The David Knight Show - Fri Episode #2324: Big Tech's Power Doesn't Stop Online

Episode Date: August 7, 2026

────────────────────────────────────────[00:03:02]Tucker's Third Party Manifesto Calls for JFK and 9/11 Accountability ��� Knight: Start With Your Own 9/11 RecordTucker sandbagged an Architects and Engineers guest refusing to show Building 7 footage; 9/11 was the Reichstag fire for the 21st century police state.────────────────────────────────────────[00:16:18]Trump's Michigan Endorsee Beaten by a Dropped-Out Candidate Who Raised $1,600Smith filed on paper, apologized to the FEC, dropped out, and still got 50%; Trump's endorsement had zero effect.────────────────────────────────────────[00:21:02]The GOP Is Now the ZOP — Zionist Owned Politicians — Blowback Is Giving Us Islamic CommunistsThe open buying of government by Israel and the technocrats is pushing voters toward socialists and Muslims who won't be cowed on Israel.────────────────────────────────────────[00:24:51]Burger King Woman Fired for Saying "Free Palestine" — GoFundMe Raised Over $150,000She wasn't aggressive; the customer videotaped her from his car; there's always a blowback. ──────────────────────────────────────── ── Interview 1: Humberto Cancio — Comey 86-47 Case Analysis ──────────────────────────────────────────[00:28:09]A Threat Must Be Explicit, Direct, or Contextually Unmistakable — Watts v. US: Soldier Threatening LBJ Was ProtectedA soldier said LBJ was first in his rifle sights; Supreme Court said not a threat; the 86-47 case has a longer road.────────────────────────────────────────[00:38:24]Hyperbole and Satire Are Core Protected Speech — Criminal Exception Requires an Extremely High StandardJudges from left and right agree; Cancio doubts it survives the judge; he pities the AUSA who has to try it.────────────────────────────────────────[00:57:09]Section 230 Public Square Argument Fails When Platforms Boost Content for Commercial GainBoost commercially and you are a publisher liable for libel and wrongful death; AI hallucinating citations cost one Florida lawyer his license. ──────────────────────────────────────── ── Interview 2: Iowa State Rep Cindy Golding (cindygolding.com) — Data Center Transparency Bill ──────────────────────────────────────────[01:22:10]Golding's Transparency Bill Passed Committee Unanimously — Google and NextEra Killed It in House LeadershipGoogle refused to disclose water consumption; NextEra called it proprietary; you use our land and tax dollars — we have a right to know.────────────────────────────────────────[01:26:40]Once a Data Center Is Zoned, Utilities Commission Gets Eminent Domain Authority — Citizens Lose Their WindowOnce approved, the board mandates power delivery and can raise rates; stop it at zoning before the permit request arrives.────────────────────────────────────────[01:32:37]Economic Development Departments Measured on Dollars Brought In — Not Community Impact or Job Quality$11-13 million in state incentives per permanent job; 8,000 temp workers overwhelmed landfill, roads, hotels, and housing — they leave and the community absorbs the costs. ──────────────────────────────────────── 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 act. It's the David Knight Show. As the clock strikes 13, it's Friday the 7th of August, year of our Lord, 2006. We have a couple of interviews today. One of them is going to be with an Iowa State representative who has been on the front lines of trying to fight data centers and flock cameras in her area. She's going to clue you in on even more issues to fight them on. Even more problems that we've talked about, not beyond the water usage, electricity usage, and noise and surveillance center, police state issues, there are other issues, many issues that you need to think about, things that you need to focus on, and what can you do to try to stop these things and the tricks that they have used to get around any transparency or

regulation. We also have a lawyer who's going to be joining us to talk about free speech and lawfare issues, especially in the Comey 86-47 case. What actually constitutes a threat to the president? And what actually constitutes a threat to free speech and the First Amendment? We'll be right back. Well, before we start, I want to thank Ben F on Subscribe Star. He gave us a donation on Subscribe Star, and that was last Friday. So we included that in July, and I just wanted to, I'd thank people on other platforms on Cash App and Zelle and people who had contributed by mail.

And I did not thank the special donation. Of course, we thank all of our subscribed star supporters because that is a key core of our support that is there. But I want to take a look at integrity because we just had Tucker Carlson. He had a meeting with Marjorie Taylor Green, Thomas Massey, his brother and some other people. They were talking about a new third party. What are they going to do with that? And then he came out and he said, well, I've got a manifesto for a new third party. And he listed a bunch of general terms.

It's got to be fair. It's got to be honest. It's got to be beautiful. And blah, blah, blah. And what he got to honest. What he said was, we've got to hold the people accountable. We've got to have a real investigation of what happened with the JFK assassination and with 911. Think about that.

I've played the clip over and over again. One of the reasons I have a problem with Tucker is because after 911, he got a person from architects and engineers. for 9-11 truth. And they talked, the guy came on, he had a video clip that he wanted to show of building seven, which was not hit by a plane, still collapsing and freefall over some secondary fires that got put there, minor fires. And of course, we haven't had any changes in the building codes, no changes in the firefighting tactics of anyone.

And so what is that about? And he absolutely refused to let this guy show it. And he just sat there and mocked him. He goes, all these people I want to talk about is the temperature of burning jet fuel and the melting point of steel and all the rest of the stuff. I'm so tired of all that. The guy said, well, let me talk to you about that. Let me show you the clip. And he sandbagged the guy.

And so, yeah, Tucker, we need to start with you. Why don't you get honest about 911? Because, folks, 911 was the Reichstag fire for the 21st Century police state that they're now putting in place. For 20 years, we created Homeland Security. We've been, the federal government has been gradually moving towards this. It was all part of the plot, even what happened during COVID. Because that was started. That was gamed and war planned, and they practiced that two months before 9-11.

All of it was tied together. So, yeah, the JFK assassination, that was a long time ago. And we all know that was a major turning point, a major coup in our government. But if you want to know where we are right now, go back and look at what happened over the last 25 years. He's not doing that. But let's take a look at integrity, because integrity and honesty really is important. And I think when you look at what's going on with Trump, this reflecting pool thing just keeps metastasizing, doesn't it? And it is very reflective of his personality, and it's an ugly reflection.

What do we see from this? Well, we first see Trump boasting about the pool that he's doing. we see the massive expense, we see the subsequent failure, and as part of that, we see the corruption in terms of the no-bid contract that he had, and then we see the failure, and Trump projecting that failure onto other people. Does this sound like the Iran War? Yeah, it's very much like the Iran war. And then not stopping there, he not only projects failure onto other people, but he engages in lawfare, the guy who was a former Olympian canoeer that they tried to set up and tried to pin all this stuff on him.

He's the guy that put a 300 foot gash in or whatever. Some other people, Vandals did it. And here's our token vandal, our scapegoat. It was absolutely absurd. So absurd that even Janine Perrault could not keep going down this path. And so she pulled back. And so now it looks like Trump's going to fire her, perhaps. She was seen toting a big box of stuff to Trump, perhaps trying to save her job, or maybe she's just going to clean out her office.

Who knows what's going to happen with all this stuff? But look, we see as a revenge, we see the anger, the punishment against anybody who opposes them no matter how absurd the lies. And that's the key thing. They feel entitled to lie to you about everything, just as you've got Trump out there saying that everybody, wants to have a data center. And no, that absolutely is not true. What we're seeing here is a, we're seeing another global agenda.

When you look at what is happening here, we got at the state levels, a couple of different states have put out mandates to say we're going to have to protect the kids, so we're going to have to attach digital IDs to the operating systems, to certain platforms and websites, and also to devices.

And we've got to know, who everybody is and what they're doing on the internet so we can shut down their speech that's the purpose of all this stuff it's not to protect the kids and while this is being done in california and a couple of other states and then they've just now pulled it in and introduced a bill in washington and of course marcia blackburn is all a part of that as well as the data centers and the flock cameras and everything else and if you look at what is happening this is all happening simultaneously for example in the u.k did you know that andy perman was once the ID card minister.

If you can secure your own identity with your own fingerprints or your eye scan, it means people can't take your personal details. That was him talking about biometric passports all the way back in 2005. How much is it going to cost? Steps are being taken. How much is it going to cost? Fortunately, the battle against Tony Blair's national... Yeah, it's going to cost you all of your freedom.

It's going to cost you all of your privacy and free speech. So you got the guy that was the ID minister, 20 some odd years ago under Tony Blair. And he's the guy they put in there now as the most recent prime minister. So this is exactly what we saw with the rollout of the fake pandemic. It's happening. The same thing is happening in every country. And you could also include in that digital currency.

That's also happening and being installed everywhere at the same time. This is an agenda for global governance. And it's being rolled out at every level. level. And of course, they're going to be rolling it out at the state level here in Tennessee as well with Martian Blackburn in place. So state, local, federal, global, every country. And it doesn't matter. You've got the people on the right who are pushing this global ID stuff to protect the kids here in America. And the UK, some people on the left. We saw the same thing happening with the pandemic. And when you look at what these people are doing, they lie to your

face. And a good example of that is what's going on with Mitch McConnell. As a howdy of modern retro radio says, everything's a lie, damn it. That's the name of his podcast. And it truly is. When you look at what is going on with Mitch McConnell, they've had several people confronted in the Capitol building by reporters who try to engage the staff of Mitch McConnell, the people who are the communications directors. And they won't communicate. They run away or they just walk down the way smiling. Here's one example. This is the guy who is, let's see,

we're not at the, this is some, they're talking about the delay for all of this. Votes. With Blanche, you know. Somebody please tell me what we're going to vote on. I hadn't heard yet. Right.

But with all these votes, McConnell's still out. Do you think it's going to be an issue, like with the Blanche confirmation and some of these other bills moving them across? Probably why some of them would be, be pushed to the later date. You don't put one up unless you got the votes.

So I thought we might do a reconciliation. It's hanging on by thread. You don't try to... Well, that's no longer a problem because they have now got the staff doing auto pen voting for Mitch McConnell. Yeah, they're voting by proxy. And of course, he's on the agricultural committee

and he cast the time-breaking votes. Folks, this guy... I'm absolutely certain this guy is dead. When you look at what the staff changed the whole narrative. They waited a while. First of all, they didn't report it. Got away with that for about four or five weeks.

Then when it all came out and everybody was talking about it for a full week, they didn't correct anything. And what we know happened. We had EMS performed CPR for an extended period of time on somebody that they later reported and listed as cardiac arrest at his address. Now what they tell us is that he had a fall and he lost consciousness. Well, if somebody performs CPR on you, I don't know. Maybe this doesn't happen every time.

Handy could let us know. But when I've talked to people who've had CPR perform them, some of the people have had broken ribs for this thing. It's not a minor thing when you do CPR. You're trying to save somebody's life. And so that's more important than worrying about breaking their ribs. It's pretty strange to saying, especially if somebody's elderly. And so if they did that, perhaps his wife ought to file some malpractice.

on them. But what we know is that there was a call that went out at 836, a 911 call. Now, that call that was made by somebody who was in the house, perhaps staff or medical people who were looking after Mitch, his wife was gone, she was in China. Whoever made that call, that call has not been released. But we do know what was dispatched. The dispatcher requested advanced life support. Then they updated it and said CPR is in progress. And then later on, the dispatcher updated it and said, said cardiac arrest. But then Mitch McConnell's staff updated it and said, no, he had a fall and he was unconscious.

But now he's getting much better. He's been in rehab, but even though he's in rehab, he can't talk to anybody. And now he is going back to his home, but he still can't talk to anybody. Can't make a video showing proof of life, but he can vote. That's right. That's right. By proxy, with these people doing it. Here is his senior advisor for communications.

how he reacts when he is asked. David, can you tell us why Senator McConnell hasn't put out of the area yet? He just runs away. The situation. What is the situation? You're the communications director. Can you talk to us? Not a video yet?

Yeah, right. There he goes. What the situation? Here is his communications director, and that's the guy that's a senior advisor for communications. This is his communications director, presumably she works for him as well. What's going on with Senator McConnell? We haven't had any updates. Is he doing it?

better. Oh, she thinks this is funny. She just smiles and walks. If he, or can you tell us, did he sign that July 28th letter or was that an auto pen from your office? I know people in Kentucky are getting frustrated that they have missed over 46 roll call votes. So anything you can provide us on on his current status, I think would be greatly appreciated. She thinks this is really funny. She's smiling. She's licking her lips. Your office and the other staffers are still getting paid while Kentuckyans go without representation. And these people are getting paid a lot. That senior advisor is getting like $225,000 a year.

Yeah, these people are getting paid a lot. I mean, that might be one motivation to keep this game going. I think there's something else involved in this as well. But she got engaged a second time, yes. That's just how much they're getting paid officially. That's the on-the-books payments. Yeah, that's right. You should learn that from Fauci, right? But here's another, she engaged your second time. The National Mammoth Project, the cave, the amendment that came through on the hotline for Republicans.

Who approved that? Did Senator Mitch McConnell approve that? Was that approved by him? Because I had a source at Capitol Hill, another Republican that sent this to me. And they're kind of questioning how this came through if Senator Mitch McConnell is still in the hospital. Look, I don't want to upset you, but you are a communications director. And if we could just get some sort of communication from you on what's going on with Senator Mitch McConnell, if he did sign that letter, why can't he sign a resignation to give Kentucky back their representation? Can you please give us some information? Is this not a metaphor for our government? Completely.

Who can be seeking employment outside of here, don't you think it's of value to try to to present yourself in the best foot forward and thereby giving us some information about what's going on here? Well, no. It's not going to say anything. I appreciate any response. The people in Kentucky are getting incredibly frustrated. Can you just give us something that can fix you laughing at the fact that they did not get representation, but your office is all getting paid?

Give us something, please. The communications director refuses to say that the, signature from Mitch McConnell was signed by Mitch McConnell. That last video. Can you please can't even say that. Isn't that amazing? This is exactly what has happened to our government.

We have arrogant people who don't represent us whatsoever. They represent themselves, their own selfish interest, and they're lying to your face. They won't even respond to say, yeah, that was Mitch who signed that, of course. Absolutely amazing. But then when you look

at what Trump is saying about the data centers. Communities that really want the data centers. Yeah, right. And frankly, those are the smart communities because it means tremendous numbers of jobs, very little actual disruption. And the ones that don't want it, you know, the happiest people in the world are foreign countries, number one. That's right. Happiest people in the world are foreign countries, because they don't have you as president. That's absolutely right. Well, you know, when you look at Trump, perhaps he's had his moment and perhaps we're starting to move on to. from him. If not the Republican Party, then at least the voters are. He picked a candidate in the

races that happened on Tuesday. And his pick in a battleground GOP House primary in Michigan's eighth district, he had endorsed a guy who got nearly a million dollars in terms of, well, he got $717,000, I think, what the exact number was in terms of contributions. There was another guy who was running. His name was Smith. He dropped out. about two weeks before the election. He had only raised about $1,600, and he filed on paperwork and apologized and he wrote the note to the FEC. He said, here's my report.

I couldn't get the website thing to work, so I did this on paper. He dropped out and even endorsed another candidate who was not Trump's pick. And yet he came in first place. He got more than 50% of the vote, which is pretty interesting. What that tells you is that Trump's endorsement had zero effect in this particular one. Now, Trump is out there saying all the people talking about the fact that my candidate was beaten by somebody who had already dropped out of the race. He said, that's all fake news. They're trying to say that my endorsement didn't work, but he said, I'm 28 and 1 on the people that I've endorsed.

Let me tell you something. That 28 and 1 is based on gerrymandering. I've talked many times about how in North Carolina, when we lived there, you had a situation where the Democrats have been in charge of the Congress since right after Reconstruction. Yeah, you sometimes should look up Reconstruction and find out why it turned the South a deep Democrat for about a century. But yeah, Reconstruction was pretty bad, but it was such poison to the GOP label that it was Democrat for the longest time.

And then people after Barack Obama won in North Carolina, people were not very happy with what he had done. And so the next election, we got the first Republican state, House, and Senate that they'd had since reconstruction. And every election in the state went to Republicans except for the congressional races. Not a single congressional race changed. Why? Because of gerrymandering. Jerrymandering has become, and this was, you know, what was that, I guess about 2010. Okay, so we're talking about 16 years ago, and it's even much more precise now.

When you go in and do gerrymandering, look at what the GOP has done with gerrymandering. They've worked really hard on putting this through. It's gotten to be so precise, so scientific and manipulative that they can pretty much set these districts up. So when you look at what is happening, this is a Republican district. Now, in terms of the primaries, of course, there's not any gerrymandering that's going on. But nevertheless, this is a guy. I think what was the prominent thing in this particular race was the guy that Trump endorsed was someone who had worked for federal police agencies.

He'd worked for Homeland Security and other agencies. So he's a big law enforcement guy. And Trump is very much all about law enforcement and so forth. So he picked him over a guy who had a long history of being a pro-life advocate. He was the one who came in third place. Now, the guy who won, I think that it was because people didn't really know who these people were. I think they looked at the names. And the guy that he endorsed, his name was Amir Hassan.

The guy who won, his name was Smith. And I think that people going down the ballot who didn't know who these people were at the primary level. I think that they're looking at this and thinking, well, this guy is a Muslim and I'm not going to vote for him. I don't really care if Trump has endorsed him or not. That's what I think really happened. I think it was all in the name. But he came in a 50 percent. And unfortunately, he's an echo, not a choice.

He had his statement after he won, he said, I look forward to working with Speaker Johnson and the entire Republican. team to expand our House majority and to advance President Trump's America First Agenda to lower costs for working families and to make America affordable again. Well, so much so much for having somebody that's not just a Trump puppet there. It looks like that's what that's going to be yet again. So when we look at the other elections that happen, of course, everybody is upset about what happened with Abdul L. Sae. in the Michigan U.S. Senate primary. He got the Democrat nomination.

It was a very close race, so close, in fact, that on the night of the election, he didn't declare a victory even though he was ahead, and that did not happen until the next day. This guy is not only a Muslim, but he is also a very strong progressive. So this is somebody in the mold of Ilhan Omar, someone like that. And so I think that also had something to do with Amir Hassan, not winning because this is a much higher profile race. This is for governor. And everybody was talking about him being a Muslim. And so you look at what we have here. And my take on all this is that

there is a blowback against Trump and is a blowback against the GOP, which has now become the ZOP, the Zionist-owned politicians. That's what the GOP has become. And as people see that, as people see the crony capitalism corruption of Trump, the in-your-face corruption, the consolidation, not only a political power, but also the consolidation of wealth and the people who surround him, that kind of corruption, this open buying of the government, not only by Israel, but also by the technocrats that are there. People are pushing back against that. And that's going to wind up giving us a lot more Muslims and a lot more socialist and progressives,

whatever they want to call themselves are communists. And unfortunately, that is going to be, I think, a big part of the legacy of Trump in the same way that he is dismantling the American Empire and the military industrial complex of police, the global police state that we have where we are the hegemony that we've had militarily. He's dismantling that everywhere. And he is also going to be pushing us into the arms of the socialist. and in many cases, Muslims, because they are the ones who are not going to be cowed down

in terms of criticizing Israel. As a quick update before we take a break here and start our interviews, the incident they reported on yesterday where a guy goes into a Burger King and the woman is waiting on him and she says, hi, how you doing? Where are you from? And he goes, well, I'm from such and such a place, but I'm really from Israel. And he pulls out of Star of David and puts it out to her. And she goes, oh, well, free Palestine.

and he got really upset. He starts, said, say that again. He starts videotaping her. He goes back to his car like a snowflake and said, I don't feel safe in there. I mean, he's a big guy, right? She's a small woman. And so then she puts up her version of it. And she said, you know, she just, she used the F word, but it's the word that's free.

We don't like that. That's a positive term. And so she said, I didn't do anything to, I wasn't aggressive with him at all, but I got fired. She did a GoFundMe, and the last report I saw it was over $150,000. So there you go. There's always a blowback to a lot of these different policies. Unfortunately, Trump is blowing us back in the other direction.

We're going to wind up with Islamic communist running us like Mondani. That was a big part of why he won the election in New York. You even have people who were Jews in New York said, I voted for him because I wanted to vote. against the support of the Zionist in Israel. They're Jewish, but they're not Zionist. And so what Trump is doing and what the ZOP is doing, the Zionist-owned party that used to be called the GOP, what they are doing is pushing us into the arms of communism.

We're going to take a quick break, and we'll be right back. We're going to first interview is going to be with someone who's going to talk about Trump's weaponization. Where are the, when he is coming after Comey for the 8647, where are the law? lines drawn in the law in terms of what you can say to criticize somebody before they come after you for lawfare claiming that it is a threat. We'll be right back. Decoding the mainstream propaganda. It's the David Knight Show. Joining us now is a lawyer who has an excellent background. And of course, I had to look this up

and I saw this. He has an AV preeminent rating. I thought, what is that? I've never seen that before. It's something that only 5% of the lawyers get. It is something that is based on what their peers rate them on in terms of their knowledge and their integrity. And so I wanted to get him on to talk about this situation. He's also an author as well, I should mention. And we're going to talk about his book that's coming up. He's got a couple of fiction books. He's just released a second in the series of these fiction books. But I want to talk to him about speech because of the situation with James Comey

and the 86-47. What constitutes free speech and what constitutes a threat? I think this is something that all of us need to understand because we have seen this weaponized, I think, on both left and the right, haven't we, recently? And so I think this is something it really behooves us to talk about.

Thank you so much for joining us. Our guest today is Umberto Kencio, is a lawyer in Florida and came at the age of eight, is that correct, to the United States. Six, age of six to the United States. And he's been here, he got here before the Cuban Missile Crisis. I was just telling him, I was in elementary school. We're only a couple of years different than age. And I was in elementary school when the Cuban Missile Crisis happened.

So we've got some commonality there in terms of things that we've seen of close and personal. But I want to begin with the case. here of what really constitutes threat or protected speech. Thank you so much for joining us, sir. Thank you for having me. I appreciate it. Now, of course, yeah, let's talk a little bit about this. Everybody's familiar with this. It was a meme that was put out. He put in seashells. It's at 86.47. And of course, just to say to 86 something isn't necessarily even a threat in English, I don't think. But let's talk about the legal aspects of this. What is your opinion about this? Well, a threat is an exception to the free speech. It's a very narrow exception, and you really have to

qualify for it. And what does it qualify for? Well, it has to be explicit. It has to be direct, or contextually unmistakable, and many courts have asked it to be repeated more than once. So if you can fulfill all of those, you get past the judge, and then the jury decides the factual question of, was it really a threat? But first you have to get through the judge. The judge has a legal standard that he has to meet that I've just described. And then if you meet that minimum legal standard, then you go on to do a jury trial, and the jury finally decides whether it is a threat or was not. Okay. So this is something that as I look at it, I don't really see this as a serious threat. I would guess that maybe this is not going to get through the judge. What would you guess just as a

lawyer who's been around for a while? What do you think about this threat? I think it's long, hard road. I do. That's very difficult way to put it. Yeah. Do I think you can get there? Yes, I do. And this is how I would argue it if I could. The first, thing that I would say is that in this context, because remember, you can do it contextually. You're listening to the David Knight Show. The president had been shot at twice at this point, if I remember correctly. Excuse me for a second, but what was the timing in terms of this and the Butler

situation? How close were they? This was, well, it was post-butler. Okay. Butler got a huge thing. and then it was quickly followed by the incident at the golf course. And then Comey comes along and says, I found these seashells by the seashore.

And then it looked to me like it was 86-47. Okay. So that's the context. And you really interpreted it in a way that seems to me is fairly explicit if you put it in the context. if you put it in the context. Now, if the president had never been shot at, I would say you have no opportunity to get past the judge.

But he was shot at. He was, well, two attempts on his life. In the first attempt, they actually killed somebody who was behind him and they missed the president and killed the man behind him. So it would not be beyond, reasonable doubt to believe that the 86 means kill if you take it in that context. So as you're looking at it, I think that that's fairly explicit. Is it direct?

Yes, if you believe the context and you follow the context that I just described, it is. The next thing is, have they repeated it? Well, there was one case where the man wrote to the other man threatening him about 150 times, and the court found that there was no threat. So it is a high standard. But there is a repetition in the fact that here, unlike the other cases, we had already had attempts on his life. I think that is the basic differentiating point of this case as opposed to all the others that I found.

So does he have a shot at getting past the judge? Yes. But even if they get past the judge, then a jury has to decide whether it really was. In other words, the judge decides legally and the jury decides, factually. So yes, the judge says this case and this exception fits, this case fits the exception. It is not free speech because of this fact, this fact, and this fact. But you, jury, have to decide now whether it was a threat. I simply decide that it was an exception to free speech. So this is the structure. It's not an easy structure. It's very difficult to get past, and I think it should be.

Yes. And haven't we had situations? I think this came up when we were talking about J6. And you had people who were making statements and a lot of people said, yeah, but that is protected speech. Because even if somebody is actually there, unless there is the ability to do this or something like that, what were the determining factors? Even if you say, make a threat and you're there, that many times has not been considered to be a threat because you can't take action or action was not taking. What is the difference with that? Well, I'm kind of foggy. I can't remember exactly, but go ahead. Yes. Yes, for more, for most crimes, there has to be an avert act or the ability to do the act. In other words, I may not be pointing a gun at you and I may not say, you know, this, I may not have enough life. But if I say, I'm going to kill you and I make a move toward you.

And I'm six foot, eight, 350 pounds, and you're a woman and just five feet and maybe, you know, barely 150 pounds. Then there is the possibility that I could actually kill you by hitting you. So that would be an assault. That would be something that could be carried out. Here, there is no way that James Comey could personally carry out his threat. He's on the middle of it. He's standing in a beach and the president is in the White House. However, he does take a picture of it and he does publish the picture into the internet.

So what was the purpose of that? Well, it was to make a statement, according to him. Other people would say it was to continue the mentality that the president should be shot at. And that's really what this case boils down to. Let me ask you, if it is a threat, I mean, is this, you know, what is the charge? Is it, because it's not assault, it's not attempted assassination? It's threatening the president's life. Threatening the president's life.

That's the federal statute. And is that a felony? What is the maximum? It's a felony. Yeah. Yes, it is. And how serious would that crime be if they found him guilty? You know, he's not going to face life.

in prison. It's going to be a few years, somewhere between five and ten. But I'm not sure that this would have been the hill that I would have died on with Comey. I think that there were other things that he may have done. Yeah, I think so too. When you look at it, I've said this from the very beginning. I think there was a lot of really nefarious stuff that was obviously done to Trump. And I always said that I thought the best course of action, which would have been to take the high ground and say, we're going to reform this and make sure that type of weaponization never happens again. Instead, he decided that he would settle the score with his own weaponization, I think. Well, look at it, but that's just my opinion.

Well, you know, I think that Comey appeared before the Senate several times. And I think that he was disingenuous in his testimony in certain places. And I think that that's a much better charge if I'm looking to charge him. Yeah, I agree. I would not have selected this charge, as I stated before, because this one has a long road to hoe before they can get anywhere. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, it seems like the phrase, even, 86, 47,

I mean, it seems like satire. I mean, where does that play into? Is that going to be what you think the defense warriors would bring up? Yeah. Something like that can give you two reactions. One is, oh, look at this guy. Or that's kind of cute. And that's where I have a problem with it.

And so I'm not sure why the charge was even brought. but can they make it stick? Yeah. Do I think it's possible to make it stick? Yes. Do I think it's probable they'll make it stick? No. So, you know, what are things like hyperbole and satire and all these different things?

How does that figure into issues like this? I imagine it's pretty strong, isn't it? Very strong. Because all of that political speech, hyperbole, political hyperbole, All of that fits within protected speech. That is the basis of our Constitution. Yes. So when you're looking for an exception to a general rule,

especially a constitutional one, you're looking at a very, very high point, a very high level of proof, a very high level, a very high standard before you will move away from the protection. and move into a realm of criminality. So that's why I think that this was not a good choice. And I pity the U.S. attorney that's going to have to try this.

It's going to be another one of these reflecting pool cases, perhaps. I don't know. Yeah. As a matter of fact, I don't pity the U.S. attorney. I pity the assistant U.S. attorney that's going to have to try this. End of career, right? He has only just lost to blame. That's right.

What about the deletion of the post? Of course, he responded, as people criticized him, he deleted it. He said he did it because he thought, you know, people were offended by it instead of thinking that it was funny or clever. But does that indicate any kind of culpability on his part? Are they going to argue that? I don't think you can, you know, he's a very smart man. And he realized that he goes.

could make that design. Of course, he allegedly did the design. He says that he found it that way. That's a little bit harder to believe. Sarcasm. Yeah. Oh, yeah. A little bit.

Anyway, he has set it up so he knew it was going to be very hard to bring any kind of charge against him. He's a smart man. He protected himself correctly. And so he has set it up. Why did he erase it? Who knows? But I can tell you that erasing it doesn't necessarily mean that he thought he had threatened the president.

I just don't get that meaning from there. And we talk about the crime of threatening the president. I mean, where I worked prior to this show, one of the first things that happened when I was there, we had the police knock on the door, not the police, but I guess the Secret Service or whatever. and they said somebody left a comment on the website, and they need to get information about this because they interpreted that as a threat against the president. And it's like, well, I don't know that I would necessarily interpret that as a threat against the president. But the reaction was that the company decided that, hey, we're just not going to manage any of these comments anymore.

We don't want to get caught in the middle of this stuff. So they farmed it all out to another source of that. Talk a little bit about that in terms of threats to the president. Because that's the type of thing that can affect not just James Comey, but it can be. something that if somebody is passionate about a principal or passionate in their opposition to a politician, they can get caught up in. And people don't really realize that. But that's something especially true of social media. What is it that constitutes a threat? Well, there was a case. It's very difficult when you state a general statement. And it's not absolutely explicit.

I'm going to go kill the president. That's very explicit. But anything short of that is basically not going to be actionable. Yet every single one is actually investigated just in case. From there, bringing charges is night and day. There's a case where a young man, it was during the Vietnam War, was drafted. he was against the war, but he had to go. And his comment at a protest was the first person that I want to get in my, the sites, in my sights, obviously of his rifle, is LBJ.

Now, that is a threat to the president. Is it actionable? Should he? No. As a matter of fact, it went all the way up, and the court said, no, this is not a threat. So when you get something as direct as that is, and the court says no, you know, that says something. It's just very difficult. And let me tell you, judges from the right and the left have been in agreement with the fact that the level of proof is very high.

And the level of, to prove there something is explicit. and it is not free speech is extremely high. So I don't believe that this is going to go forward past the judge. Well, I agree. I'm something of a free speech absolutist, and I see erosion that's happening all the time. So I would interpret it very broadly in terms of what is free speech. But I seem to be the minority, certainly the politicians.

Politicians seem to be looking constantly to see how they can restrict free speech, whether it's criticism of a president, whether it's criticism of Israel, for example, in Florida, that's now a crime, you know, that DeSantis put in place there. So it's where speech is under attack everywhere, isn't it? Everywhere. And, you know, that is the basis of our society

and is the basis of our freedom. Not only that aspect of the First Amendment, but the other aspect of religion and other, and association and so forth. We see that a preacher who prays in front of a clinic gets a visit from 20-odd FBI personnel and with machine guns and gets arrested in front of his multiple children. And, you know, when you get to that point, there is a factor. not only of stopping the actual free speech at that moment, but creating an effect of intimidation.

That's right. Let's talk about it. We look at what is happening in the UK. I mean, there's one woman who in a particular jurisdiction, she's gone to court several times and each time the court has started out, but she's been arrested multiple times by the local British police because she was praying silently in front of an abortion clinic. They walked up to her and say, are you perhaps praying silently? Well, come with us. You're under arrest that type of thing. That is almost comical, but it's not funny because it is really a new kind of tyranny that we haven't seen in the West for a very long time.

There is a movement to squash, actually, free speech. And it's, I don't know where it's going to stop. the let's remember um i am science and you are going against science and you are that's right that's right that's intimidating um and especially coming from an official who is not even an official that's been elected but rather simply appointed and and they somehow believe that they are in titled to rule people's thoughts and minds and voices and actions. So I consider the pandemic and the behavior in the pandemic a very dangerous thing. Oh, I heartily agree. Absolutely.

Let's talk about this in terms of, okay, threatening the president, that's a crime. I have a lot of people that's going to investigate that. What's the difference between that and two citizens and one of them charged with threatening the other one? What is the difference in the way the law is handled in that kind of situation? Because honestly, the president gets protected a little bit more than everybody else does. And we need to understand that, and that was a decision made by the legislature of this country because the harm to a president can have horrendous consequences for the nation. So I have no problem with the president,

with the members of the Supreme Court, with the Speaker of the House, the Vice President, being protected a little bit more than others. We certainly don't have the personnel to be protecting everybody like we protect the President. But when we're talking about individual citizens, I mean, what kind of threshold do we see there before you would, you know,

if you get very angry with somebody online and you start saying something on social media, for example, You know, what is it that is the threshold for, you know, peers threatening each other? Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Again, it has to be explicit. It has to be continuous. It has to be unmistakable and it has to be direct. The threshold might be, you know, if you keep on saying this, I'm going to kill you.

And then they find you with a gun on the corner of the guy's job. waiting for it. That would certainly do it. Short of that, I can't see anybody being arrested for violent speak. So it's not actually a crime. There's not like a threat crime like theirs for the president. There has to be something there that is. There has to be an avert act.

Something definitely going that way. I can't picture it being any other way. Again, the court has ruled that you don't need a specific overt act. But I don't think that a police department will actually pick you up unless there is an avert act. I'm sorry, go ahead. think about the difficulty of an abused woman to prove that she's being abused that's right yeah seeing that over and over again so if you think about that and then put it in the other context you'll see how really a police department is not going to make a move against somebody simply for what they

say they may appear at their doorstep and knock on the door and say hey listen you've been doing this knock it off you see that but arresting the guy probably not. Let's talk a little bit about political speech on social media because if, you know, we have always seen a lot of, a lot of criticism of all presidents on social media. And perhaps this president more than any other because there are a lot of people who don't like him personally. It's not just the policies that he's doing.

And so how do you think this is going to fly, whether it's dismissed or whether it proceeds What kind of effect do you think that's going to happen on political speech and not social media? I think that we have a big problem with social media, to the point that I think that Section 203 of the law should be repealed, which gives them immunity. I think that the moment that you have mathematical formulas that act upon the different speeches that come in, to the internet and then according to popularity multiply the effect. I think they're doing more than just publishing what gets put on the internet. The original idea was, before all these algorithms, the original idea was to protect the infancy of the internet

so that people could express themselves. That has gone way beyond. And now with the algorithms, again, multiplying popular points of view, the companies are actually expressing themselves. And so they are no longer a neutral party simply permitting anything to be put on their screens. They are an active party because of their algorithms. Well, I would agree with that from the censorship side. I mean, I've had situations because I was pushing back against the pandemic, as well as other things that were not popular with the social media people. We got singled for cancellation in various ways by these people.

And when we go back and look at it, I can see the fingerprints of government. And later on, we did see the documents released from X saying that the government was really behind this. And they were using corporations to do that. But certainly there is a bias. whether they allow or promote a particular type of speech or whether they cancel or shadow ban that type of speech. So they are actually involved in that. And I think in terms of, let me just see what you think about this. My take on it, when I look at it as a journalist, for example, I don't think there is such a thing as objective journalism.

And the argument I make is with Matt Drudge. Matt Drudge doesn't write content. Matt Drudge just simply puts up the headlines from various people that he thinks are interesting. And he moved from the right. He moved from being basically a conservative libertarian and supporting President Trump to being very much against Trump and moving to the left and really supporting Democrats in their agenda. So he saw that happen. But all of that happened without him doing anything other than just deciding what he was going to talk about.

And I would argue that our own personal biases are always evident in terms of what we talk about, what we think are important. And it's not even really gets to the point of what's something. said in the article, but what we think is important. And so I've always been of the opinion that I prefer to get somebody who's going to give me their strong opinion, make it clear that it's opinion and tell me why they think this or why they think that rather than pretending that there's some neutral observer who doesn't really have a dog in the fight because everybody really does have a dog in the fight to some degree or the other. And so I see it working that way. And I look at it

is kind of a digital public square where we've had a Supreme Court decision a long time ago, which unfortunately, I think, is basically disregarded now. It was about a public square. And it was Marsh v. Alabama in 1946. And what they said was even though the public square was privately owned, it was like a corporate town. They said when they stopped a person who was doing handing out religious tracks, the Supreme Court said, even if the public square is privately owned, you can't censor speech. And I always looked at that and said, well, I think that really applies to social media.

We had Jack Dorsey say several times in congressional hearings that he thought that social media was the digital public square. And so I guess that's my question is, you know, how do we patrol this? And should we patrol this? Because, yes, we have people who have a point of view. And when you have people who have a point of view, you're going to have people that you disagree with. And you're always going to have people who are really, you strongly disagree with. who might be extremely hateful that are out there. But you can't really purge those people in terms of censorship.

If you're going to have free speech, you have to allow that and allow the debate against that type of speech. What do you think about that? Well, I think, again, going back to what we were speaking about before, is that as long as the public square doesn't take their point of view and enhance one of the arguments, I have no problem with a public square concept. But the reality is that that's not what's going on on the Internet. The Public Square is very much enhancing one point of view or another for their own interest. I agree.

They do it commercially and they do it not commercially. They enhance sometimes political positions because if that happens to be the popular position at that point, They want people viewing their screen because that heightens how much they can charge for their commercials that are running on the side. So they're going to enhance that point of view, whether temporarily or permanently, doesn't matter, to make money. So the public square concept is not really applicable as long as they have the ability to enhance whatever point of view is commercially. profitable for them. So we need to go back and rethink that and say, okay, if you don't use enhancements, I'll buy the public square.

But if you begin to enhance one point or the other, one point of view or the other, and I don't care which one it is, they're equally dangerous if you don't permit the other side to be heard, then it's not a public square anymore. I agree. And of course, you know, they can either promote one side or they can try to silence one side in terms of promoting a point of view out there. I always felt that the way to handle the Section 230 was to say, okay, well, you're going to have to show to us that you don't do content moderation. Yet we don't have a government anywhere in the world that doesn't demand content moderation. I mean, for it to be a real public square, there would be zero content moderation, and you would have to prove that there's zero content moderation.

Correct. And you're not using all these. But they have to use their, in order for them to be commercially viable, they have to use it. So you have to start from the point of view of you are not the Public Square, therefore you are open to suits for liable, for wrongful death, and for everything else as a consequence of your publication. You are no longer a Public Square. You are a publisher. And as such, you are just as liable as the New York Times or any other publication. And that's what I think we need to do. And maybe that will help getting back into the line. I realize that I am one-sided because I'm an attorney. But I think that attorneys filing lawsuits does wonders. It makes some products a lot more safer than they were.

and it sometimes straightens things out. That's right. It is necessary sometimes. Yeah. And sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it's a travesty. What would you say? Is there a difference with intentional changes versus what's promoted versus an algorithm that they might show is objective?

And maybe it's just looking for a particular term or something like that. it's been my experience that algorithms are inherently not subjectful you're talking theoretical there yeah and I think that that was well proven during the Biden administration and you know in the movements that the FBI made to make sure that

the famous Hunter laptop was considered Chinese or Russian disinformation and so forth. I agree. I think that proves that those systems can be manipulated. And the problem is that when people think they're not being manipulated and they are being manipulated, that creates an even greater danger. When you know that it's being manipulated, well, you take things with a grain of salt. I agree. When you think that it is a public square, then you think that everything on there is true and it's not.

I agree. You're listening to the David Knight Show. And I say that's true. You know, you look at different news sources. If somebody says, oh, we're neutral and we're objective versus somebody says, no, here's my opinion. Here's why I think that. I think, you know, then you got your guard up and you're thinking critically, whereas the other one, it kind of lulls you to sleep. And I've always felt that way when I looked at different publications.

I've said many times in the show, I didn't really like Newsweek and Time because they put themselves out there as objective. And I didn't really think they were objective. I don't think anybody's really objective. I would go to right-wing opinion journals and left-wing opinion journals and let them duke it out with each other on paper. I liked that kind of argument that was there. And I think that is the heart of free speech that is really so important. And I think your point in terms of... of the things that Comey did, I think we all understand that there were a lot of things that he did that were

suspect and should have been some accounting for, some reform or whatever. And there would have been much better ways if you wanted to settle the score, even if you wanted to do it personally rather than doing it with reform, which I'd prefer to see him do it with reform. But even if he's going to go on a personal attack, there would have been much better things to come after than a meme of seashells on the shore. But it's going to be an interesting case, I think. Just from that standpoint. Let's talk a little bit about your books.

You've got a second book in the series. Tell us a little bit about the series. Tell us a bit about the first book as well and what is coming up. What's the name of the book, the first book? Well, the first book is Gabriel Lock bound by law. And the series is about a young lawyer and takes place in the 1980s, Miami. It's not about the Miami vice aspect of Miami. I mean, it's actually a book about how all people from all over the world met at Miami during the 80s.

He and his dad have a civil practice, and they represent people who have come from all over the world, including the United States, and have moved to Miami in search of the better tomorrow. And so you basically get into the minds of the characters, the lawyers. There's a group of young lawyers, all his friends that are lawyers and so forth. And you can see how they do cases. We wanted to emulate a real law firm. In most legal dramas, the lawyer has one case and it's the whole book. that is not the case here.

In this first book, Gabriel confronts eight or nine cases that intertwine one with the other. They're not connected, but they are connected to him and the fact that this is his first year as a civil lawyer. He used to work for the prosecutor's office as a difference with the office in how to represent, I'm sorry, as to how to, a case or how to represent the state in a particular criminal case, and he decides, he's given the option to resign. And he resigns and walks away. He goes to practice with his dad. The dad is a prominent lawyer in Miami. He was a single practitioner, and he joins his dad.

So he begins to practice, and he begins to learn what it is for a lawyer to have a relationship with a client. and how the client looks at the lawyer for protection and for guidance and how the lawyer has to think and the loyalties involved and how the difference between justice and truth and representing your client's point of view and how things don't always coincide. And so we take you through that. I mean, I've been in the practice now for 47th going on 48 years. and it has given me a background to be able to write this. I thank God for my son, who's a better writer than I am, quite frankly.

I've lived through the experiences, but he's been able to put it into English as opposed to legalese. It's kind of like Rose Wilder Lane and the Little House on the Prairie thing, right? The mother went through all the experiences, but the daughter wrote the stories out there and put them together. It was a compelling story. And you know, when I listen to you talk about this, I'm thinking about AI and how AI is being touted as, oh, they're going to take over everything.

They're going to take over lawyers and anything. And I'm listening to you and how this is a web of interconnected human relationships that are here when you're talking about all this kind of stuff. I mean, what do you think about AI in law? Well, you know, I have a funny story to tell you. I have a client who is very well-versed on AI. And he calls me. And I know that before he called me, he ran it through AI.

So I know he's already got an opinion on the other side. And I love testing myself against it. I think it's tremendous. AI at this stage is a wonderful compiler of information. It can gather information faster than you, that I could believe. And they'll put together a little report on the information that it gathered. But AI doesn't think.

You prompted to think. So unless you have the experience to ask the correct question, you're going to get an answer that is deficient. And that's something very important for people to learn. I think even from the standpoint of the facts, we've had a couple of high-profile cases. I can't remember off the top of my head, the details up, but I remember that these people came up with a legal brief.

And in terms of, let's let it do some research for the facts, it hallucinated some case facts. And that made its way into the legal brief. And the judge was quite upset with that. They quoted cases that never existed. And these guys got into serious career-level issues with that. Yes, as a matter of fact, there was a lawyer. Florida that lost his license.

Because that happened to him. Yeah. And it's sad, but it's true. So you have to spend almost as much time fact-checking the AI as you would to try to go find the legal citations to start with, right? Yes, because the problem is they tell you, make AI your friend. So always ask, please, and always say thank you and all of this. The way it's been programmed is for it to be your friend.

So AI says, well, you know, you're really going to lose this case unless there's a case that says this. And if there isn't one, there's been the occasion when they make it up. Now you walk into court and the judge looks at you and says, Mr. So on, so I've read this brief with great curiosity because I've never heard of this case. I looked it up and it doesn't exist. You won't tell me where that case came from? And then you start swallowing very quickly and you start sweating. And so, yeah, you have to be very careful with the AI. I do worry about one aspect.

And it's this. AI can do a lot of the, when you're a young lawyer and you go into a bigger firm, a lot of your job is to put together things for the lawyers with a little bit more experience. because they start you with the bottom rung. What's the bottom rung? Well, you organize the evidence, you put it in order, you do the research, you find out what the case law is. And the problem is that the experienced lawyer can give some instructions to the AI,

and the AI will do it for you. So you're cutting off the lower rung of people getting into it, right? So if you cut off the lower rung, where are these young people going to get the experience? That's right. That's right. So what happens with the guys at the top? Yeah, exactly. Where do we get these experienced guys at the top

if we can't get any people to learn at the bottom level and come up through that? Yeah. Yeah. And so that's the aspect I worry about, and then I worry about that in other professions. Mm-hmm. And, you know, so you go from there.

And so for limited uses, I see it. I sometimes wonder how that will go if we try to, you know, if we try to spread it before the machine can actually do what we needed to do. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Now, your new book is Bound by Fate, and you're talking about the original book is a guy who's getting into this practice, and again, he's doing some of things that may be cut off by AI in the near future,

but it's all the interpersonal relationships that are happening there, the multitasking that he has to do with different types of cases that are out there. I'm sure there's a lot of people who would love to see the inside of the legal profession that way. Bound by fate is his second year. Yeah, bound by fate. And now he's doing cases that are a little bit more complex. He's going into a series of motions and hearings. he's dealing with matters that are, well, put it to you this way.

Our editor said that she loved Book 2 because of all the twists and turns that the cases took. And so we purposely designed a book 2 to take those twist and turns to keep it with, in the same realm as book one, but a little bit more higher level. And then in book two, we gave them a romance. Because one of the criticisms that we got from some of our readers was that there was no romance in book one. Well, it happened in 2020, right? It was forbidden.

And, you know, we told them, listen, we wanted you to get you to know Gabriel and his buddies as lawyers first, and now we're showing them as human beings with a full life. And so book two takes on the balance between life and work and between relationships and work. And it concentrates in that area a little bit while it gives you these intriguing cases. It sounds fascinating. Has it been released yet? Both are on both Amazon

as well as Barnes & Noble and Books a Million. You get on the Internet and order it. You'll have it at your house within a couple of days. That's great. Book 3 will be out next year. and that again is a new adventure.

He will be traveling to Europe as well as New York on a big case. And things will become even more complicated. Well, we look forward to seeing this on Netflix as a series. But in the meantime, people can get the books. And there is Gabriel Locke. The second one is bound by fate. what is the subtitle of the first one Gabriel Locke and bound by law

Bound by law. Okay, so bound by law and bound by fate Gabriel Locke and the author that we're speaking to is Umberto Cancio. Yes, thank you so much. It was fascinating talking to you and I think everybody loves a great mystery and of course that is always a situation in these cases where you look at it from the perspective of a detective or look at it from the perspective of a lawyer

and it sounds like you've really got the human relationships down, that that's an important part of the book. And, of course, that is the ultimate thing that we don't want to lose that we're trying to fight in terms of artificial intelligence, trying to take that away from us. So it sounds like a very interesting series. I'll have to look that up. Thank you so much for joining us and telling us about that.

Well, thank you for having me. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a good day. Appreciate it. You too. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.

In a world of deceit, telling the Truth is a revolutionary act. You're listening to the David Knight Show. Joining us now is Cindy Golding, and she is a Iowa House Representatives member, and she has had a lot of experience in Iowa pushing back against things like the CO2 pipeline, if you remember, we've talked about that in the past. But right now she's very active in terms of pushing back against data centers,

and I assume flock cameras as well, but I wanted to get her to tell us a little bit about her experience what you can expect to run into when you see it there, why she's opposing this and many other issues. So joining us now is Cindy Golding. Thank you so much for joining us, Cindy. Well, hi. It's a pleasure to join you,

and it's a pleasure to help educate our citizens about what's really going on here. Yes, because this is a national issue, actually an international issue to some degree, I guess, but especially a national issue. This is happening everywhere. I've been talking about, what is happening in Tennessee, but you have exactly the same issues because this is a national

rollout that we're seeing. So I represent rural Linn County. Now, just to give you a perspective, my county is the second largest county in the state of Iowa for population. And my district represents farms and small towns, but we surround the second largest city in Iowa, which is Cedar Rapids, Iowa. So about, well, several years ago, well, the other thing is we have one nuclear power plant in the state of Iowa. That also happens to be in my district. It's called the Dwayne Arnold Nuclear Power Plant.

And they shut it down about 2020 with the excuse that we had this inland torn inland hurricane, a Dorachio, and they said it damaged it, but that was just, they were in the process of shutting it, shutting it down anyway. So in my district, I have a nuclear power plant that they're trying to bring back online. And then we have the city, the city of Cedar Rapids, which is not my district, but my county, has proposed multiple data centers. So I became aware of what was going on. So I think we need to educate people a little bit about first about what a data center is to get this perspective. Data centers cover, it's like a vehicle for its storage.

So people will stand up at public meetings and say, we've had data centers for decades. We have. A data center is merely off-site storage of your computer data. And if you imagine you save it to a hard drive and take the hard drive someplace else, that's data storage. And so we have had data, centers for decades. We've had them, like my own company, we hired an off-site provider to store our

data 25 years ago. So data centers are small. There are three, there are like five different sizes. So we are being fed a line of baloney about data centers because it's kind of like imagining you've been driving, you know, a golf cart, and pretty soon they're telling you a semi is exactly the same thing. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. So these data centers we're talking about now are hypercenters. So we need to understand what the language is as we address the problem.

The hyper centers and the AI centers, the AI, what they call AI training centers, and they are high performance computing centers. Those are the ones that consume in. enormous amounts of electricity, enormous amounts of water, thousands of acres of land. And those are the things that we are concerned about. We're not concerned about off-site storage. So putting that in perspective. And, of course, I've been telling everybody to think of them not as a data center, but as a surveillance center.

Because that's really what the AI brings to it. You know, the storing data is one thing, but going through and mining it and organizing it and finding the needles in the haystack that you want to find, that is something that is new. That is something that is part of AI, and that's what these hyper centers are bringing, isn't it? That's exactly it. And that's why when someone stands up, we have public hearings all the time about should we change zoning, how should we do the energy, all that. And we have these people that will stand up and say, well, we've had data centers forever,

and you've never, you know, you haven't protested those. Like I said, it's like the difference between a golf carton assembly. am I. We have had data centers. We've had off-site storage, but we have not had the abuse of our resources like we're seeing in with data centers, with these current AI centers. It's, hang on just a second. I'm just turning off my Bluetooth so it doesn't keep popping up on here. So we have organized. I filed the bill in our house last year. It's called House File 2690. Because in my county, I became aware of this concern.

And my bill is simply about transparency. I want to let people know. I'm not opposed to technology advances. I'm not opposed to appropriate use of our land and our resources. I'm opposed to the abuse. So my bill was simply about transparency. Tell us how much energy you're going to use. tell us how that will impact the rate payers.

And are you, the data center, Google, meta, Amazon, whoever, are you paying for your infrastructure needs, or are we paying for it? Tell us how much water are you going to use? Where is it coming from? Are you draining our rivers and our aquifers? What are you doing with the wastewater? That's excellent. Yeah.

And of course, what we've seen is. is that in many cases, they come in and they have the people who are going to be making the decision of the county level or the city council or whatever. They have NDAs where they're not allowed to talk about this kind of stuff. So a lot of times we've had communities that are totally blindsided by this. They don't even know that something is coming in. They were not, there was no transparency at all. What you're talking about is tell us what you're going to do so we can have a decision about this. Many cases, they don't tell people anything, even that they're going to build one of these things.

Well, there's, there's, so we have the water concern. We also have the heat, the heat generated by these. If you remember what it's like, so in our office, we had a little server room. It was a little closet where our servers, you know, our storage was. We had to have a separate air conditioner for that room. Oh, yeah. Now, imagine what this is like with these massive storage, you know, constant fans. The cooling, the cooling requirement is enormous. So they're either going to do it with one. water or they're going to do it with electricity, either one. So then we talk, my bill also asked what they were doing with the excess, with the heat generated. Are they going to recycle this energy, because heat is energy, are they going to reuse it in their system, or are they going to let it dissipate in the atmosphere? And we have data that says that can create an ambient increase in temperature up to nine

degrees in the surrounding area. And I don't know, depending on the size of this. hypercenter if they are if they are just letting this heat go up in the atmosphere yeah isn't it kind of interesting how they were obsessing about global warming for the longest time and energy usage now is just like oh forget about that we don't even care and for the longest time the people I've worked with and I've been involved with we talked about the fact hey you've created these heat islands and you know some of them are just airport tarmacs and you relocated your temperature station to that airport tarmac, and a lot of that is driving this myth of global warming.

So, you know, now they've got the real thing. I guess they can just move all the thermometers to the data centers, and there you go. We've proven global warming right there. Yeah, so my bill didn't require any specific setbacks. It didn't require any. There was no constriction of where you can build, how you build, what you do, where you take your water. it was simply transparency.

It passed through our Commerce Committee unanimously. Bipartisan went through and then it got held up because Nextera, which is a huge energy company, and Google, both of those in my district, because Next era owns the nuclear power plant, they rejected it because they said, Google said they did not want to disclose the water consumption. Next era said that, you know, this is proprietary information. Well, I'm sorry. You are utilizing our land. You're asking for tax breaks.

You're asking for all of these special considerations with our tax dollars and our natural resources. We have a right to know. Yeah. That's amazing that they would say you're not allowed to know how much water we're going to use. That's insane. And so did that bill get held up then by House leadership? Is that what happened? Yes.

It was held up by House leadership. And the amazing thing is that when I was talking about this in Des Moines in February and March, the attitude was basically, well, that's a Lynn County problem. That's Eastern Iowa. You guys are different because there were data centers already located in the city of Des Moines, which is our state capital. But there are not, there are a couple of these hypercenters, but nobody was talking about it. Well, so at the end of the session, I just got a phone call this morning from one of my peers. She said, she remembered me talking about it during session, and none of her constituents cared about it. And two days after we gabbled out, suddenly it was exploding all over the state. And when we have an issue like this,

it becomes my responsibility to educate my constituents about what's happening. And so I've been doing that. I've been, and what we need people to know, and this is pretty standard across the country, is once a project like a data center or a new manufacturing facility, they call it advanced manufacturing, a facility that needs more power than is generally available in the locale, your utilities commission, or your utilities board, now has the authority and the responsibility to be sure that that

energy is available. That gives them the power of eminent domain. The power to take property, to condemn property in the location they believe is the most appropriate to put whatever the energy source is. So like here. Or even for power lines, right? Yeah. Well, we start with citing the new guest fund.

generator, so they can condemn property for the new gas fire generator. They can condemn property for the transmission lines that go from the generator to the new site, whether it be a manufacturing facility or a data center. They have the power of eminent domain to cite the gas pipeline that is supplying the natural gas to this gas generator. So once that data center, once that is approved by zoning, that can be fought by the citizens. They can go to zoning meetings and they can do all that. Once it is cited, once it is approved, then the Utilities Commission has the authority and the mandate to bring the power to it.

And to raise the rates if necessary to pay for all that, right? Right. So if, so what I have encouraged, I have 11 communities, 11 cities in my district. The largest one is 2,000 people. Wow. So the city, Google, so my county, Lynn County, wrote an ordinance to four data centers. And it's about water. It's about electricity. It's about siding. It's about setbacks. It's not restrictive, but it required disclosure of the water. Google didn't like that.

So they rejected Lynn County's ordinance. But the land that they want to build on is right next to the nuclear power plant that happens to be in the rural area. So now they petition the little town of Palo, which has just a little over 1,000 people, to annex this property into Palo. Because once that property is located within the city limits, the county no longer has authority. Wow. So what's in it for these city officials when they look at the dollar sign, get dollar signs in their eyes? Well, I've heard a variety of stories. They're anecdotal.

But I've heard several stories about how Google has promised to, upgrade the streets. They promised to build a new library. They've promised, I don't know what they've promised because this is all confidential. Yeah, that's right. Not allowed to know. The citizens don't even know. The citizens of Palo don't even know. So Palo worked very hard on an ordinance before they would agree to annex this in. And this is another caveat for small towns or big cities. you cannot retroactively apply an ordinance when a company requests a permit because then they say you did it specifically targeting them. Your ordinance must be in place before the request comes in.

Oh, that's important. Yeah, that's very important. Using free speech to free minds. It's the David Knight Show. So people need to be proactive about this and make sure that they work with their city council or their county commissioners to make sure they've got these ordinances in place in advance, right? Right, because if they annex the land in and don't have an ordinance in place, and then Google, so they annex in 600 acres. and the landowner says, I want to annex my property in for a housing development.

And the city council says, yeah, that sounds pretty good. Okay, we'll do that. They annex the property in and now gets inside the city limits. But the landowner doesn't put forth a request for a housing development. They put in a request for a data center. Hmm. because those requests for rezoning are not there or the way they deal with, you know, can we get a permit for this, comes after the annexation occurs.

Wow. It's amazing how underhanded and sneaky all this stuff is, whether you're talking about the NDAs or whether you're talking about, let's get them to put us into their town and then they can't regulate us after the fact. It's just amazing how devious these people are, isn't it? Well, the thing we need to keep remembering is that our Midwest, in Tennessee, I consider part of, you know, not really Midwest, but close. Our cost of doing business is considerably less than on the coast. But the businesses that want these data centers are on the coast.

Yeah. So they come and they are abusing our communities. They're abusing, they are extracting, actually extracting our natural resources. Yeah, it really is predatory. And it's like a colonization. It is. We're being colonized by the billionaires in Silicon Valley, I guess, is the way you could look at this. It's kind of a neo-colonialism, but yeah.

What other things have you found that people need to be on lookout for or other gotchas that you have found in this process? Well, so there's a promise about all the jobs they're going to bring, all the revenue they bring and all of that. and we have to stop and look back at what drives this. And I liken it to education. And we needed to increase our graduation rates. So schools started moving children through graduating them. We were not measuring their academic success. We were pushing, we were measuring schools on what is your graduation rate.

You need to keep that in mind you get what you measure. So all of our states, have an economic development department. They get paid. Their job is to bring economic development to your state. Tennessee has one. Iowa has one. And the people that run that department are measured

on how many outside or foreign, when I say foreign, I mean out of state. You know, in industry, you're a foreign entity if you're not located in the state, inside the state line. So they are measured on a, how much money they bring into the state. They're not measured on what is the impact on the residents. They're not measured on what is the long-term effect.

They're not measured on anything except how many dollars are you bringing in. So that's a lot of stars behind their name. And of course, a lot of that can just be the cost of the data center. I've seen some figures, and I just talked about this this week, a couple of them back east in Virginia and elsewhere. they say, well, we're going to create jobs. Well, if you look at how few permanent jobs there are, and you look at how much has been put in in terms of state money to incentivize this,

you're spending about $13 million in one case and $11 million in another per job to get things in. On the long term. Yeah, in the long term, yeah. So again, looking at how people get measured. In Lynn County, there's about 8,000 new people from outside of our state who came in to build Now, if you look at our workforce development, that their job is to reduce unemployment to create jobs. So if you have, I'm going to use the number 100,000 unemployed Iowans over our workforce. Now you bring all of these people in.

We still have 100,000 unemployed Iowans, but our workforce is now 8,000 bigger. So because those people are reported on our workforce numbers. So the percentage goes down. Yeah. So you look at the numbers. And so when we look at what is being measured here, that is part of what's driving it. Mm-hmm. And we have the unique situation that the union bosses want this and the corporations want this and the people don't.

So the unions are driving the Democrat Party. The corporations are driving leadership on our side. Mm-hmm. And that puts the rest of us in the middle. And we're all together in this. This cuts across, you point out, the people don't want this. And there is a massive bipartisan move. This is rarely do you see a real hot button issue.

And this is a hot button issue. You've got people are going to jail all the time because they're pushing back against flock or the data centers or whatever. People are really angry and justifiably so. And it doesn't matter whether they're Democrat or Republican left or right. Everybody sees these problems. There are immediate problems in terms of water, electricity, noise, things like that. But the long-term problems, a lot of people see that as well.

It's harder to get people to see what the long-term threat is. But a lot of people are trying to see that as well. That's why when I look at this, the games that are being played by the people who have the levers of power, whether it's the unions or the corporations or the government's local or federal, they're playing all these different games out there, keeping it quiet, keeping it secret until they can get this put in place. And we've got to blow the whistle on this stuff. The other thing I find very disheartening is some of the local officials that push these things through and then quit their job, which is many times a volunteer position, a city council member. We had a county supervisor who approved thousands and thousands of acres of solar panels on prime farm ground, quit his job and took a job with the energy company.

That he just approved all this. We had that decades ago with a mayor who approved condemnation of farm ground for a new factory and six months later took a job as a vice president of that corporation. So people need to know who their elected officials are and really watch them. You've got to know who you elect. Of course, we've been seeing that for a long time. The revolving door between regulators and industry in so many different ways in Washington. But of course, people need to understand that happens at the state and local level,

as well in a big way. And I guess really, what do we do about that? Do we have a law that says that you can't you can't go in, can't go to work for the people that you were regulating at some point? That's really kind of hard to do when you get to the local level because it's so broad. Well, and you can't regulate morality either. You cannot, I don't care how much you legislate. You cannot legislate morality. But I want to point out a couple other things that this is how I'm bringing my community around to see that this isn't just happening down there on the southwest side of our county. So the amount of the number of people who have moved into Lynn County has created a problem with apartments. So they have consumed every apartment, every Airbnb, every hotel room. So even as far south,

so Lynn County sits next to Johnson County where our university hospitals are. Families who are coming to see their children in the hospital, you know, to stay at the local hotel. There are no hotel rooms because these data center employees have overwhelmed our local communities. The landfill, you never think of the waste problem. So the landfill here was scheduled. We did some modifications and some recycling and, you know, some other things that encouraged residents to really be conservative.

So we expanded our landfill life out to 2039 with what we had done over several years, even considering the floods in Dorado, which has a lot of waste. We had it expanded out to 2039. The latest review, because of all of the debris from these data center construction and all these people, it has reduced the life of the landfill to 2032. Wow, wow. Because you had, what was it, like 2,000 people who said, and now we got 8,000 that have come in?

Yeah. Something like that. Yeah. Well, we're the second largest county in the state. So we have a couple hundred thousand in our county. Okay. But when you bring these people in for temporary, and they say temporary a year or two, 8,000 new people that are working here and their families and all that.

So you look at the employment numbers. You look at all that. And they're saying, wow, look at, you know, look at the wear and tear on the roads. Yeah. You have this constant. construction going on, it's not like, we just built a new big factory for sub-zero here in Cedar Rapids. Big manufacturing facility.

I went to their ribbon cutting. They are not putting the pressure on our community and they are providing long-term high-age jobs. Several hundred long-term high-wage jobs. That's sub-zero. You know, they make refrigerators and dishwashers and stuff. So it's a manufacturing facility providing something for people. The data center is, I don't know how many times bigger than that manufacturing facility,

and it's going to employ a handful of people. So you got that, yeah, 8,000 people come in and there's this tremendous storm of activity, this boom, and people are trying to adjust to that. You have issues about the road, the landfill, and housing and other things. like that. There's nothing that you can really do to adjust to that because they're all going to be going to be going to be a temporary problem. But of course, you're going to have to do something about the landfill and the roads. And that's going to be on the people who lived there before and who are going to still be there, even though there's not going to be any real new jobs coming

into the area. That's right. And the other thing that I started talking about last at a forum I was at yesterday is Iowans need to decide, or Tennesseans need to decide. What do you want your state to look like 20 years from now? Because we know the advances in technology. And I want you to think back of in the 70s, we had IBM mainframes. Industry went everybody had an IBM mainframe. Well, then Apple came along with the Apple 2E, the little desktop. But industry stayed with IBM because they had so much.

much invested in the infrastructure for the IBM mainframes. And Apple came along and then we get Macs and we get all kinds of other desktops. But it took 20 years to get that to be standard in industry. Then think about phones. We had, you know, landlines. We had AT&T. Then we have iPhones. And how quickly that moved much faster into the new technology than the

IBM than the mainframes to desktops, to laptops. So the speed of technology advancing is faster and faster and faster. I know that we already have data compression available. So how soon are these data centers going to be obsolete? Exactly. When you look at China, yeah, when you look at China, they're coming up, all this stuff is changing so rapidly. You know, we use a little bit of this for some graphics stuff. And it is amazing how quickly it is changing and how the lead is changing from one hand to the other. And we have a Chinese company I just talked about today,

Deep Seek, and they are charging three cents for what Anthropic is charging $3 for. So what happens if these people don't make it, if they can't compete with the Chinese? What happens is these data centers? That's what I want our state to seriously think about is do we want to have, these massive brownfields.

Because the other thing I'm hearing from the industry is that you build this great big massive box. And then it's supposed to house the racks that house all of the pieces, you know, the hard drives. There aren't enough. There's not enough of the, there's not enough supply of the component parts for these data centers. Once they get, once they get this great big box belt, and we build the energy to supply it,

they don't have enough component parts to build it. It's like trying to build something without enough screws to hold it together. You know, it doesn't matter if you have all your pieces. If you can't put it together and use it, it doesn't matter. So we're going to end up, I think we need to talk to our citizens about what does the future look like if we allow these to happen? And what is our plan B? Are we holding these companies responsible? Are we requiring a bond for decommissioning?

What are we doing that protects us when this bubble burst? Those are all excellent questions. And those are the things that people need to bring forward to their elected officials in terms of getting them to ask them out. First of all, what are you going to do? Tell us exactly what you're going to do in terms of, as you point out, water usage that Google doesn't want to talk about. If they don't want to do that, that ought to be a rig.

big red flag to people. And then as you point out, the rapid pace of technology, these people have a slogan, move fast and break things. Well, they're going to move fast and they're probably going to break your community in many different ways, whether you're talking about the roads or the landfill or the housing. And then you're going to wind up with these empty rusting hulks or whatever that are left behind. And as you point out, everybody is moving so quickly and so rapidly because this really is a mania. It's a kind of a bubble. And even the way they finance this stuff,

when you look at what NVIDIA is doing in terms of the circular financing, all this stuff is a bit too clever by half. There's a lot of smoke and mirrors and all of this stuff. And that ought to be a big warning to everybody. You're talking about the fact they can't get enough components. I mean, they're having to fight to get capacitors, something that is a very ordinary thing.

and the price of capacitors are going sky high because all of these different companies are expanding so rapidly. And they're not going to be able to sustain this. That's why you have so many people on Wall Street. Ray Dalio was just the most recent one saying, this is an incredible bubble that we have created here. Whether you go back and you look at the Internet bubble or many other bubbles, they say this is one of the biggest bubbles out there because everybody is manically piling into the same thing at the same time. and you can't have everybody win in that. That's right.

The dot-com bubble is, you know, the internet bubble. Remember that? That's right. That's right. You know, businesses went from, we had clients that were a million dollar a year client dropped to $700 a year just because they had all their money and other things. And so there's a ripple effect of that bubble, not just the data center industry, but on all of the surrounding industries who,

ramped up to serve them. Yes. And that is going to leave a lot of carcasses laying on the ground. That's right. Because even if we have, even if we have a bond that says if you can't start that you have provided the resources for us to go back to square one, that's only that company and that land and that resource. It doesn't, all of the surrounding support mechanisms will just collapse.

Yeah, it is very worrying, not only because of the immediate effect for the people that are right around this, but the extended effect for how they're going to use this. I don't really have a problem with somebody storing their data and using it for their own purposes as long as they don't impinge on the surrounding people. But as you point out, the scale of this makes it an entirely different thing. And the uses that they want for this, when you look at what the government wants, why the federal government is pushing this, we all know where this leads and it's really not that difficult to understand why they want to put in a massive surveillance network to track everything that everybody's doing if we go back and think about this what if they'd had this in place when they did the lockdowns in 2020 that's something you'd be concerned about they tried yeah they tried because in certain areas if you gathered too many people they had the cameras that could watch you know somebody's camera showed that there were 20 people gathering across the street and they could call the cops

on you. So we talk about cameras. So AI and flock cameras. So we tried very hard. We had a bill in 26 in our session to restrict flock cameras. And you know who pushed back? Who? The police departments, the sheriffs.

They wanted it. And, you know, of course, we're a state that back the blue and that's, you know, one of We support our first responders and all that. But now I'm hearing of all the abuse in there. That's right. And when we tried to put restrictions on what they could do with the data, how long they could save it and all that, we got such tremendous pushback from our allies in the police departments.

And they say, well, we can use this, you know, to solve crimes. Well, I'm sorry there is, when you have freedom, there's certain risks. If you want to put everybody in a little styrofoam box and they'll be safe. But is that what we, you know? That's not the purpose of the American government. If you read the Declaration of Independence, the government is there to protect our life and our liberty. But it is not that we make things easy for them. As a matter of fact, the founders understood that you need to have a lot of obstacles to keep

power from being abused. Who watches the watchers? Who polices the police if they abuse this stuff? And we have had one episode after the other of police. And many times it's the sheriff or the police chief who are using this to track their ex-wives or girlfriends. Or maybe it's somebody that they just met and they start stalking them. We had one of those as well. Well, it's unfortunate that we're going to have bad actors in any segment of society. That's right. But we need to protect us from those bad actors in ways that protect our freedoms. That's why, you know, I'm strongly in favor of all of our Second Amendment rights.

And we have some people that abuse that. That doesn't mean that the rest of us should lose our rights because of the abusers. And it's the same with the flock cameras. Somebody wants to have, we got pushed back from industry. saying, we want this for our parking lot. You know, we want to see if somebody's doing sabotage to our vehicles. Fine. Put it on your parking lot and not out on the street.

It's when they network it together that it becomes dangerous. And that's the way that they've rolled this thing out. Rather than it coming from one particular place, what they're doing is selling this to private individuals one at a time and then connecting it into a network. That's when it becomes dangerous. They're not coming in from the top down, Well, we're going to put out a surveillance network for everybody.

They're building it very surreptitiously, one private connection at a time. And that's what makes it so dangerous and hard to stop this thing. But, of course, when we look at the law enforcement angle, if we look at Atlanta, they have 5,000 of these there because that's where the headquarters of Flock is. And if you look at the FBI statistics, the crime has gotten worse or stayed the same. As a matter of fact, it had no effect whatsoever. on vehicle issues. So you would think if we got stolen cars or we got some kind of kidnapping event or something, you would think that that would be where it would be its primary use and it would be obviously a big win there. But it didn't even do that. And so that is really

a non-issue. They make that argument. But just because they got a shiny new tool doesn't mean that the police are going to get better at what they do. If we look at what AI does for the rest of us, In many cases, what AI does is it makes us worse at our job rather than better at our job. And I think the same thing is going to happen with law enforcement. Well, it's interesting. I just got an email yesterday from a very woke university student who has been writing to me since I've been in office for four years. And this individual has written to me about a variety of issues that are on the way left spectrum of what deal with. But the email yesterday was about AI in the classroom and how her professors have said,

this is terrible because it is allowing the students to not have to think. Yes, yes. And that it was detrimental to the college and to this particular program. And I wrote back to her and I said, we found something we absolutely agree on. Yeah, we're seeing that over and over again. I saw an article. I covered it on the show here. It was some of the Ivy League schools, and they were bragging about the fact that,

hey, look, we have the state-of-the-art tools, and we've got, you know, the best AI programs that are out there. And yet if the kids use them, they get penalized because they're not thinking and because they're not actually creating something. They're using this crutch. So they put them in this really kind of a strange, no man's land where it's like you got this great tool here but don't use it you know and that's what we're doing to law enforcement as well we got this great tool but don't abuse it okay this is it's like

a nuclear weapon but you know don't push that button yeah so if you have any ideas i am more than willing to run a bill that helps to be strict and this is i am not i'm not a techie i am a research chemist i look at details so i i dig down in a little deeper maybe than most but i i am not a research chemist i'm I am not a techie. I don't know a lot about the nuts and bolts of computers and AI and all that because my lab work was all hands on. It's mixed this with that and figure out what it does. AI can't do that. You know, AI cannot discern the various outcomes on physical chemistry and physical biology. They think they can. And so if anybody has ideas out there about how we could, best right legislation that does not infringe on our freedom of speech and yet protects us

from abuse, I'd be more than happy to run it. Yeah, it's kind of interesting. We've had a couple of different bills that have been introduced in Congress. We had Tim Burchett here in Tennessee, and he introduced a bill to say, we're going to focus on trying to stop the exchange of information. So you will not be allowed to use this with the federal government. if you use this information, it will not be allowed in terms of court convictions and things like that. That doesn't really get to the abuse aspect of it.

Thomas Massey went to the money and said, we're going to cut the funding. If you've got a local police department or city that starts getting these flat cameras in, then we're going to cut the funding from the federal government, which everybody gets a lot of money from the federal government as it is. So to me, I think that would be one of the biggest disincentives. That's going to immediately be felt by these people. And I think that's a good approach to have. But I think another thing that people need to look at,

I think we need to start trying to get representatives or elected officials who are going to ban nondisclosure agreements and these kind of secret agreements that they have with people. That needs to be banned at a state level. There's absolutely no defense for that. We should be able to get bipartisan support for that. Everybody wants transparency like you were talking about. And when they won't talk about even what their water usage is going to be,

that ought to be the end of it right there. And so I think there needs to be transparency. And the first place that that would stop is stop making these NDA agreements illegal, that type of thing. But, yeah, there's a few things like that that really need to be done. And I think some of those could be done as a statewide ban. Some of those, you know, you look at it, it's like what is the prerogative of the local government? And, of course, there's different states that have different ways that they cut where that line of authority is between state and local government. So that will kind of depend on your state and we're looking at that.

But yeah, some of those things. And of course, we want to know whenever you've got some ideas as well, and we'll pass that on to everybody. But the key thing, I think, is the fact that people need to understand that this is not about, as you point out, the data centers are not what we've traditionally had as data centers where people just having a separate offline storage facility. So in case their business burns down, they've got the data somewhere else. It's not that at all.

It is quantitatively and qualitatively different. completely different animal. And this is also not about filming somebody in public. That is also a canard. This is not about taking somebody's picture in public. Nobody worries about that. It's the networking that is the issue. And so the networking is the thing that has to be focused on and prohibited in one way or the other either financial penalties or outright prohibitions. I prefer financial penalties because that's really what everybody works off of. They don't really care if you've got a prohibition they'll find somewhere around it, and usually

there's no teeth in it unless there is something financial. So when I look at it, those are the types of things that come to my mind, but you've had a lot more experience than this than I have and most people have had and you've seen this coming for quite some time. That's why I really wanted to get you on and talk about it.

Well, thank you. I find my job is to help my constituents understand how it's going to impact them at home, how they live, and also help them understand that if they really want local control, if they really don't want the federal government telling them what to do or the state government telling them what to do, they need to be involved. Yeah, that's right.

They need to be willing to go to city council meetings. They need to be willing to serve on their zoning commission or on their soil and water commission or whatever. You know, every city has various boards and commissions that needs volunteers. And if you truly want to impact your local community, that's the place to do it because that has much more direct impact on how you live than what's going on in Washington, D.C. I agree. And I think the points that you made in this interview to recap this, I think if people look at the future effect, and I'm not just talking about the future effect of living in a police surveillance state. We all know what that's going to look like. We've seen that in too many movies and novels. But I'm talking about even the future effect in terms of kind of a, a rust belt. I guess we could call it a silicon belt. When all this stuff, whenever the particular companies and not all of them are going to make it.

Everybody is jumping into this thing. And of course, not everybody's going to win on this. And so what happens to the losers and what does that look like in your community when this thing is just an empty Hulk that is setting there? So what is the future effect on all this stuff? And what is the current effect? As you were pointing out, the burden on housing, the burden on road. the burden on landfills as they go through this rapid build-up of construction. And I think that's the key thing. It's just like with the stock market itself, this thing has created a massive bubble. And when things like that happened, we saw that with the dot-com bubble.

We saw that we all knew that the Internet was a real thing. We all knew that was going to be very useful. But the problem was that they built it out too quickly and there was too much hype and mania involved in it. And that's what caused it to go back, blow back in the other direction. You're listening to the David Knight Show. And this thing is set up to be a doppelganger for that. And the magnitude of what this could be when it goes is really terrible.

And it could pull down our entire economy globally as well. Well, and the thing that is terrifying to me is that if one of these data centers, these hyper centers, these AI centers, they need to gear up for the energy to run the center. And if it collapses, now you have this massive energy structure that the rate payers are going to end up paying for if the company goes down. And you have this massive facility,

and you don't reclaim that. You don't, once you have destroyed, and I live in an area that has pristine farm ground. It's where we grow most of the corn, soybeans. You know, we could grow anything in our fertile soils. Once these thousands and thousands of acres are destroyed for these data centers and their support, you know, the energy support, you don't get that back. Yeah, that's right.

That never goes back into production for agriculture. That's right. And we've seen that with the solar panels and we've seen it with the windmills. I mean, the windmill is not degradable. they create a tremendous landfill issue. And you look at the farmland that is consumed with these massive solar farms. And that is also the same type of issue. People need to think about the bigger picture here.

And the bigger picture is definitely the surveillance state. I call them surveillance centers. But it's also the long-term effects that you've given us some things to think about and to talk about. We do appreciate that. Those are things that I had not thought about in the past. The burden on the roads and landfill and the... the housing and, you know, just the surge, the bubble that comes into your community and then

goes away the next day. You know, it's like a gold rush or something. And it is a gold rush for the Silicon Valley people, but we're the ones who get left behind with all the tailings. Well, and, you know, and it drives up the cost, the local cost for the people that live here. That drives up the cost of everything because supply and demand. That's how our economy works. but you have somebody who's lived here and intends to continue living here,

and you have this bubble of cost, and it's rare that the prices go back down. That's right. That's right. And we'll end up with, like you said, the gold rush. I just think of as a kid when we toured all those ghost towns. That were the gold rush, that were people made their fortunes, and they extracted everything from the area and then left. And that's what I see these people extracting things from the area and then leaving. I agree. And that's one of the key things that really needs to be talked about as well.

Thank you so much for pointing that out. And thank you for fighting this fight because this is everybody's fight. As I've said before, you know, we look at the what is happening in the immediate area, the people who are suffering with a higher electricity prices and the water shortages and the noise and all the rest of that stuff. That affects them immediately. But all the stuff about the surveillance and even the stuff about the long-term future effects, that continues to spread out and like a ripple effect. to the entire country. And so we're all in this together. The surveillance state aspect of this, if the data center is not in your neighborhood, you're still going to feel the effects of that surveillance center.

And even if, you know, you're in the same state and they've got these future effects on costs in the grid and all the rest of this stuff, you're going to feel that type of thing as well. So there's so many negatives. And we're all sitting here scratching our head and saying, where's the positive in any of this stuff? And I think that's why there's so much bipartisan opposition at the grassroots level

because we're going to get mowed down if we don't stand up on this stuff at the grassroots level. The politicians on the top all seem to be in on the game. And so I really do appreciate you doing your best to try to do something about this at the House level. You certainly are an exception. And I wish we had more people like you. Well, thank you.

I do this. I have 21 grandkids. and I want, I'm concerned about their futures. Yes. That's why I do this. Yes, that's right. There's a future for, I want a future for them. That's something to be proud of.

And, you know, that's why I do it. I agree. And I, yeah, I want my kids to read about 1984, not live it. Exactly. As a cautionary tale, not, well, how did this happen? What were, you know, my grandparents were asleep at the wheel when all this stuff happened. So let's, let's not.

let that happen. Again, thank you for joining us, Cindy Golding. And is there a place that you have a website or anything that people can find out about you? My website is cindigolding.com. Good, good. We've got that under your name there. Yes. Yep. And that's, it's very simple. And I am running for re-election as every house member is, you know, every two years we run for re-election. And when re-elected, I intend to fight this battle as hard as I can fight. Good for you. Good for you. And I certainly hope that you are reelected. I hope they don't come in with some massive amount of out-of-state money. I've seen that happen here in Tennessee with someone that I knew very closely. So thank you so much for doing that. And I hope you stay there and we'll keep an eye on what's going on.

And if you come up with some new tactic or you've got some victory that you found out about, please let us know. We'll be happy to pass that on and share your successes as you fight this. Thank you so much. Thank you and have a great day. Thank you. The common man. They created common core to dumb down our children. They created common past to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future.

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