over and talk to the gang of eight, a term which I cannot find in the Constitution. Maybe you know it where it is in the Constitution. I can't find it. And so he talks to the leaders of the two different parties. and a couple of other people and told them that we had been pushed into it by Israel, and that was the end of it.

You know, we don't have any more discussions, and there have been bills that have been brought up in both the House and the Senate to say that we want to have a declaration of war before we continue with this. Those are both men shut down. Now, according to the War Powers Act, if there's not a declaration of war within 60 days, the president would have to withdraw. But, of course, that's not the way that it has worked for the longest time. is it?

No, it's not. And actually, you mentioned, David, that you could not find the Gang of Eight terminology in the Constitution. But I can't not only find that, I also cannot find

the War Powers Act in the Constitution. That's right. And the War Powers Act, of course, that was something that was done during the Vietnam War era to try to change things

in the future where the president can just not will and nearly go to war and have that war continue and escalated. as long as he wants. But even the War Powers Act, I would argue, is unconstitutional.

I would go back to the provisions in the Constitution itself. And those provisions are very clearly worded, excuse me, worded, and they assigned, or the provisions assigned in the Constitution, it's in Article 1, Section 8, assigned most war powers to Congress, not to the President. That's right. And specifically regarding the decision whether or not to go to war, that is specifically Congress. That is totally Congress.

And the way it's awarded the Constitution is the congressional power to declare war. That's right. And, you know, David, the only reason they use the word declare as opposed to the word make is because the founding fathers did recognize,

well, my goodness, what if the United States of America is subjected to a sudden attack? And we have, you know, the troops coming into America, and then the president would have to violate the Congress. Constitution in order to save the country from that sudden attack.

That's the only reason why they made the word declare rather than the word make. That's right. And, of course, we need to be able to declare our causes for this, declare what the end is, the end goal, as many people said, if you don't have a declared ending to your war, it's never going to end, right? And so it just keeps going on on because we don't have it, we got these moving goalposts. And, of course, people get drawn into this with a tip. and tat that happens with war always. But you're absolutely right. Even the War Powers Act, of course,

is not there. I view that as kind of a desperate act from Congress saying, and we really mean it now, except they don't really mean it now. Isn't it? How all of a sudden, all these liberal Democrats have discovered the Constitution? On this specific thing, they are right. The President should not act as a king. That's right. The President should not have the power of a king to just, Civil War whenever he wants to. But, you know, I can't help thinking in particular when you look at history that if you had right now a Democrat president, rather than a Republican president, that all of a sudden the Democrats would be taking the opposite position. Oh, we know they would.

Absolutely would. Yes. And of course, when you look at the Senate, it was only 47 percent of the senators along partisan lines pretty much that voted to stop this act of aggression, which is really what this war is. And in the House side, it was slightly closer. It was 49% saying we need to stop this and 51% saying we don't care, do whatever you want. That is a sad situation. You know, I look at this. And I think back to Mark Levin and his, you know, a lot of the people were trying to put together a constitutional convention to change the constitution. And I know that the John Burke Society has warned about the dangers of this significantly. And I look at it and I say, well, if we got a bunch of people who are not interested in following the Constitution we've got, why would we allow

that gang of people to write a new Constitution because they won't even follow the rules that they've got right now? Oh, I agree with you completely regarding that. Yeah. So we're in a bad situation right now, aren't we? Yes. Of course, it is true that the founding fathers put into the Constitution a provision for having an Article 5 convention.

But I would say that today. would be the worst possible time we could employ that. Yes. Because there's so much of a lack of understanding on the part of the people today. And, you know, if you go back to the founding fathers, you did have people of wisdom and they created the government large enough to protect our freedom, but not so large that that government become a destroyer of the freedom that it was supposed to protect. And what would happen today if we opened up a new convention?

I agree with that, yeah. And it wouldn't be just members of the John Birch Society who would be. be there. It'd be the people who don't care what's in the Constitution and are going to do whatever they want. And that'd be an incredibly dangerous thing. Speaking of which, one of the things I just recently talked about, we have some really scary moves being made in terms of artificial intelligence and sweeping aside the Tenth Amendment to allow the federal government to rush forward with this as really a surveillance and speech control tool. And that's a has been introduced by both the Congress as well as the White House, and we've got a new bill

that has come out by Marsha Blackburn, who will probably be the next governor of Tennessee, where I live. And she has utter contempt for what she calls a patchwork of regulations. That really is what the 10th Amendment is about, having the ability for different states to have different regulations for various things. But we know how, from a practical standpoint, how that works. They want to be able to pull everything together in Washington so they can control the the supposed regulatory body, the regulatory capture that will result will allow them to do whatever

they wish. So it is a move to stop all regulation and to federalize all artificial intelligence. It's a very, very dangerous move, I think, that's happening. Well, I agree completely. It is very, very dangerous. And, of course, the founding fathers recognized the corrupting influence of power. And so when they created the federal government, they did not want to pull. put all the power of government into a single pot.

And so what they did was they defined the few powers that government could have on the national level. And then they took those few specified powers and they divided them among the three branches of government, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. And then they built in a brilliant system of checks and balances to try to prevent power from being consolidated, let's say, in the executive branch or into another branch. so the various branches could check themselves. But then they took all other powers of government. And of course, this is where the 10th Amendment comes in, all other powers,

and they reserve them to the people and to the states. That's right. That's right. And so this is, it's almost like if you go back to the Lord of the Rings analogy, it's like they found this new ring of power, which is incredibly powerful, this artificial intelligence, the ability to be able to go back and audit everybody or everything in very fine detail and to collate all the information that they've been collecting on people for a very long time. I remember over a decade ago talking about the massive amounts of information that they were saving.

I had an interview with William Benny, who was a global technical head of the NSA, and he was saying, yeah, they're saving everything on everybody, and they're just waiting until they got the computer power to go back and organize all this stuff and collate it. That's where we are right now. It's a very, very dangerous thing. When I look at the powers that are being put into a police surveillance state, It truly is stunning to see what they're doing. And it is the ultimate consolidation of power, isn't it?

Sure. And so much of it is being done in the name of what is often called conservatism or called law and order. Obviously, we believe that our rights should be protected. That's the purpose of government. But we don't want to take it to the point where we have a police state because a government, big enough to do everything that you'd wanted to do, protection, everything else, is big enough to take away from you everything you have. That's right.

And so what the founding fathers imagined was that law enforcement, that that would belong to the states and to local communities. And the idea, of course, if you have independent police departments, that those departments would be beholden to the communities that they protect and serve. But then you take those powers and you transfer them into the hands of the national government and create a national police state. What happens is then those police are beholden to the central government in Washington. And that's not what we want.

That's right. But the thing is, conspirators for global control, they don't come right out and say, well, gee, we want to enslave you. We want to have complete and absolute power. So they say things like, well, we need these powers in order to fight illegal immigration. Or we need these powers in order to fight crime or in order to fight terrorism. And certainly we need to fight terrorism. We need to fight the criminal element and whatnot. But let's not use that as a pretext.

in order to consolidate all power into the hands of the government. Because if that happens, then what happens is the government becomes a criminal government. That's right. We've seen that happen so many times. We've seen it happen with Nazi Germany. We've seen it happen with the Soviet Union and whatnot. And, you know, a good lesson. Remember, in history is that the German people were beguiled into voting themselves into slavery.

They voted the Hitler's National Socialist Party, which also was called the Nazi. party into power. And they were told that Hitler would make Germany great again and prosperous and whatnot, but of course, he delivered tyranny instead. I've had a lot of people get very angry with me because I say, yeah, it's, I agree with the immigration stuff, but let's make sure that we're going to have a police force that is going to follow the law. That's not going to be a law under themselves with absolute immunity. I said, because then they become the most dangerous threat to us. And that's really the case.

But a lot of people say, well, no, no, no. We want to have this particular problem that we perceive. And, of course, always the solution that is given to you is since they've got one giant hammer coming out of Washington, they perceive everything as a nail. And so we want to give carte blanche to the federal police force to do whatever they wish. And I said, that is the most dangerous thing we could have. And when we look at it, we can put on the list. list in terms of excuses for getting rid of any protections against excessive use of force we

could put on there, what we saw during COVID, the public health issue. And I think when we talk about conspiracies, I guess it's just the coincidence that all of the governments around the world are basically doing the same nonsensical stuff at the same time, right? Exactly the same things. I know. But COVID, I would say, or specifically the COVID policies, those were a wake-up call to a lot of people. Yeah, yeah. They red-pilled a lot of Americans because who could have imagined until then, well, I guess a few of us could, but very few people could have imagined until the COVID policies, the lockdowns, the mandates were put in place, that those things could happen in the United States of America. I mean, who could have imagined before 2000? Yeah. Not even me. And I was very

cynical about that. I was absolutely just shaking my head. It's like, why isn't anybody having a problem with this? I mean, they've moved the Overton window so far that they defenestrated the Bill of Rights, you know? The good news is, though, I think of those policies were put in place again today. I think a lot more people would not go along with it, don't you? I don't, I hope not, but, you know, there hasn't been any penalty paid by these people. And usually if they admit that they did something wrong, they said, well, I'm sorry, we'll do it quicker next time and do it more thoroughly. That seems to be the comeback that we see from these commissions of inquiry that are in different countries. They come back if they'll admit

any wrongdoing. They'll say, yeah, the problem is that we didn't do enough and we didn't do it early enough and we'll do better next time. That's not the message that I get from all this. Yeah, absolutely. It could have in a test balloon to see how far they could go. Yeah. Oh yeah, absolutely. And they moved that overturn window, didn't they? Truly is amazing. Well, let's talk a little bit about your book and about the history of the John Burr's Society because I think it's a very fascinating history. I first heard of the John Bert Society as it was being attacked as this crank conspiracy theorist group out there by William F. Buckley. I eventually figured out where William F. Buckley was coming from and I eventually figured out

what the John Burst Society was about. But that was when I was in college and I heard the other viewpoint. Talk a little bit about the founding of the John Bert Society and the resistance that you had from mainstream media in a lot of different quarters, including conservative quarters. Okay. So called. The General Bergen Society was founded in 1958. And of course, at the time, the country was viewed as very anti-communist.

You know, we believe in the Constitution and whatnot. But in 1958, the founder of the General Berks Society, Robert Welch, who was a businessman, but he was warning that communism really is a problem, not just externally, but also internally. And so he founded this organization to stop communism and specifically the way to call it a communist conspiracy. Of course, his time went on and it didn't take a lot of time, but he connected the dots too that show that the people working for more government leading to world government in this country and elsewhere included not just communist, but included powerful elitists who wanted to basically bring about the same thing. And so he blew the whistle.

He said that we would have more and more government in this country, leading to the total government. He said the United Nations was a world government trap. He said he would have inflation because we would destroy the currency over time by printing more and more unbacked dollars in order to finance the growing government deficits. And basically what he was saying back in 1958 is exactly what we've seen happen over the years. But back at that time, people scoff because they said it was ridiculous. You know, for example, what the United Nations was portrayed at the time is mankind's less best hope for peace. Can you imagine calling it a communist-inspired organization?

Yeah, I remember the way it was portrayed. We were crazy to imagine a communist threat. Well, today, look at all the young people who proudly bulls. Well, yeah, I believe in communism. I believe in socialism. but Robert Welch blew the whistle, and he realized that in order to solve the problem, in order to expose this conspiracy, because that is a solution exposed in the conspiracy, you could not just do it through elections.

You cannot just do it by running a good candidate, because ultimately the kind of government we have would be determined by the understanding of the American people themselves. So the American people were running in form, they would make good decisions in the voting booth, and then politicians who would not abide by the people in citizens, thing that they abide by their oath of office, those politicians would get voted out of office by an informed electorate. And of course, others would see where the political winds are going, and that they would vote better when they got elected. So that was the solution that Robert Welch advocated, and he realized, too, that no one person could save our freedoms. It would have been done,

would have to be done by an informed electorate. It had to be done by the American people themselves. And so he created chapters throughout the country where people in their own congressional districts and their own communities to bring about this great awakening. And I honestly believe, because I've been a member of the John Bercht's Society since 1968, since I was a teenager, it came on the staff in 1977. But I believe that because of what the John Birch Society has done, specifically the members of the John Berger Society and their allies over so many years, that we would not have our freedoms today if it was not for what we'd done. So I feel like we felt back, you know, the forces that want to bring about world government and totalitarianism. We have bought time so that today in 2006 we can still use our freedoms to save our freedoms. And that's why my book, by the way, is called the Vanguard of the American and its cause,

because we've really been in the forefront of this fight. Yeah, I agree. Yeah, I remember the support your local sheriff thing, which became, a meme and actually James Garner did a movie with that title. And so that was, and I kind of scratched my head. I thought, you know, what are they talking about? I eventually figured out the dangers of a centralized federal police force, militarized police force, which is what I think they're in the process of trying to create right now.

And I think now more than ever we need to revive that, support your local sheriff thing. And to have locally elected people, it's not perfect. We get bad sheriffs, many different cases like that. But again, that is you've got a better chance of having a say-so at the local election than you do at a federal election where you have basically no control whatsoever. It was interesting the back and forth, I think, George Soros and Elon Musk, as Elon Musk said, well, you know, George Soros has got this right when he gets these district attorneys in or the state attorneys general that he gives them a good bit of money. and they can actually swamp their opponent in terms of spending. And he goes, it gets a lot more bang for his buck. And, of course, the voters do as well.

The more local the election, the more bang for the buck you get in terms of either your vote or your contribution that you make. It gets very, very diluted and distant when you're talking about Washington. And that's one of the reasons why we need to stop looking to Washington for every single solution. To me, that is one of the biggest things that's changed in my lifetime. We used to joke about, well, don't make a federal case out of it. Everything has made a federal case out of today, including with conservatives.

And we used to say, you know, it's a free country, isn't it? We don't say that anymore, though. We don't, nobody sees it as a free country because we have the federal government that is micromanaging every single aspect of our life. And that is the real danger, I think. I agree completely. And, of course, a lot of people really don't understand what freedom is. You know, freedom is the ability to pull your up,

pull yourself up by the bootstraps. It's the ability where government is limited and it's out of your way so that you can fulfill your dreams. So if you want to buy a home, you have the ability to do that because you have the ability to keep the fruits of your own labor. You had the ability to innovate. You had the ability to build a small business, which is increasingly being stifled today because of all the government regulations. Of course, that plays in hand of people we think of as capitalists or supercapitalists, but they actually use the fact that you have all these regulations and they use the power of government and government favoritism to favor them at the expense of the little guy, including the little business.

So we have to get back to that. We have to get back to that wonderful system that caused America to become the greatest example of liberty. in the history of the world. That's right. And you know, when we look at it, it's even at the local level, we see that a lot of the regulations for, let's say, even something as simple as a restaurant, right? Because it's one of the few things that's left open to entrepreneurship in a sense.

I mean, it's getting more and more difficult with the supply chain disruptions that we had in 2020 and the ones that are coming along now as well as inflation. And with other regulations, that's even becoming almost impossible. But that was one of the few avenues that were left to people. and you would see that a lot of the regulations that were coming down the line for restaurants opening up were things that were not essential that had absolutely nothing to do with health issues. They were there to stifle competition. And so that truly is what we see happening everywhere.

And again, going back to a lot of these regulations of artificial intelligence and even digital ID and the way that they are applying these things, we see the government coming after 3D printer manufacturers, putting onerous regulations on them to essentially censor or spy on their users as a manufacturer. And if you don't do it, they're going to shut you down. We see the same thing happening now, even with software, with operating systems, things like Unix that they're going to be coming after because they don't, you know, anything that is open source or that is a new startup is going to be shut down by these onerous regulations. They're going to make it so difficult to get started that people aren't going to start.

And a lot of small businesses have even signal that they're going to have to shut down if these internet regulations and these regulations that are designed to outlaw all privacy run through. Let's talk a little bit about where this real conspiracy of communism is coming from. I had somebody at an event that I was speaking at came up to me afterwards and he said, you know, they've taken over every one of the institutions. How the world did this ever happen? I said, well, you know, there was a plan. It was called Marching Through the Institutions, Grams, and others. And they have executed that plan pretty well, haven't they? I think that was from Gramsci, wasn't it?

He used that exact phrase, marching through the institutions. And, of course, he was a communist strategist. And the point that he made is that at least for an advanced country, such as the United States, that the old-fashioned frontal assault is not going to work. Because people will say, well, gee, I don't want to become. a slave. You know, I believe in freedom. I believe in the, you know, the great heritage that we have. And so how do they do it? They do it step by step. If you look at this country as to how it came about, well, it started, I would say almost after we got the Constitution, that patient gradualism.

But let's pick a date where I think it became very obvious. And that was in 1913. Because in 1913, three huge things happened in this country that were hammer blows to the republic. One of them was the establishment of a heavy progressive income tax. And that actually was a plank right out of the communist manifesto

by Karl Marx in 1848. So you could say that we moved in the communist direction at least beginning in 1913. Yeah. So don't get angry at the IRS on April 15th. Sorry, don't get

mad at the IRS as much as you get as mad at the communists who basically brought that to us. That's right. The anti-communist day, April 15th. Yep. Yeah, it is coming up pretty fast. But we got the progressive income tax in 1913. Again, that was one of ten steps in the Communist Manifesto that Karl Marx cited for communizing an advanced country in particular.

Another step was the creation of a central bank. We got that in 1913. in the form of the federal reserve system that is a central bank and controls money and credit in order to monetize federal debt. And a lot of people think that when taxes are cut officially, such as Trump cutting taxes, well, gee, that means the government burden has been reduced.

That's only true if the government also cuts its spinning. Because if you have taxes and allows spending to go up, you have a larger and larger deficit. That's how we got these trillion dollar deficits that we've been experiencing recently. And when the government monetizes that, or excuse me, the Federal Reserve monetizes that, what the Federal Reserve is doing is they're pumping new money into the economy. And so all those new dollars, it's just like a monopoly game. All those new dollars, the values the dollars that are already in the economy,

and that causes prices to go up. So you could call that an inflation tank. But anyway, the central bank, out of the Communist Manifesto, we got that in 1913 as well. So you could say in 1913, out of these 10 steps or 10 planks, we got two of them. You could say as of that point, the United States of America was already 20% communized. And the third thing I want to mention that happened in 1913 was the direct election of senators. And a lot of people think, well, gee, isn't that a good thing? because don't we want the people to elect our senators.

But what was overlooked was the fact that, well, gee, we're already doing that in the form of the people were electing to the House of Representatives. And the whole concept of the founding fathers is that having two houses composing Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, was that a bill could not become law unless it was passed by both the House representatives representing the people and the Senate representing the states. That's right. But now the states do not have senators representing them in Congress, and so it makes it much easier to your assert power from the states

and transfer that power into the hands of the federal government. That's right. Yeah, people don't understand that division of power that was there. That's what that represented. It wasn't taking away your representation, as you point out. And that's why people don't understand the Tenth Amendment, because that was really about the power that's been delegated specifically by the people or by the states. And so they broke that.

You're talking about the reducing taxes without reducing spending. That's one of my issues with the Tea Party. I thought they really didn't understand what they were talking about because they didn't have a priority. You know, they said the Tea Party was taxed enough already. But I'd say if you don't cut the spending, you should say we're indebted enough already. That's absolutely correct. They never talked about that side of it. So obviously taxes

should be cut, but over the long term, it's not going to help unless we lower taxes through less government. And of course, I'm going to get government back to the Constitution. That's right. The way I look at the John Burr Society is

very important the educational aspect of this, because another one of the planks of the Communist Party, I think, was the compulsory government funded education. And that's really what has gotten us there to a large degree. And I think that it is very important that people understand what has really happened, get the perspective that the John Burke Society is out there as a counter to the government schools telling their one-sided story of this. Right. And of course, I would say that the government schools were designed in the

beginning to become what they have become today. And because a lot of people would say, well, gee, we need to reform the government schools. Well, the only way to reform it is to get rid of the government schools and to go back to private education. Yes. And that was the education that we had in this country prior to the advent of the government school system in the 19th century. That's right.

Yeah, when you look at it, pretty much everybody was homeschooled and maybe they'd have a little bit of private schooling. I have talked over and over again about the Wright brothers versus Langley and how he was the establishment guy and he had all the credentials and he was out of the Smithsonian. He had a couple of homeschooled bicycle mechanics who beat him to the punch, right? And so... It's a really good illustration. It's something that always stuck with me after I saw it.

And I think that's the key. You know, there was a tremendous amount of a very high percentage of literacy at the time that America was created. And, of course, you have a book like Thomas Payne's Common Sense. everybody is reading it and they're thinking about the political theories behind it and discussing that. And so for them it was common sense. But I wonder how many people would understand that book today. That's right. Yeah, maybe we should have a 250th anniversary of that.

Anyway, the solution of the government school problem is first of all to get the federal government out of education. Because the federal government does not have any constitutional authority to be involved. That's right. But even on the state level, my recommendation, and the recommendation of the John Verde Society, even at that level would be for the states to get out education as well and allow it to be handled privately. I agree, absolutely. And of course, the churches, too. Yes.

You know, isn't it wonderful to, you know, have a church school, for example? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And we have seen that, you know, private charity and the actions of churches and that type of thing. That was something that was so ingrained in American society as Alexis de Tompul talked about it. And yet that is basically withered and died. It isn't to say that it can't be restored. But there has to be a desire to do that.

As it is right now, everybody just figures, well, I gave it the IRS, and I don't really have to worry about that. That's a really good point. They've already given through Uncle Sam. They gave Uncle Sam the money, and Uncle Sam's taken care of it. But one problem with Uncle Sam taking care of it is what we saw happened very recently in Minneapolis, wouldn't you say? That's right.

because, you know, who's mining the store, so to speak. And so look at all the fraud and abuse. That's right. And that's an argument, I think, for the fact that you really cannot solve the problem of the social welfare system by making it efficient. I know Mussolini, you know, the fascist Mussolini during World War II promised that he would make Italian socialism efficient. You would make a train run on time. trains run in time, and it doesn't work that way. So, you know, obviously we're going to have all this waste as long as the government's involved.

So you've got to get the government out of it. And in particular, the federal government, because the federal government is not going to have as much of an understanding. What is really needed on the local level is the people on the local level. It's that simple. So a state government providing welfare would be better than a national government. A local community providing welfare would be better than the state government. But the ideal, of course, will get back to a state government.

system where friends and neighbors were taking care of themselves. That's right. Absolutely. Yeah, once you get those long lines that is very easy to, long lines of control, it's very easy to subvert that, as we saw with Minneapolis. That is one of the practical aspects of it. But the other aspect of it, I guess, it has been lost. And I think it's part of the moral degradation of our society is that people, you know,

so much of the charity was running through the churches and it was based on religion. And people, once you practice that, you start. to realize that it is better to give than to receive. You know, and there is a pleasure in helping other people that we completely miss out on. That's one of the worst aspects of the welfare state, I think, is breaking that connection. And that's one of the things that we see happening right now, especially with COVID. It seems to be the primary focus of the technocracy is to break that human-to-human contact. Government does that a great deal, but the technology is focusing on that even more.

and is splitting us off from that. So we are disconnected. Yeah, we're disconnected. We're atomized. We're isolated as individuals. And that's a very dangerous thing. And it shuts off so many wonderful things from all of us, doesn't it? Let's talk a little bit about how we get back from this.

When you have the John Birch Society, do they meet in local meetings on a regular basis? Yes. Okay. So tell us a little bit about that. Okay. Tell us a bit about that and how that's organized. Well, first of all, I would encourage people to go to jbs.org, jbts for the John Birch Society and find out more about it. But again, the whole idea is that we can't rely on a national mailing house.

We can't rely on a particular politician to save our country. We've got to wake the town and tell the people and get them involved. And that happens a lot better when you get synergy going. So when you have people actually meeting together and working together and people comparing notes, so to speak, you can get a lot more done than people are working in a vacuum. And, of course, another part of the two is you can focus on certain projects. For example, a project of the John O'Berts Society going back to day one, basically, and running right up to the present, has been to get us out of the United Nations.

Yes. Recognizing that that was intended and still was intended. and I believe to be the seat of an emerging new world order. I agree. People get together, they can do things like putting up a billboard in their community. They can do things like distributing literature, house to house, and whatnot. And you compare notes, and it helps create the synergy. I agree.

Yes. And, you know, when we look at it, again, the solutions are local. And so you need to make those connections locally. And when you talk about the UN, everybody's looking at all these attacks on the family and the attacks on children in terms of the transgender issues and things like that. That all flows from the UN, from the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child. And the only country that hasn't bought into that formally is the United States. And I say formally because from a practical standpoint, our state and local and federal governments

as well as the judiciary have all bought into the premises of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. If you say that a child has rights, that is in direct competition to the idea of parental rights. And that is a device, a scheme, a fiction that's created by the UN, propagated by the UN, in order to break up families in order to separate the children. But the whole idea on the part of the conspirators for global control, and whereas that concludes the people who operate the United Nations, is that they see themselves as the family. They see the government as the family, so to speak.

They see the family, the real family, that actually under God's plan is the fundamental unit of civilization. They see that as the competing loyalty to them. They want total loyalty to be devoted to the state. And that is a very hallmark of communism, isn't it? Of course, Hillary is it takes a village aspect of that. And so it really is important for us to organize at the local level. And the New American is the publication that you are editor-in-chief of, and that is the publication of the John Birch Society. That gives you an overview of what is happening nationally and internationally.

You're going to get the local information, and that's the Kighten is the things that I can't really cover on a regular basis. That's why you need to have something like the John Burr's Society, because that's going to give you a handle on what's happening in your local area. there's so many different local offices that nobody can really report on that. I mean, we can cover something bad that's happening at the state level from time to time. But what is happening right there in your community, a good example of this are the flock cameras that are springing up everywhere. And people don't really understand what that is. They don't understand how these things are flocking together into a massive informant network. Once people find out about it, we've had some communities that have said, get those things out.

here but you have to have people informed at the local level and so it's very important to have some kind of an organization like that and the John Burst Society is there has been there for quite some time it's always great talking to people from the John Berge Society I've interviewed Alex Newman on education issues and climate change issues many many times and it's always great having people thank you for joining us Gary and your book I'm so glad to be able to do so David and I believe this is my first time of your program yes it is And let's talk a little bit about your book as well.

The title is Vanguard of the Americanist Cause, a close look at the John Bert Society, and where's the best place for people to get that? Yeah, there you go. Good. And where can people get that? Where's the best place to get that? You can go to JBS.org, and there's a place there. We can go to our book division, and you'll find it there.

That's great. Thank you so much. Gary Benoit. Thank you so much, the editor-in-chief of the New American. The New American. 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 the Davidnightshow.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please, Keep us in your prayers. The David Knight Show.com.