The David Knight Show - Fri Episode #2279: — Mars Is The Next Real Estate Boom

Episode Date: June 5, 2026

──────────────────────────────────────── [00:05:00] SpaceX Did 165 of 324 Global Launches Last Year — If It Were a Country, It Would Rank First, Far Ahead of China at 88 Zitelmann: SpaceX put 80% of all payload into orbit in recent years and earns the bulk of its revenue from Starlink and commercial launches, not NASA. ──────────────────────────────────────── [00:15:00] SpaceX's IPO Prospectus Has 400 Pages and Mentions Mars — but Not a Single Idea for How to Make Money There A Forbes professor warned that however many billions SpaceX earns from Starlink, if Musk wastes it all on Mars with no revenue model, shareholders will get nothing. ──────────────────────────────────────── [00:22:00] The Platinum on One Asteroid — Psyche — Is Worth More Than the Gross National Product of the Entire World Zitelmann: the real case for asteroid mining is using resources in space — water on Mars or asteroids split into hydrogen and oxygen becomes rocket propulsion. ──────────────────────────────────────── [00:32:00] Zitelmann's Mars Plan: Claim Land Like the Western Squatters, Then List It as a Real Estate Investment Trust The 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans nations but is silent on private companies — Zitelmann argues those who reach Mars should claim ownership and securitize it so anyone can invest. ──────────────────────────────────────── [00:44:00] Socialism Was Tried 24 Times in the Last 100 Years and Failed Every Time — There's No Reason It Should Work on Mars Vietnam went from 80% in extreme poverty to 3% after free market reforms — the Outer Space Treaty's 'space belongs to all mankind' is a socialist idea and socialist ideas fail everywhere. ──────────────────────────────────────── [00:55:00] NASA's Cost-Plus Contracts Gave Contractors an Incentive to Increase Costs — Musk Refused and Cut Launch Costs by 95% A NASA contractor told Zitelmann their best product was their overhead — one billion in costs meant 100 million in profit; Musk sells a service like FedEx and keeps the savings. ──────────────────────────────────────── [01:07:00] EPA Section 404c: The EPA Can Veto a Project After Billions Have Been Invested — Even After the Permit Was Issued Myron Ebell: the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to retroactively veto any permitted dredge-and-fill project — investors know this and it is strangling pipeline, mine, and infrastructure financing. ──────────────────────────────────────── [01:17:00] China Controls Critical Mineral Processing Even When the Ore Is Mined Elsewhere — Cobalt Is Mined in Africa, Smelted in China Ebell: the US has no domestic processing capacity and faces 10–20 years of permitting delays before a mine can open — China has a chokehold on the entire supply chain. ──────────────────────────────────────── [01:27:00] Federal Lands Are One Quarter of the Country — the White House Won't Touch Them Because Trump's Sons Hunt on Them Ebell: federal land mismanagement turns forests into fuel; state control would produce better outcomes, but the president personally opposes the transfer. ──────────────────────────────────────── [01:38:00] Congress Passes Laws Then Delegates All Authority to Unelected Agencies — Then Never Does Oversight — the Bureaucracies Rule Ebell: every time an agency exceeds its mandate, Congress holds hearings and does nothing — leaving power with the bureaucracy for the next administration to inherit. ──────────────────────────────────────── 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” For high quality made in America products go to HomeSteadProducts.shop and use promo code “Knight” for 10% off your purchases 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-show Or 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 app. It's the David Knight Show. Joining us now is Reiner Ziedelman. He has a book that is going to be released in just a few days. New Space Capitalism, the entrepreneurial path to the stars. And I'm really fascinated to talk to him about this because I have followed this very closely myself, just like Jeff Bezos has since he was in college. I did a report about 10 years ago, talking about the billionaire space race. And I'm very curious as to what is really in it for them. And I'm curious to talk to Mr. Zadlman about this. Again, the book is New Space Capitalism. And he understands the dollars and cents and how important they are to that. So thank you for

joining us, sir. Thank you for inviting me. I appreciate it. Let's talk a little bit about the capitalism involved with all this. And what do they want out of this, besides the obvious government contracts for satellites and other military uses and things like that. Because when we go back and we look at the settlement of America, there were a lot of corporations that were formed. We had corporations that were behind the settlements in Virginia as well as in Massachusetts Bay. Most of them went bankrupt. So even though there was a lot to be, a lot of resources to be had,

a lot of timber, a lot of tobacco and other things like that, Many cases, it was too little too late for all of them. So what is it that they're really trying to do, especially when we look at Musk and his plans to colonize Mars? Yes, of course, there are two ways to earn money. The one way is the short run, and we shouldn't overestimate the government or military NASA programs. I guess it makes not more than 5 to 10% of his turnaround with NASA today, maybe 15%, 15%. 15% more with military. But 70% to 80% is with private companies, of course, also with his own company, with his

Starlink satellites. And this is the way how he makes money today, especially with Starlink, with his satellites. This is any way, the way how money is made today in the space industry, it's mainly satellites. And also launches. you know, first one very interesting number. A lot of people were surprised when I told them the number. Last year, there were 324 launches worldwide. And 165 out of them were SpaceX launches.

It means as much as all other countries. It means if SpaceX were a country, it would be number one, far ahead of China with 88. And if you counted in the percentage of payload, SpaceX in the last years, they put 80% of the payload in orbit, 80%. So it's a very strong position and they earn money with its launches and they earn money with Stalin. But your question was about the future. And this is also a weak point in the IPO prospectus. I read this 400 pages for the IPO that will happen now on June 12. And they say something about Mars, mass colonization with one million people,

but there's not a single idea in the prospectus how to make money with it. So the criticism was, for example, there was a professor for economics, I think from a university in Florida, and he wrote in Forbes, they may earn as much billions as they want with Stalin, but if Musk in the end will waste all the money for his mouth ideas, there will be nothing in for the shareholders. So this was his criticism, but I don't agree, because I think there is way, there are ways to make money in space.

And I will give you two examples. One is asteroid mining. Asteroid mining is something that SpaceX doesn't do today, but you know we have a lot of asteroids between Mars and Jupiter. There are 1.7 million asteroids. And they are far away, but even we have 40,000 close to the Earth. These are the asteroids we are afraid of that they can hit the Earth. But there's also an opportunity because on this asteroids, we have a lot of costly materials like platinum PGM crew.

There's one example. There's one asteroid psyche. And if you add the value only of the platinum on this single asteroid psyche, it's more than the cross-network product. of the whole world today. Because only theory is because if you would put it to the earth, the prices would plummet. But so there's a lot there. And if we talk about Mars,

I think the real opportunity is real estate. And please let me explain why. First, there's a problem. There's the Outer Space Treaty from 9 to 67. And according to Article 2 of this Outer Space Treaty, based treaty, it's prohibited for countries to claim ownership of celestial bodies or land of the celestial bodies. This is crystal clear.

It's forbidden for states, for nations. But one thing is not really clear. Is it also prohibited for private people, for companies, or not? Because at this time in the 60s, no one thought about Jeff Bezos or Il-Mask being millionaires. and able to reach mass. So there is nothing in this agreement. And there's a dispute among legal scholars. And one group says, no, what is not forbidden,

is allowed in the first place. It's possible to claim ownership for private companies. And the other group of scholars says, no, it's illegal. So I don't want to go more in detail because I have a whole chapter in my book about it. But I think it will happen in the same same way as the conquest of the American West. You know, with the stateless, they called them squatters at this time, and they took the land.

They claimed ownership of the land because before anyone allowed them to do so, later it was legalized, as we know, by the Homestating Act and all these things. But in the first place, they took it. And I think the similar thing will happen on Mars. So I asked a question in my book, who should have the right to acquire property in space? And my answer is this straightforward. Those who have the financial means and are willing to take the risk

and of course have the technical ability to reach Mars and to develop land. For example, if SpaceX succeeds to reach Mars, then they should claim ownership, of course, not the whole planet. Maybe a manageable area is the size of Singapore, for example, because the Mars has a surface roughly 200,000 times the size of Singapore. There would be enough for others. And then this is my idea, to bring this land to the stock exchange, like a reed, a real estate investment trust. And then everyone can be an owner. You, I, every shareholder in the street will be an owner of a little part of mass.

And this is, as I see it, a way how to finance it, because it costs a lot of money, trillions and trillions. And of course, it's not possible to finance all this by the government. So there should be a way in a private and alternative way. this is my idea in the book. That's interesting, too, because you go back and we look at the history of America. At the beginning, we had a lot of different corporations that were formed in countries in Europe, in the UK and Netherlands and other places like that. You had a lot of Virginia corporations that helped to finance the people who are making the trip

and get the colonies started with that, hoping that they were going to get natural resources back and return, things like lumber, tobacco, and stuff like that. Most of them went bankrupt. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was kind of the exception to it. They were initially given a charter, but then over political issues, they lost that charter. They did not go financially bankrupt, but most of them went financially bankrupt. What about, you know, you're talking about asteroids. I think that is a very interesting possibility, but what about energy and that type of thing?

Generating energy in space. I mean, they've already started talking about putting the data centers in space because there's so much resistance to using the power grid and the water resources that are here locally. And I don't know what technical issues there are in terms of putting these power stations in space. But what about that? Yes, I have also a few pages in my book about that. Of course, this is something Ilmask plans. He even applied for one million more satellites in space to build this data centers.

Now he has 10,000, what is a lot, because the total number of active satellites in space is only 50,000. So he owns two-third of all satellites active satellites in space. But he applied for one million more. And yes, this data center of Earth. A lot of companies work on this.

I mentioned one company in my book, the company's Planet Lab. They have a cooperation with Google. Also, the media work on this. Google work on this basics. There are a lot of companies that work on this. But what you mentioned with

companies that went bankrupt. I think this is the great thing with capitalism that companies can get bankrupt because it's the survival of the fittest. It's like, you know, in the nature. And the problem with government financed or with government-led spaceflight is that they can't go bankrupt because they have already the taxpayers' money. And if they fail, then this is a real disaster. And this is what my book is about.

after the moon landing that was of course a very successful story then there were 50 years of failure with manned spaceflight with a space shuttle that was absolutely

total disaster and the reason is it was government-led spaceflight and today there are a lot of companies and of course most of them will not survive but this is good news

because if they fail then they will get bankrupt. And the problem with state-owned companies is that they can't go bankrupt. And so this law of the nature, the survival of the fittest, can't happen when it's state-owned. I agree. Yes. I remember I was in college when this stuff happened when we had the lunar landing. And I was very much interested in all of that. And yet today, of course, I have my questions about the moon landing. But at that, at that point, point in time, I said to my wife, and we're just talking about this today, I said, you remember,

I said that this is only going to happen when its corporations doing it. Because when I looked at it, and when I was in college, they'd finished with the Apollo program, and everything had kind of gone into, it just kind of dissipated. They didn't have any goal. They weren't doing anything at all with it. I thought, you know, it really was a stupid idea, just had to go all that effort and say, we're going to put a man on the moon. All right, now we're done. Just forget about it. We can check that box off. And I said, you know, it's only going to happen when corporations start doing this. Because just like you're saying, they have more realistic goals.

And if they don't make it, they go out of business. Somebody picks up the pieces and they carry on with the work. But it doesn't happen when government is doing it. Yes. You know, this was only about natural prestige. Who's better? The United States or the Soviet Union. I have here a quote from Lyndon.

Johnson, he put it this way, one can predict with confidence that failure to master space means being second in the crucial arena of our Cold War world. In the eyes of the world, first in space means first, period. Second in space is second in everything. And this was the reason why they put in today's money 300 billion in this program. Four hundred thousand people work, there are 20,000 companies. But when they planted the flag on the moon, the wind was out of the sails and there was no reason to go on.

And this is the reason why now almost more than 50 years nothing happened. And so I think we really need economic incentives. Look, otherwise it would be like the Antarctica. We have also a treaty that is not allowed to get resources from Antarctica. This is the reason why nothing happens. So if there is no incentive, why should people spend billions and billions, and if you have no ability to earn anything in the end. And I think this idea in the Outer Space Treaty

that space should belong to everyone, this is like a socialist idea. And socialism didn't work on Earth, nowhere. They tried it in the last hundred years 24 times. And I don't understand. Why should something that didn't work in the Soviet Union, didn't work in North Korea, didn't work in Cuba,

I didn't work in Venezuela. Why should it work on Mars, on the asteroids? This is a crazy idea. Of course, it can't work there. And this is, you know, the main point in my book. It works only on the basis of entrepreneurship and private property. And otherwise, and you see, this is the reason why in the last 50 years we had, imagine how great was our success in other areas in the last 50 years.

You have the internet and the cell phones and now AI, and there were so much progress. But in space, the progress only started with private companies like SpaceX. I give you only one other number that is very interesting. If you compare the launch costs, so it means the cost to bring one kilo to space from space shuttle on the one hand. And SpaceX, the internal cost on the other hand, Musk reduced the cost. cost by 95% 95%. And one reason is, of course,

he was the first one to build this reusable rocket. And of course, it makes real difference whether the rocket is reusable or not. Imagine I will come next month, I will go again to the United States

and imagine after this they have, I could use the airplane only one time. And after this, It's great. I don't know how high ticket price, maybe $800,000 or something like this. But this is how NASA does it, even today. You know, half year ago, they had this Artemis II program.

They were very proud, oh, we were 6,000 kilometers faster away than we were 54 years ago. Crazy. But it cost $4 billion, $4 billion. And they learned nothing. And so this is what Musk did. And the great thing is no other space-led company and no other country in the world was able today to build such a reusable rocket as SpaceX. The only one who was able to do it is now Jeff Bezos. Ten years later than Musk.

Musk did it 10 years ago. He did it now. But he's the second one. And China couldn't do it. Russia couldn't do it. Europe couldn't do it. And so this is a story of my book. I explain why is that that private companies are so much more efficient and so much better than government-led entities. And that's exactly right. And again, the name of your book is New Space Capitalism,

the Entrepreneurial Path to the Stars. And I guess the only thing we could say, Rainer, is that if they try Marxism on Mars and then on Mars, and they fail, then we can at least finally rule out that Marxism and socialism is ever going to work anywhere. We've ruled it out pretty much in every country on Earth. We could rule it out in space as well. So we could be done with that fantasy, I guess. Be the only positive thing to come out of it. But you're absolutely right in terms of the massive impact that Musk has had. I saw a graphic the other day. And they had the number of satellites per year they're being put up. And they did it all of the world.

And then they had as the other side, they had SpaceX. And so you're watching this graphic and you're seeing the Earth and you're seeing all these satellites starting to accumulate over the many decades. And still nothing at all because they had different colors for Elon Musk, SpaceX, as well as all the rest of the countries combined. You see nothing but this color of all the other countries. And then all of a sudden, just a couple of years ago, it starts. you start seeing the colors go up of SpaceX.

And before you know it, it's completely covered everything. And it is more than all the rest of them combined. And that's exactly what we're seeing. But that metric that you had, that he's able to do it at 5% of the cost of what NASA can do. If I remember correctly, I think the original space shuttle was supposed to be reusable. But then they got rid of that for whatever reason.

Let's talk about the space shuttle because it's a good example. Of course, after the moon landing, it was for 30 years what NASA did with manned space flight. So the estimated costs were 5 billion development costs. And then for every flight, the estimate was between 5 million and 10 million. So this was the forecast. But in the end, it was 1.5 billion per flight, per flight, 5 to 10 million, but 1.5 billion. So it was not really reusable.

There was a lot of maintenance over 10 months with 1,000 people working on that in theory, but it didn't work in reality. And it was a total economic disaster and only one other number. When they planned the space shuttle, they said, okay, we will have 140 flights per year, every year, 140 flights. And so it seemed to be cost efficient. But a lot of with Axel files, like first they started with 10 and the end, they ended with 140. You know, with Axel, you can calculate everything. But the reality was that in 30 years, in 30 years, they had 135 flights.

So it means in 30 years, they had as many flights as was estimated for one year. And so in the end, you know, even they had explosions. that all 14 people were killed with this two... Yeah, the Challenger, yeah. That was horrific. The Challenger, the last one. And then the worst thing, and I... The chapter title in my book is the end of the future, because the worst thing was in 2011.

Because then after this space shuttle program, you know, they ended it in 2011. They had no opportunity from NASA to bring American astronauts from American soil with American rockets to the International Space Station. Because they had no space shuttle. They had no other opportunity. And what did they do? They relied on old-fashioned Russian Soviet rockets. And of course, they charge very high prices.

Every flight was some billions. I can understand. They had a monopoly, of course. So imagine what a disaster for the United States that they were not able to bring their astronauts with their own rockets. And then there were some smart people in NASA, I have to admit, some smart people. They said, let's try it with its private companies like Space. Give it a try.

They called it the Hail Mary move. You know, like you have the Hail Mary move. In a lot of cases, most cases, Hail Mary doesn't work, as we know. But they said, it's our Hail Mary move. And there was one woman from NASA. And she told, every week, someone came in my office and said, I'm so sorry for you that you have to work with this age, with this basic issue. So I don't want to be in your shoes.

But she believed it. And in the end, nine years later in 2020, Americans were again able with American rocket to bring American astronauts from American soil to the International Space Station. But this was now private. This was now the Falcon 9 rocket. And it was much cheaper. And maybe I should explain why it was so much cheaper. Because the contracts between NASA on the one hand and its private companies like Boeing, Rockwell, on the other companies, were absolutely crazy.

They called it cost plus program. It means you should make clear how much costs you had to build a rocket. And then you can add a profit, maybe 10% profit. And so what was the consequence? The more costs, the more profit. You know, the incentive was to increase the costs. I spoke with someone who worked at this time for one of the two biggest companies. And he said, our best product was our overhead.

Our best product was our overhead. Because one billion costs mean hundreds million profit. Three billion costs mean 300 million profits. So increased costs. Of course, it's a crazy system. And you have to understand, Musk works in a very different way. He refused it to do it in this crazy way. He built his rockets in the way he wanted.

And he doesn't sell his rockets, Tranez. These are its own rockets. What he sells is a service. He's a service provider. Like maybe FedEx or UPS, I deliver. I bring your package from A to B and I charge you this amount. And this is what he does. I bring your satellite in orbit and I charge you this.

Or I bring your astronauts to the Internet of Space Station and charge you this. And the money he saves increases his profit. And you see in the economies, The incentive is so important. If there is incentive to increase the costs, costs will increase. If there's incentive to decrease the costs, costs will decrease. And this is the secret. Yeah, you put your thumb on exactly what the problem is, not only with NASA, I think,

but with our entire military industrial complex. It operates on this cost plus nonsense. And it's one of the reasons why we can look at what has happened with the space programming. We can say that's the same path we're headed with the American military empire is going to go right down that same drain. And that is one of the things I think is really key. Now, of course, your book comes out on June the 9th, and then the IPO for SpaceX is going to be June the 12th. So in those three days, people need to get your book and bone up on capitalism and entrepreneurialism in space. That'd be a good idea if they're thinking about

investing in this IPO, I think. Talk a little bit about what happens if he's got something of monopoly because we just saw this spectacular explosion of Jeff Bezos's rocket's biggest thing I've ever seen. And in terms of an explosion like that, what about these failures? And how did the two of them stack up since it's kind of a two-way competition here? Yes, well, perhaps fortunately, no one was killed. And I remember in 1960, there was similar, not similar, but there was also explosion on the launch pad. in the Soviet Union, and at this time, 70 people were killed.

Wow. 70 people. Only with this one explosion. And fortunately, with this explosion, no one was killed. Of course, a lot of damage was done. But I think it makes not a real big difference in the competition between Bezos's Blue Origin and Musk's basics, because anyway, SpaceX is far ahead of Blue Origin. I mentioned before that Musk was able to build this reusable rocket 10 years ago in 2015.

And Bezos was able to do it six months before. So 10 years after, 10 years after him. So it's Musk is far ahead anyway of Bezos. But of course now a lot of people say, oh, why did this happen? and this is, I think it's nothing against pro-origin or basis. Things like this happen. The first three launches of SpaceX Falcon 1 rocket all failed. All failed the three first.

Before, only number four was successful, only with a fourth attempt. So this is something that happens. And the same was true even in the early days of aviation. It was very dangerous. thousands of people were killed in the first day, not only in the first years, in the first decades of aviation. It was really dangerous in a way. And today, it's the safest way to travel. It's by airplane. And we see it also with a space flight. I give you one number. If you take SpaceX in the last year, 99% of their launches.

were successful, 99%. I think it's a trade number. But of course, things like this can happen. And every great age of exploration involved risks, yes, this was also when explorers opened Arctic or Antarctica, a lot of people died in this time. And it's risky in a way. but I think we have to accept it.

Yeah, yeah. Yeah, what you're looking at is something that's a combination of exploration, as you point out, that in and of itself is dangerous. And then the rockets add another dimension to that as well. When I look at Jeff Bezos, he's talked about what motivated him to do this in the past. And he's mentioned a book by Gerard K. O'Neill that's called High Frontier. When I talked about the billionaire space race about a decade ago, I did the report,

weeds of Lagrange vibration points and what that was all about. And we've seen elements of that in some movies like Elysium where they build these gigantic torroids that are rotated and cities in space. Yeah, 2001 is a good example. Yeah, the very beginning of that. And so, you know, when you look at that, his idea was that they were going to put these really large space stations up in these gravitationally neutral areas where they would essentially remain up there without really any disturbance. Then go to the moon and start mining

resources and they would be able to easily just scrape the lunar surface with these things and send it up with some maglev acceleration rails and use the electronic electromagnetic propulsion to throw this stuff up, collect it, process it in space and basically just kind of drop ship it towards the earth. Is that still something that Bezos is looking at? Do you know what his plans are with that? What his plans in space are? Yes, he doesn't talk so much about his plans like Il-Mask do. So we don't know so exactly, but I know he had exactly these ideas.

And I think it's great if you have a competition of different approaches, different ideas. This is a great thing with capitalism. In the end, we will see what's the better idea. I don't know. But one thing is true, of course, if you want to build such very huge, I don't know how O'Neill called it, that go around the earth, like huge satellite,

so millions of people can live there. Of course, you have to get the resources in space because it's, even with reduced launch cost today, it's too expensive to bring them all in orbit. And I think this is another important reason for asteroid mining. There's a misunderstanding with asteroid mining. Most people think with asteroid mining, we should bring the resources to Earth.

And in some cases, I mentioned platinum, for example, PGN group, we will do it. But this is only the exception. In most cases, we will use it in space. because it's too expensive to bring all this resources from the Earth to space. I bring you one example, water.

It's too expensive to bring water as we have to do it now today from the Earth into space. It's very expensive. But we have enough water in space. We have water on Mars, on asteroids, even on the moon, not so much on the moon. It's frozen, of course.

It's all frozen, but you can make liquid again. And water is very important for different reasons. Of course, we need it, man needed to drink, to take a shower, but also you need it for isolation against radiation. It's also very important water. And you can make a rocket propulsion from water, because if you split it in oxygen and hydrogen, this is propulsion for a rocket.

So water is very, very important in space, but you will not bring in the water. water from the earth into space because there is enough water, the only thing that it's frozen right now. Yeah, yeah, it's very interesting. Now, Musk, in terms of his plans that he's talking about, and again, we don't know if Jeff Bezos is still looking at these cities in space, what he's really looking at. But Musk has talked about colonizing Mars, and talk about how many people that he wants to get

there and how he plans on getting them there. So his plan is one million people, one million. And it means that every 26 month, because it's only possible to go to Mars every 26 month, there's a window of opportunity to go there. Every 26 month, he's planning to bring 1,000 starships with each 100 people. Wow. So 100,000 and then to do it over a period. of something around 20 years. So of course, it sounds like science fiction for most of them.

But the Starship is, there is no anything that you can compare in the world with the starship. It's the greatest thing ever built in the history of mankind. It's amazing what he built. And of course, it's not a guarantee that he will be successful with everything that he does. But remember one thing. I read it in this great book, the biography about Il-Musk from Isaacson. It's less than 30 years ago that El-Mask stayed with his friends,

I think beside a swimming pool, and one of his friends came to him after selling his company PayPal, hey, what are you doing right now? What's your next plan? And Musk's answer, well, 30 years ago, I think my plan. to make mankind a multi-planetary civilization and to settle people on Mars. And she said, I think you're totally crazy. Okay, this was this time. This time.

But now, 30 years later, we had this numbers. Yeah, we had these numbers. His company is responsible for more launches than all other countries in the world put together. And he has more satellites in space than all other countries. countries together. So I think this is someone you should really take serious. Of course, it's no guarantee that everything will work. But I don't think that it's science fiction because when I wrote my book, I had a conversation with a great man. His name is Harry W. Cholz. And he works at NASA Ames Center. He's, I think, 84 years. And he works 60 years now in the space industry,

60 years, and he has a lot of knowledge. And he sent me a paper. And the title was, there are no shoestroppers on our way to Mars. He discussed the six or seven big challenges on our way to Mars. He said, we can solve all of them today. On the technical side, it's possible. And if it is about settling Mars,

I spoke with someone else, his name is Robert Suprin. Maybe you haven't heard his name before, but he's the founder and president of the Mars Association, Mars Society. And he was the man who influenced Erl. Musk with his ideas. And he wrote great books. You should invite him one time, like the case for Mars. And it's scientific research, what he did, how to settle Mars.

about terraforming mass, how to make money on Mars. I have a chapter in my book about it, yes. But I learned a lot from him, and I don't think that it's science fiction. The biggest problem, on my point of view, is money. Because all of this costs a lot of money. And the question is, who should pay for it? And I think it's nothing that you can, with taxpayers funding, it might be possible to finance one or few missions to Mars, maybe, but not to settle one million people.

You have to find other ways. And there are a lot of ideas in this book from Supreme, but my idea is this real estate thing. Maybe the reason is because I worked for 20 years in the real estate industry. so I'm a real estate expert on the one hand and a historian on the other hand, maybe I see it through this lens. But I think today I spoke with a very, very successful real estate investor and I told him about this.

Of course, it sounds like science fiction, but he said, no, this sounds like a great idea. And my personal goal is, I had not the opportunity to meet Musk in person so far. I met one of his closest friends, but not himself. It's of course, everyone want to meet him. It's not simple. But my personal goal is to meet him and to talk with him about this real estate vision,

real estate ideas for Mars. Well, let me ask you about this because I think that when I look at this and you made the point that it's really not so much about rocket engine development as it is coming up with an idea how we're going to have property rights. If you've got the proper incentive, if you can actually own this, then that works. And of course, I understand that many of my audience are about free market and understand the benefits of that, the economics of that. What is it behind this gap of nothing happening for decades in space after the moonshots? What was it about that?

Was that simply the problem of the tragedy of the commons, if you will, or the socialism involved in it? the fact that government was running all this stuff. Was that why everything just kind of petered out and nothing happened for decades? What's your take on that? Absolutely, because no one, not you, not me, no company does anything without strong reason. Without a strong reason. And the reason to go to the moon was, as I quoted before, Johnson, the competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. But in the moment when they planted the flag on the moon,

the wind was out of the sails, there was no longer any reason. Why to go there? Now they go there again. The only reason is because China will go there. China said we will go there 2030 and so now, oh, we have to hurry up. We don't want the Chinese are there before. Okay, this is the reason.

But I think in the long run, the reason can, like everything in the world, you know, in the end, it's money as we have to find a way to finance it. And I think this idea of space, like common good for everyone. This is a socialist idea. And this was 60. It was negotiated between the United States and the Soviet Union. And at this time, maybe they were not so interested in this.

But today, we should think in a different way about it. And I think definitely we should find a way to build private property. And I'm a historian. I look always how. how did they do it in the past in history? And so this is what I mentioned before. I think our role model should be the Congress of the American West with the settlers, with the squatters, how they did it.

They didn't wait for someone to give them the permission to go there. No, they did it, they took it, they developed it, and then in the end, okay, government said they legalized it. And this is always how private property, you know, I studied a lot about China and Vietnam after their communist period. I even wrote a book. I can mention maybe how nations escape poverty. It's about Vietnam and Poland. And I studied it in detail how they did it.

And this was the same thing. The peasants, first they left the collectives and they took the land. And without any permission, only to survive. because they wanted to survive. The alternative restoration or death or take this property because it didn't work. And then later, there were smart political leaders like in China, Deng Xiaoping, who legalized them. Okay, now we allow private property. And also in Vietnam, they had the so-called doy moly reforms at the end of the ages.

And, you know, what happened there? I give you only two numbers. That is amazing. Vietnam in socialist times was the poorest country in the world, not only because of the war. You know, it was not only the war with America, before they had the war with France, with Japan, with China, and so. And what was not destroyed by the war was destroyed by socialism,

by the planned economy. And then there were the poorest country in the world. And 80% of the population lived in extreme poverty. Then they started their free market refurb. forms. And today, the number of people living in publicity decreased from 80% to 3%. From 80% to 3%. And it's amazing. I produce the film. You can get it free on YouTube. It's Vietnam beating poverty with market economy. So I believe in free market and capitalism. And it changed everything. And this is the same with space. Today is the socialist idea. We have no

private property. It belongs to all mankind. and even there are some people say we should distribute it to everyone equally. But these ideas failed all the time. And so this is a strong message of my book. It's the last chapter, chapter 10, but it's for me the most important chapter in my book with a chapter title. It won't work without private property in space. You're absolutely right. And I think it's interesting that we come back to that, that fundamental idea.

that capitalism and freedom and competition are the things that make everything work. We can get all caught up in the technology of space, and that's all a very interesting thing. But we go back and we look at why the government has failed and why these programs continue to fail in various places, and it's because they've got kind of a Star Trek mentality. We're going to create this United Nations in space, and we're going to do this all collectively. And just as we see in Star Trek, there's no incentive for profit for anybody. So we know that that is pure science fiction. But the science part of it is interesting.

We need to get rid of the fiction of socialism. And I think that's what your book addresses. Again, the book is New Space Capitalism, the Entrepreneurial Path to the Stars. Thank you so much. It has been fascinating to talk to you. Yes. Thank you very much. I like it very much.

Thank you. I appreciate it. And have a great day. And I hope people go now order it on Amazon or Barnes & Noble. Rose. Thank you. Thank you for inviting me. Thank you very much. And again, the author that we're talking to here is Rainer Zidelman. That's Z-I-T-E-L-M-A-N-N, New Space Capitalism, Entrepreneurial Path to the Stars. I think it is an excellent idea, and you really get to the heart of the issue, which ultimately is about freedom and about liberty. Thank you so much for joining us, sir.

Thank you. Thank you for inviting me. Have a great day. Thank you. You're listening to the David Knight Show. Elvis. Ladies and gentlemen, the Beatles, and the sweet sounds of Motown. Find them on the oldies channel at APSRadio.com. Joining us now is Myron Ebell.

He is with Fix the EPAVito.org. And he's been pushing a deregulation agenda for quite some time. And as you know, I've talked about this. I think the greatest problem that we have here in the U.S. in terms of being able to grow our economy and being able to have manufacturing, all the rest of the stuff, is the strangling regulations coming out of Washington.

And probably nowhere is that worse than in the environmental regulations. And so Myron Ebell was part of the transition team in Trump's first administration. I know some of the people that were part of that. I had worked with them at American Tradition Institute, which has become E&E News. And so they had some high expectations.

Some good things were done. Some things were left incomplete. That's kind of the way that it always works. But we're going to talk about some of the issues that still remain and a major loophole that is there that is going to allow, if it's not closed, it's going to allow the rapid reassertment of some of the things that have been removed. So joining us now is Myron Ebell. Thank you so much for joining us, sir.

Thanks for having me, David. Well, thank you. Tell us a little bit about what you're looking at. When you talk about a gaping hole in the deregulatory push, what are you talking about in terms of the Clean Water Act? Well, there are a number of environmental laws that are a problem and that need reform and making faster. But one problem that the Trump administration has not focused on is what happens if there is an unfriendly administration in the future, a radical environmental administration. And the Democrats seem to be moving further and further to the left on these issues. So it's quite likely that a future Democratic administration would be more radical than the Biden or the, Obama administration. Well, that's kind of interesting because, you know, once they decided that they needed to

have a lot of power for the artificial intelligence data centers, things started to rapidly change. I mean, that really kind of through a lot, just de-finerated a lot of this doom and gloom climate stuff just went right out the window when they decided that, wait a minute, we've got this very powerful use for artificial intelligence. We need to clear the decks to get this thing in so we can have our police surveillance state or whatever. So in terms of reading the tea leaves, they're still talking about moving in a very radical environmental way that you're looking at.

Yes, I think so. I think there's a, you know, the tech community has moved over to the Trump side of these issues. But I don't think the Democrats have caught up with that yet. And so, you know, there's a lot of pressure in Congress to on permitting reform. I doubt that the Senate will be able to do anything, but there is a lot of pressure because, as you said, the deregulation is necessary to be able to build things in this country.

There's so many layers, and it takes so long, and there's so much litigation. And so the Trump administration in its first term tried to address that and made some progress. And in the second term, I think they're being much more aggressive. They're trying to speed up, do everything they can, without Congress changing the laws. They're doing everything they can to speed up the permitting of projects.

And we're talking about energy projects, mining projects, major infrastructure projects. But speeding all these things up is good, but there's something in the Clean Water Act that could undo all of the progress that's being made to get these projects through the process and let the companies start building them. And that is called the Section 404C veto. And what it means is that the Corps of Engineers can permit a project for a dredge and fill permit that is digging up dirt and rock and moving in and putting it somewhere else.

They can issue that permit. The investors can start investing and building that project. But the Section 404C veto means that the EETO means that the EFETO, EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, can veto that project after it's being built. And so this is a huge threat. And the main point I want to make is, if you are trying to arrange billions of dollars to build a new pipeline or open a new mine, are you going to take that risk if you think that after you've invested your money, it could just be yanked?

I don't think so. Yeah, recently. I've talked to several people that have been in mining, and we've had the bottleneck that everybody's talked about in terms of rare earth. And so we've got a lot of people out there trying to do it. And they're talking about how, yeah, it takes us 20 years and we're still not sure that we're going to get this. We invest billions of dollars up front. And it's a real casino with all that stuff. I think one of the things that's happening with this that's different.

Again, going back to AI and as you point out, the tech people, we have put so much money into all things digital. and yet we don't have the mining and the manufacturing and the materials basis to make all this stuff work. You know, if they're going to have massive data centers, they're going to have to have a lot of copper. They're going to have to have a lot of these other resources. And there just isn't the pipeline there for that does not exist to make sure that we have what we need to build that out, assuming that we want to have all these massive data centers, which I think is another question is out there. the use that it's going to be put to. So it's always a question.

Whatever their agenda is, they have to look at the practical aspects of it. And we really have neglected the physical infrastructure throughout our country for everything, not just for AI data centers, but that's kind of the thing that's really grabbed people in terms of changing a lot of people's minds on all the climate hysteria. They backed off a little bit on that. And I think that's one of the key things that's there. And it's just astounding. when you talk about the amount of time that it takes to get something approved,

let alone to build it. That's absolutely right, David. I think, you know, there's several things that any industry needs. They need material, and that's often metals and minerals, and they need energy. And the Trump administration, combined with the Shale revolution, going back to the 20 years now that opened up these huge new resources

of oil and natural gas in the rock, in shale formations. Those and the Trump policies that have allowed that to explode means that the United States is in an incredibly good position now in terms of its energy. Now, many states are trying to hamstring that,

like California and New York, with their idiotic climate policies. They want to raise the price of energy, not lower it. But the U.S. is in a great position on energy, but on other raw materials, it's in a very bad position. And I'll just start with minerals. You know, there's large parts of the United States are heavily mineralized. There's a lot of places that can be mined.

But a lot of those have been closed. off. And when companies try to open mines, they face 10 to 20 years of getting through the permitting process before they can actually start building the mine. And a lot of that, the permitting process is controlled by litigation. Every agency has to go very slowly and take very detailed environmental impact statements because they know they're going to be sued in court by environmental and preservation groups. So it takes a long time. And then even worse than the fact that so much of our mining, our minerals are now

imported from abroad, is that China controls the production of several critical minerals, but even more it controls the processing, the smelting and the processing of turning the turning the rock, the ore into metals and minerals that could be used. So, you know, for example, cobalts, most of its mind in Africa in the Congo, but it's all processed in China. So China really has a chokehold not only on our economy, but on the entire world economy for a number of critical minerals that are used, as you mentioned, AI and these big tech companies. cell phones. You know, and I was talking to a guy who had a company that was trying to do the rare with minerals.

And again, they're desperate for it for their defense industry in Washington. And he was saying, it isn't that these minerals are rare. It's just that we don't have the ability to refine them. And that's all being done in China now. Yep. That's right. That's interesting. And, of course, it's the other part of this, when I look at what is happening with these things.

And look, you know, I mean, it's, there are some things that need to be done, but the pendulum can fall way to the extreme of one side. And I think that's where we are right now. And so when you look at this, I remember when I was in high school reading my dad's Business Week magazines. And one of the things that really stuck out to me was the fact that they talked about how Europe was paralyzed with regulation. They called it eurosclerosis. And it was kind of a hardening of the arteries so they couldn't get anything done. And we have now followed them down that same path. We have a kind of sclerosis here that has paralyzed us, really. That's right. And a lot of it, you know, these environmental laws that were passed in the early 1970s, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and several others, including the National Environmental Policy Act. all of these laws have have never really been reformed.

There have been, I guess you could say, the 1992 Clean Air Act amendments that the First Bush administration did was the last major reform of any of these laws. And that was not a good reform. That was actually, it had some good and it had some really bad stuff in it. And so our laws have not kept pace with the check. changes in the world and in the way things work. And the second thing is that nobody who passed these laws,

I think the environmental groups knew, but the lawmakers didn't understand how all of these laws could be gamed by our court system so that if, for example, a permit is issued, that an environmental group can come in and sue. And if they lose, they can come in on some other grants or some other group can come in and sue again. And so these things are held up now for years and years and years in the courts.

And instead of having regulators who know something about the issue, we hope, making the decisions, we have judges essentially making our environmental and industrial policy. and many of them really are not very favorable. They don't like, for example, the shutdown of the timber industry in the Northwest in the 1990s and early 2000s. That was all done by one federal court judge who essentially took control of the timber industry through the Endangered Species Act. And so these are the kinds of things that when you talk about sclerosis, a lot of it, I think, is legal. And in the courts, the agencies are bad, but the courts were even worse, generally. Wow.

Yeah. And we're talking about the Pacific Northwest, personal experience that I had in terms of a report that I did. My son and I went up and we interviewed a guy who was a lumberjack and had been up in that area. He said the federal government has basically shut everything down. They've done such a bad job of managing the public lands that he had been, as part of his preparation for his retirement, he had gradually accumulated a lot of land, and he was going to gradually sell off that lumber as he retired. And he said what happened was the mismanagement of the federal lands because they refused to get

rid of deadwood and other things like that. They would leave this fuel, which is what it becomes, fuel on the ground. So we've got trees that are dying, trees that have fallen down, and it's basically fuel for a fire, even a natural fire. And getting out of control. He said it got out of control, burned the federal lands, and burned up his retirement as well. Yeah. And he said, and look around here.

He said, there's absolutely nothing left. He said, look at all of the different lumber mills and things like that. They were all rusted and decaying. It was really sad to look at it. We did a long report on it. And all the lumber mills were rusted and decaying. And he said, there's nobody moving into the area. All the businesses have closed.

The only thing that is happening here, he says, we've got retirees who are moving into the area. And we've got the federal government is opening one office after the other. He said, that's the only thing that's going is the federal government. I thought, what a picture of overreach that we have with that. Of course, we all want to make sure, and this is where the EPA started. It started with these super fines. They had some really horrific places of pollution, and they cleaned those up. I don't know if you know David Schneier or not, but I worked with him at E&A.

He was one of the earliest EPA employees, and he was there for over 30 years. he got out, he was so disgusted by the overreach and how this had grown into mission creep that had grown in. It became not about cleaning up pollution, but it became about shutting down any growth and any reasonable use of the land. And so he went to the other side and he started opposing what they were doing because it had changed from the mission of cleaning things up to a mission of making sure that we don't do anything. Yes, that's right. And, David David learned that from the inside.

David Schneer learned that from the inside. And he knew how the beast worked. And of course, the civil service is meant to be experts who are not politically motivated. But the EPA is, you know, one of the worst agencies in terms of being highly politicized. And I'm not saying everybody who works there is on the environmentalist team.

But there are enough people, especially in senior roles, who are very hostile to development and economic growth. They think that those, you know, if the economy is growing, the environment must be being hurt. And in fact, the opposite is true. Economic growth is what drives environmental health and progress. And if you go back to the Clean Water Act, you know, huge areas of the country have been designated as federal wetlands. Many of them are wetlands.

If there's a swamp that's next to a river or the swamp drains into the river, that's the federal jurisdiction and the federal government can't regulate it. even on private land, not just federal land or state land. But the claims of what is a wetland grew so large that most of Arizona was under the Obama rule, the wetlands of the U.S. rule, which the Biden administration revived, would be defined as a wetland because these desert canyons would have water coming down them every few years, and that makes them a wetland. And so the Trump administration had tried to reform the wetland rule in the first administration, but the Supreme Court has done an even better job with several decisions.

And so the federal claims of jurisdiction over wetlands are not nearly as big now as they are. Nonetheless, if you are involved in any kind of project that moves a lot of dirt and rock, and you need a dredge and fill permit, you are, likely, if it's a pipeline or a road or a mine, you are likely to have federal jurisdiction through the Clean Water Act, through wetlands jurisdiction. And that means you will have to get a section 404 permit. And that's why it's so important to try to speed up the process, but it's also important to correct this loophole that was created that allows the EPA to veto the project after it's been permitted and is underway. Yeah, I remember there was a case, I think it was in

Montana, it was a guy on his own property. And he didn't have a massive ranch or anything. He's only something like eight acres or something like that. And he had a couple of cows. And they dug out a little recessed area so they can make their own pond for the kids would swim in it and the cows would drink from it and that type of thing. And the EPA came in and tried to regulate that under the Waters of the USA Act and say that was something that they should regulate. It was all self-contained in his property. He had created it and they got really, they came after him, started hitting him with fines,

it started accumulating and multiplying. and adding late charges to it, they wound up with an astronomical amount of money. And as he was fighting it, and then they tried to garnish his wages, because that wasn't what he was doing for a living. It wasn't a farm that he was doing. It was just something that they had done on the side. And it was one of the most egregious cases I've seen of any of this kind of stuff. But it just shows how they have metastasized in terms of their mission, how it is creeped out of the confines

of common sense. They even tried to garnish his wages, like some kind of an income tax thing or something. It was absolutely amazing. And the fact that they would extend the wetlands to the deserts. That is also a good example of how this has fallen off to the other side. And again, we're not talking about being unreasonable for things. Certainly people need to be aware of the impact of what it is that they're doing

and there are things that can be done, just as we're talking about in terms of air quality and things. things like that. They want to shut everything down. It's this kind of absolutism that we see over and over again when the bureaucracies and regulators get involved. It's the same type of thing that has been shutting down in many areas and the types of cars that people are allowed to have. You can't have a car that's got any kind of a mission. So even if the car is predominantly an electric vehicle, if it's a hybrid or if it's one of these, what they call now an extended range electric vehicle, where you've got a small generator there that's going to charge the batteries and give you a very extended long range, you're not allowed to have that in many areas because they've got to have absolute zero emissions.

And when you look at that kind of absolutism, it always leads to a tyranny, doesn't it? Yes, and I think, you know, the example of the landowner who dug a pond, I think that kind of thing is handled much better at the state and county level. in the east there's lots of water and as the further west you go it starts to get dry and the western states have very well-established state water law that controls water rights and if you have a water right that's superior to someone else

then you have the first right to use the water and so I think that it's been worked out quite well in most states most of the Western states, and I think it works pretty well. There are disputes, but it's settled law, and now we have the federal government that has come in with the Clean Water Act and has really done a lot of damage to settled law in the West, and through the Endangered Species Act as well. So I think, you know, the federal overreach is a problem mostly of, regulation, people think of, oh, the taxes are too high. But it's actually a lot easier to control

taxes than it is to control the growth of regulation. And I think this is, it's really, it's the big battle we're in. It's the debt we can't control. Taxes, that's no problem. Yeah, you want, I'll cut your taxes. No, spending. Spending is very hard to control, yes. That's right. Yeah. And when we look at this, Of course, what you're saying is very true. These things are better addressed at the local level. And that was really what our Constitution was about, what the 10th Amendment was about. That there were very few things that were going to be done by the federal government. Now the federal government has to have approval and involvement in every single aspect of our life.

And it's that kind of a mind frame that needs to be adjusted because they don't have really the authority to do most of these things we're talking about. Even the environmental stuff that is there, that's not really something that, belongs to the federal government, that's something that is really best resolved at the local level. You know, when people look at what the agenda is for many people on the left, they want to have federal zoning laws to control what you can do with your property. They want to put everything at the central and highest level and not do anything locally. And so I think there's going to have to be, really, when we look at this, we can fight these battles one by one, or we can look at it and we can say, here's the foundational

problem, and that is throwing out the 10th Amendment. So the federal government has to have a say and has to grant permission to do anything and everything in our lives. And everything is basically forbidden unless they permit it at the federal level. That is exactly wrong. That's an inversion of the 10th Amendment. And I think that's really one of the key things. What do you see in terms of that type of action? Is there any awareness of that in terms of people pushing back against this federal overreach? In general, I think that the Trump administration, the second Trump administration,

has undertaken the biggest deregulatory, has the biggest deregulatory agenda since regulations really started to get going 110 to 15 years ago. And so they're very ambitious, and I think if you look at a lot of what they're doing is they're trying to shrink the federal footprint. They're trying to shrink the federal claims of authority over things.

And unfortunately, a lot of this is in law, and so they can only take it so far unless Congress will reform some of these laws. And I, you know. I agree. Yeah, there's just been this, the sea change in my lifetime. It used to be we'd laugh about it. We'd say, hey, don't make a federal case out of it.

Well, everything is a federal case, right? Okay, everything. Yeah, that's right. And so it has to be a, there has to be an awareness of the general public that everything should not be a federal case, that there are many things that are better and really can only be handled at the state and local level. And even under the Constitution, regardless of what laws they pass, there has to be an understanding that there was a reason that they did it that way in the Constitution.

and by the way, the Constitution is governing over these laws. And so is that an approach that is being taken? Are they really challenging the constitutionality of some of these laws? Are they just changing the laws at this point in time? Because I think that's what's really going to make it a problem when the Democrats come in or somebody who wants to start to regulate this stuff. If we leave the idea there that federal government has the right or the duty or the power to do these types of things,

then it's going to see-saw, bank and forth being the Republicans, Democrats, all the time, unless we can get back to a clear understanding of federalism and the idea that power is get granted to the government by the states, which is really what the Constitution says, historically what happened, and now the servant has become the master. Yes, that's right. I think, you know, Congress isn't passing major reform.

of our regulatory laws. That's right. And the Trump administration is trying to do what are called administrative rulemakings. That is, you go through a process that takes several years, and you change the rules that implement the law. And these rules can be undone by a future administration by going through the same process. But it does take several years, and it is subject to public. comment and it is subject to litigation. So if we can't change the laws, the best thing we can do is to reform the rules under which these laws are administered. And that's the Trump administration is trying to do that in a lot of places. And then I would, I, I think, one place where they're not doing enough is on federal lands, which is, you know, 20, one quarter of the country is federal land forest service, Bureau of Land Management, National Parks.

Wow. That's a problem in and of itself, isn't it? Yeah, that's a huge problem. And I don't think the Trump administration is doing enough on reforming our federal Lance regulations. But they, well, to be fair, they're doing quite a bit. But there's a problem, which is that the White House, the president, doesn't really understand that the federal lands are a problem.

So it comes up against his, he looks. he and his two hunting sons, sons who hunt, they are very keen on federal lands and so they want to keep them. And I think we should be getting rid of transferring them to the states and getting improving the environmental management of those lands if the states could get a hold of them and get rid of the federal land mismanagement that is burning down our forests, as you mentioned. But the other thing is that there have been several good Supreme Court decisions on these issues, on regulatory issues. One was called Loper Bright. Another is the seven-county Infrastructure Coalition. These decisions are shrinking the federal regulatory reach. And I think if we can build on those, if the Trump administration,

could get some of these cases, more of these cases to the Supreme Court, there could be further progress through the Supreme Court. Yeah, that's true. And it's good to have you on to talk about this, because, you know, we all have this antiquated idea of how things take place, you know, how Bill becomes a law, the old schoolhouse rock thing, you know. I'm a bill. I'm a bill on Capitol Hill.

It doesn't work that way, as you pointed out. You have these rules. And it's really the bureaucracies that are ruling us. They're not elected. accountable and what's even worse is that they have taken the position and we see this across the board where you're talking about the IRS or you're talking about the drug war if they put out a regulation then if they want to do civil asset forfeiture for example then you don't have any due process you don't have they don't have

to prove that you're guilty of something you are guilty and have to prove the trinison and we're all familiar with that through the IRS but now we've seen that happening with the drug war many other things in terms of property rights when it comes to things that have to do with the environment. And if the bureaucracy that has to do with the environment, the EPA gets involved in it, well, then guess what? You don't have any property rights with that either. And so there needs to be an understanding that, you know, just like Nancy Pelosi said,

we've got to pass it to find out, wasn't it? You know, you're going to create these massive guidelines or maybe even a whole new department. And then they're going to set all the rules for everything. Congress really doesn't do its job anymore. And so as you point out, you have this fight within the executive branch, and that causes us to see-saw back and forth between Republican and Democrat administrations because they're just setting up arbitrary rules. And I think there has to be a fundamental understanding change in terms of the way the public sees how this is happening to understand the reality of what's going on in Washington, how these missions have creeped out on us to control everything. It's really through the bureaucracy, isn't it? Yes, and you mentioned that Congress doesn't do its job,

and I think that's the key problem. Congress passes a law and delegates authority, not to the president so much, but to the agency that is going to administer the law, to the civil servants, the bureaucrat. That's right. And then they never do any oversight, and on the rare occasions,

when they do do oversight to figure out whether the agency is administering the law, in the way that Congress wanted. And they find out that it isn't. Then they are unable to pass any reforms. They can't actually, once they've enacted a law, they can't, it's proven very hard for Congress to enact reforms of those laws, even when they understand that the law isn't working the way it should.

Yeah, they'll have hearings and they'll become local heroes and media figures complaining about what the problem is, but as you point out, they never reform it. They never change it. And they leave that power in the bureaucracies. And so there really has to be an understanding of the American people about how this system actually operates and how Congress has abdicated their authority over pretty much everything. They've abdicated it to either the bureaucracy or to the executive branch. And they really don't do anything except provide us with a circus to talk about, I guess. Yes, that's right. That's right. And, you know, we, we need, you know, the answer is to have better legislators to elect better people. But as you know, you can't really tell the way our system works,

it's hard to tell who's better and who's, who's worse. And then once they get into office, they often, many of them quickly become part of the problem, not part of the solution. Yeah, they go native. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And then if you got somebody who really doesn't, stand up to the system, you'll have the system will purge them out because the system is set up to have legislators who malleable, they understand that's why they don't do anything. They know that if they make any waves, they're going to get taken out. And so you don't stand up against anything, the spending or anything else. You just kind of quietly go along and you'll be fine. And there's a nice pension involved, is there. Well, it truly is amazing. Thank you so much for trying to do something to

fix this. And again, I think it's really key for people to understand how this system works. The awesome power that has been given, has been abdicated by Congress to the regulatory agencies. And one example of that is this EPA veto that you're talking about. And again, people can find out about this at fix the EPA veto.org. Thank you so much for joining us, Myron. Appreciate that. Thanks for having me, David. Thank you. dream. You're listening to the David Knight Show. If you like the Eagles, on a dark desert highway, the cars, and Huey Lewis in the news, you'll love the classic hits channel at APS Radio. Download our app or listen now at

aps radio.com. You know, I don't know whether we should say that this is now become Magda, make America great depression again, or maybe it is Mava. Make America Venezuela again. America never was Venezuela, though, so we've got to get rid of that A. Just call it mob. Make America Venezuela. Or make America North Korea. Or make America East Germany.

All of these countries that have had centralized command control economies that have eviscerated the middle class, the small businesses, people who work for them, the people that Bernie Sanders and his Pragues call the bourgeoisie, the middle-class bourgeoisie that they hate so much. You know, the communists always want to destroy the middle class. Well, they're doing a pretty damn good job of it. And they don't even have Bernie Sanders in office, do they?

We've got Attorney General Barr saying the Department of Justice will go after the coronavirus price gougers and hoarders. And I looked at this, and I tweeted about this over the weekend. I said, this tells you right here that nobody in Washington and the Trump administration has any appreciation whatsoever for the free market. They don't understand what it's about. They don't understand how it works. Look, the reason people are hoarding Barr, Trump, is because you shut the economy down. You created artificial shortages everywhere.

Before I got locked out of the stores because I refused to wear a mask and walk around and look at all the empty shelves. I can't believe that our supply chains have just totally been collapsed by the government fiat in just a matter of days. And so their response is always, with the government. You know, when they make a mistake, rather than admit the mistake or correct the mistake, they'll make a second mistake.

They'll use that as an argument to increase their authority, to increase spending, to increase the number of people that they hire and their footprint on our necks. And so Barr says the Department of Justice will go after price gaugers and hoarders. Maybe they'll go around and pull stuff out of your home, like some of these politicians.

New Jersey governor was saying, yeah, if you've got stuff at home, you've prepped, and I need it, I'll send the police around to steal it from you. Now, here's the reality. Horting and price increases are actually a natural response to shortages that happen, even shortages that happen because of government mandates and fiats and dictates. Because, you know, when people start to hoard, because it's not going to be available. Because why? Oh, because the government has gotten in the way. Because the government has destroyed our supplies. Then the people who have it increased the price,

and things start to equalize out. It's called supply and demand. The basic idea behind a free market that is not recognized by Attorney General Barr, George W. Bush's, George H.W. Bush's CIA shill. Yeah, raising prices is going to discourage hoarding. and it will also incentivize production. That's how the free market works, Barr. I know as a Republican you don't understand that or appreciate that

because we're now all just socialist and central planners. Let me go back and read for you the classic piece, just a little bits of this. I pencil by Leonard Reed. Talks about how a pencil is made. And he said, I pencil, my family tree has told to Leonard Reed. I am a lead pencil. ordinary wooden pencil, familiar to all boys and girls and adults who can read and write, eye pencil, simple though I appear to be, merit your wonder and your awe.

If you can become aware of the miraculousness, which I symbolize, you can help save the freedom that mankind is so unhappily losing, especially today. This is written, by the way, in 1958. He says, I have a profound lesson to teach, and I can teach this lesson better than can an automobile or an airplane or a mechanical dishwasher. because I am so simple. I seem to be simple. Yet not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me a pencil.

This sounds fantastic, doesn't it? Especially when it's realized that there are about one and a half billion of my kind produced just in the U.S. every year. My family tree begins with what is, in fact, a tree, a cedar of straight grain that grows in northern California and Oregon. Now contemplate all the saws and the trucks and the rope and the countless other gear used in harvesting and carting the cedar logs to the railroad siding. Think of all the persons and the numberless skills that went into their fabrication, the mining of ore, the making of steel and its refinement into saws, axes, motors. The growing of hemp, remember this is 1958 before Nixon put in the war on drugs. The growing of hemp and bringing it through all the stages to make heavy and strong rope. The logging camps and all their beds and mess halls, the cookery, the raising of all the foods,

consider the millwork in San Leandro. The cedar logs are cut into small pencil-length slats, less than one-fourth of an inch in thickness. Kiln-dried, then tinted for the same reason women put rouge on their faces. The slats are waxed and kiln-dried again. How many skills went into the making of the tent and the kilns, into supplying the heat, the light, the power, the belts, the motors, all the other things that a mill requires. Once in the pencil factory, $4 million in machinery and building. All capital accumulated by thrifty saving parents of mine, each slat,

given eight grooves by a complex machine, after which another machine lays lead in every other slat, applies glue, places another slat atop a lead sandwich, so to speak. My lead itself contains no lead at all. It's complex. graphite, mined in Ceylon, Sri Lanka. Consider these miners, those who make their many tools, the makers of the paper sacks in which the graphite is shipped,

those who make the string that ties the sacks, those who put them aboard ships, those who make the ships, and he goes on and on. He talks about the brass that holds the eraser. He talks about what makes up the eraser. Each of these components, broken down into more and more components. The production, the raw materials distributed all over the world. That happened naturally, organically.

And as he points out, there isn't any central planner of all of this. He said millions of human beings have had a hand in my creation. He said, there is no mastermind. There is, in fact, something that is even more astounding than all these ways and materials that is put together, the absence of a mastermind, the absence of anyone dictating or forcibly directing these countless actions, which bring me into being.

And I talk about this, folks, because when I look at our government, shutting down ranchers, shutting down farmers, having people plow their crops into the ground, pouring their milk into the drain, when I see them shutting down and confiscating the private property of loggers and miners across this country that's been going on for a long time, but now they've escalated this. Now they have broken this complex chain of supply. And as I read this, the reason I read this is because you look at this and you say, well, look at all the different components of something as simple as a pencil and how these things have to be moved from place to place. And our government by shutting everything, everything down in this country, like a bunch of damn communist dictators.

I am so fed up with President Trump, I can't even bear to look at him anymore. I am disgusted. Don't tell me there's a plan. Any plan that does this to America is a plan to destroy America. You can't build it. You can't bring this back. You're going to put a lot of people out of work permanently.

Oh, yeah, we'll get things going for a while, and then they'll put it on again, right? And it'll be a different set of players. You want to talk about how wealth is continually being consolidated in the hands of a few well-connected, people, just take a look at what's happening in your neighborhood. All your mom and pop stores are closed down. The only people who are allowed, yeah, that's it right there.

The broken pencil. That should be the symbol for Trump's administration. The broken pencil. Put him off. I don't even want to see his face. The broken pencil. That's what you've done, Trump. Are you such a fool that you don't understand?

I don't think so. I think we've been betrayed. Big time. Pat Buchanan. We may be reaching our... Saratoga moment, our turning point. That's right. We'll find out who the Sunshine Patriots are in the winter soldiers. I've seen a lot of commentators out here begging and demanding that more be shut down, that we stay shut down longer. Yeah, they are the Sunshine Patriots, folks. As Pat Buchanan

points out, well, you know, we had predictions of 2 million, then it went to 1 million people dead. Then it was 240,000, then 100,000 last week on Tuesday. Dr. Burke said 81,000 deaths the next day it was dropped by 25% to 60,000? Is any of this stuff true? The Southern Poverty Law Center has long been the think tank hatching the idea of vast right-wing conspiracies. SPLC is the source behind some of the most outrageous enemies list being compiled by Homeland Security, fusion centers like the Miak report, and emails and policy statements by the military. SPLC creates the boogeyman, writes the script, and Homeland passes it off to the police

who are trained to associate political speech with a threat. to their personal safety. And it's not just political speech. Southern Poverty Law Center is attacking religious freedom, calling it hate. This line of attack has been promulgated within the military. The free exercise religion of those in the military is being attacked as not just hateful, but conflated with the racism of the KKK. It's an interesting comparison for the SPLC to make since it got its start in the violent racist confrontations of the 60s. On May 20th, In 1961, when a busload of black and white freedom riders arrived in Montgomery, Alabama, they were met with what Time magazine described as an idiot club-swinging mob of about 100.

In this picture, we see SPLC founder Morris Dees' first client. The man on the ground with a camera getting kicked by Klansman? That's not Morris Dee's client. This is Dees' client. Dees didn't defend the freedom riders who were viciously attacked, bloodied, and had their bus set on fire. D's defended the KKK Thug, the ringleader. And he got him off, in spite of it being widely reported like this article in Life magazine. And Morris Dees got paid a lot of money, $5,000, which at the time was the median family income for a year.

But this is what his bio on the SPLC website says. After launching a law of practice in Montgomery in 1960, he won a series of groundbreaking civil rights cases. Maybe he should amend that to say that he won. for the clan, a leg-breaking case against civil rights activists. More steeds would have us believe that sometime after he got Klansman Claude Henley off, sometime after he cashed the check, that he decided that he would start suing the clan for cash instead of defending the clan for cash. Maybe it wasn't a moral epiphany, but a financial epiphany.

He could make much more money doing direct mail fundraising to the public than he could suing. Criticisms of the SPLC from the left focus on how, little it does other than fundraising, how much money it hoards for its endowment, and how much money it pays multimillionaire Morris Dees. Alexander Cockburn described Dees on the SPLC this way. Ever since 1971, U.S. Postal Service mailbags have bulged with Dees' fundraising letters, scaring dollars out of the pockets of trembling liberals aghast at his lurid depictions of

hate-soddened America in dire need of legal confrontation by the SPLC. wrote in 2009 how D's and the SPLC were spinning the election of Barack Obama. What is the arched salesman of hate-mongering, Mr. Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center, doing now? He's saying that the election of a black president proves his point. Hate is on the rise. Send money. Without skipping a beat, the mail-shot moguls who year after year make money selling the notion

there's been a right resurgence out there in the hinterland with massed legions of haters have used the election of a black president to say that, Yes, hate is on the rise in America, ready to burst apart at the seams, with millions of extremists primed to march down Main Street draped in clan robes, a copy of mind confuct under one arm and a Bible under the other. A high-profile case from 1977 shows the true nature of Morris Dees and the SPLC. After Dees and the SPLC hired Millard Farmer to defend five black men accused of murder, Farmer said Dees abruptly pulled out of the case, telling him that the case wasn't making any money for the SPLC. When Farmer refused to turn the case over to a public defender, D's sued him for improperly spending SPLC funds. But Farmer went public, talking about how SPLC funds are really used. And he said of D's, he's the Jim and Tammy Fay Baker of the Civil Rights Movement, though I don't mean to malign Jim and Tammy Faye.

The analogy couldn't be better. The SPLC is a perfect way for liberals to assuage their guilt, buying indulgences from the Church of Morris Dees. In 1996, USA Today, called the SPLC the nation's richest civil rights organization with $68 million in the bank account. It's now grown to $224 million. It's easy to see how their endowment has soared. Alexander Cockburn pointed out that in 2007 they took in $45 million, but only spent $21 million, spending only half of what they took in on their proclaimed mission and pocketing the rest. And part of the expenditure was the lavish salary of multimillionaire.

Maurice D's, who in 2010 was paid $350,000. How's that for Southern poverty? But ripping off guilty white liberals isn't what makes the SPLC dangerous. What makes them dangerous is when they partner with the government to intimidate the centers, to threaten political speech, and to promote violence against those they demonize. Look at the notorious Mayak Fusion Center report, Missouri 2009, where every supporter of limited constitutional government, every real political opponent of Obama was labeled as a possible terrorist, a person of interest, simply for having a bumper sticker supporting Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, or Bob Barr. Then there was a huddery militia case in Michigan. The government whipped the public into a panic about militias with the help

of the media using SPLC talking points. Mark, do you know about this group? Oh yeah. And they look to be a very small group with a very odd ideology, sort of a twist on the New World Order. Basically, like other militia groups, what they really see happening. to the world is a kind of takeover of the world by some sort of one-world government, a so-called New World Order. They're alleged plot to kill a police officer and then bomb the funeral procession afterward, the opening salvo allegedly of a war against the U.S. government. The case was thrown out by the judge, but you didn't hear much, if anything, about that.

Or take Floyd Corkins, who shot up the offices of the Family Research Council, because he bought into the fundraising propaganda of the SPLC that if you assert your religious liberty to resist being coerced into recognizing and subsidizing homosexual marriage, the SPLC will label you as a hate group. The real hate group is the SPLC, whose hate-mongering inspired Corkins to, quote, kill as many people as I could, then smear a chick-fil-a sandwich on their face. And there have been multiple cases of the military repeating SPLC propaganda labeling opposition to homosexual marriage mandates as hate, and the founding fathers as dangerous militia type. As we approach the one-year anniversary of the Boston bombing, we should remember how the SPLC was used to promote the idea that bombing was done by their favorite boogeyman, Patriots.

It's conceivable that it was related to, in particular, this thing, Patriots Day. It celebrates, of course, the American Revolutionary War, the first shots fired at Concord in Lexington. But in the world I cover, it is really, probably most importantly, the end of the debacle in Waco, where A.E.A.A. 80 people died in a fire and two years later payback for the events in Waco, the bombing of the Oklahoma City building. Info Wars exposed the Boston bombing as a false flag event designed to be blamed on Patriots. Sir, why were a lot of speakers telling people in the audience and stuff be calm moments before the bomb went off? Is this another false flag stage attack and take out of civil liberties and for more homeless

security? I was thinking of hands down on the camps on the streets? No. Next question. Why was people being told prior? 9.30 tomorrow. Two days later, the FBI postponed, then canceled a press conference where 100 reporters had gathered to hear about the suspects that CNN and other government spokesmen had been saying had been identified by the FBI. The FBI then waited another 24 hours before identifying two suspects that didn't fit the homegrown Patriot terrorist narrative.

Of course, we still haven't seen them even sitting the bags down. But we have seen the FBI murder of friend of the surviving suspect during questioning shooting him six, times and once in the back of the head execution style. The Southern Poverty Law Center is a powerful propaganda tool of the government in the war of terror. But if we can defeat them in the Info War, we can stop the shooting war for which the government is preparing. Making sense, common again. You're listening to the David Knight Show. Whether you're feeling like the blues or blue grass, APS radio has you covered. Check out a wide variety of channels on our app at

aPS radio.com You want to obey authority? What is legitimate authority? If MS-13 comes to your home and demands that you not leave, are they legitimate authority? If a police officer with a uniform and a badge does the same thing, is that legitimate authority? Legitimate authority in the United States is the Constitution. These robbers with badges and masks and guns the United States

have sworn allegiance to the Constitution. They are oathbreakers, they are liars, they have turned their backs on their legitimate authority. Now they do have force. They have force just like these El Salvadoran gangs. And so you should try to get along with them as possible. But understand they have no authority. Sheriff understands this, of course, and we've talked about him last week as well. Bring up Maine's Franklin County Sheriff, Scott Nichols again.

As he told, the Democrat Governor of Maine, Janet Mills, with her stay-at-home orders, he said, we will not be setting up a police state period. The sheriff's office will not purposefully go out and stop vehicles because they're on the road. Or stop and ask why people are out and about. To do so puts our officers at risk, and this is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. where you were asked for your papers. But that is happening in the U.K. That's happening in most of the United States as well.

This, I think, is an interesting take on this. This is out of Missouri, sheriff Jerry Denwitty, and this is Rawls County Sheriff in Missouri. And his approach is this. He said, well, this county's ordinance is civil in nature and not a criminal matter. therefore they are not enforceable by the Rawls County Sheriff's Office or any Missouri law enforcement agency. He said the orders need to be enforced by the public health department that issued them. And he said because Rawls County is a third-class county, it doesn't have the authority to pass its own criminal ordinances.

So he said, we encourage everybody to follow the state-at-home orders and we aren't endorsing violating them. but he said that if anybody sees violations of the governor's stay-at-home orders or the county ordinance there in Rawls County, call the public health department. Don't call the sheriff because this is not a law enforcement issue. It's not. As I tweeted out yesterday, I'm perfectly willing to take advice from people, but I refuse to take orders.

And when you start ordering me around, I don't believe your advice. That's not what you're after. All right. So this is just a temporary inconvenience, right? That's what I keep hearing from so many people. Well, I don't think that's going to be the case. As a matter of fact, if we look at Ezekiel Emmanuel, the guy who was Obama's Obamacare architect and a so-called bioethicist.

He, as LifeSight News points out, he is a bioethicist who thinks that people should die at the age of 75. And even though he's advising Joe Biden, who is 77, Anyway, he is saying that it's going to be at least 18 months, and it's not going to happen until we've got a vaccine. What a surprise. Yeah, the brother of Rahm Emanuel, never let a crisis go to waste. That Rom Emanuel, he's now saying that. But folks, you have to understand when you look at the actions of these police in various areas, including in Kentucky, where they said, we're not going to, we don't care if you go to a church service and a parking lot. lot and you never get out of your car. We're going to put you in quarantine. We're going to fine

you $1,000. We're going to do all these things to you. As a matter of fact, San Bernardino County, the largest county of U.S. in California, of course, threatened churchgoers with a thousand dollar fine and 90 days in jail. They also demand that you keep your face covered when you are in public. We'll have more to say about that later. The state of Kentucky recording the licensed place of anybody going to church on Easter Sunday, as one person replied, as Ron Paul tweeted that out. And he said, cover your license plates with mud. Just tell them my name is mud. I like that. But Rand Paul says, really, you're going to start taking license plates at church? Quarantining someone for being Christian on Easter Sunday? Somebody needs to take a step back here.

That was tweeted out by Rand Paul. He's absolutely right. He says, I think we're the governor, Bashir, you know, the guy that was the first Democrat governor to say, no, churches, no churches, singled out churches. And everybody said, why is he singling out churches? He said, can't meet in public. No churches. And so he is bragging about the fact that in Kentucky, they were down to only seven churches statewide. They were thinking about having an in-person service. He was bragging about that. Meanwhile, a Kentucky judge takes on this anti-Christian Democrat and also the Louisville mayor, Greg Fisher,

who decided that they would do this, quarantine people, even if they remain in their cars. And this is what the judge had to say in Kentucky. This is U.S. District Judge Justin Walker. He's just issued a restraining order against Mayor Fisher. That was yesterday, that was, Saturday just before this happened. Judge Wilson said the government plans to substantially burden their religious practices on one of the most important holidays of the Christian calendar Easter Sunday.

He said that sentence is one that this court never expected to see outside the pages of a dystopian novel or perhaps the pages of the onion. But two days ago, writes U.S. District Judge Justin Walker, two days ago, citing the need for social distancing during the current pandemic, Louisville's mayor, Greg Fisher, ordered Christians not to attend Sunday services, even if they remained in their cars to worship. And even though it's Easter. He said, this state of affairs has severe implications for religious Americans because freedom means that all persons have the right to believe

or strive to believe in a divine creator and a divine law. But its importance extends beyond the liberty to worship. It threatens liberty of all kinds. You understand this? the foundation of America was based on Christian principles, the Declaration of Independence. We don't live

by the privileges granted to us by an authoritarian government. We have basic human rights and liberties because we're created by God, because government is not God. And we create government in order to protect those liberties. and when any government destroys those liberties,

it is our right and our duty to abolish that government. You understand that? That's the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And if you don't have that basic understanding of human rights, I mean, even libertarians that I know who were not Christians, we'll talk about natural rights. I've mentioned many times. Joe Biden's issue with Clarence Thomas.

Joe Biden didn't really hit him on the remarks that was just a, you know, that Anita Hill claimed that Clarence Thomas had said. There were no witnesses to that, unlike the many peccadillos, shall we say, of Joe Biden. And, of course, you know, as people have come forward and said, yeah, I was raped by him. No, there's nothing to that, says the New York Times. But Joe Biden didn't want to go too far in there because, you know, that's kind of a glass house for Joe Biden. He doesn't want to throw stones in there. But he was very upset about Clarence Thomas having a view of government that coincided with the Declaration of Independence.

The idea that there is something called natural law and natural rights that is higher than anything that Joe Biden or somebody in the government deigns to allow us to have. That is a fundamental principle of all liberty. and this judge gets that. Because, as he said, he quoted de Tocqueville. Because as De Tocqueville wrote, religion, which among the Americans never directly takes part in the government of society, must be considered as the first of their political institution. For if it does not give them the taste for liberty,

it singularly facilitates the use of it. Alexis de Tockeville, a Frenchman. who had lived under socialism in France. Kind of communism, early form of communism. And he came to America and he said, this is what underlies everything in America. And we can see it from our founding documents, but he saw it in the way the people lived.

The judge goes on to say, Louisville has targeted religious worship by prohibiting drive-in church services while not prohibiting a multitude of other non-religious drive-ins and drive-thrus, including, for example, drive-thru liquor stores. while Louisville might suggest that these church members could participate in online services which would satisfy their longing for communal celebrations,

some members may not have access to online resources. And even if they did, the free exercise clause protects their right to worship as their conscience commands them. This is something that is a much bigger deal to Catholics. Now, the Catholic Church, from top to bottom, in terms of its hierarchy, is basically playing along with the government. But I've seen a lot of conservative Catholics for whom weekly church attendance

is much more of a requirement than it is for Protestants. And they're not happy with this online system. Not happy at all. It is not the role of a court goes on the district judge, District Judge Justin Walker. It is not the role of a court to tell religious believers what is and isn't important to their religion, so long as their belief in the religious importance is sincere.

The free exercise clause protects sincerely held religious beliefs that are at times not acceptable, logical, consistent, or even comprehensible to others. See, my rights don't require your approval. If you're worried about the disease, stay home. By all means, stay home. Do other things, too. You pat your head, rub your stomach.

whatever makes you feel good about it. Right? Listen to the CDC guidelines and do everything that they say. But it's none of your business what I do. I'm an American, and it's a free country. We're going to make it a free country again. People don't say that anymore.

That used to be a common expression, didn't it? Don't make a federal case out of it. Well, now everything has been shut down in the United States. We've made a federal case out of it, And it is not a free country anymore. 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