The David Knight Show - Fri Episode #2364: Faith, Science and the Courage to Think Independently

Episode Date: October 2, 2026

── Interview 1: Denis Rancourt — Physicist, COVID & Climate Whistleblower ──────────────────────────────────────��───[00:02:11]Climate Scam Dropped the Instant It Threatened AI Data CentersRancourt says elites abandoned climate ideology almost overnight once hyperscale data centers needed cheap, abundant power.────────────────────────────────────────[00:17:20]Mideast and Ukraine Wars Are About Denying China Energy, Not WinningRancourt argues the US empire is happy to wreck Middle East energy infrastructure specifically to keep those resources from China.────────────────────────────────────────[00:32:46]Allison Inquiry: Forced Vaccination of Pregnant Women Tripled Childbirth DeathsRancourt's CDC data shows maternal mortality spiked the day pregnant women were ordered vaccinated, with infant deaths following nine months later.────────────────────────────────────────[00:59:05]The COVID "Illusion": Stress-Induced Pneumonia, Not a Spreading VirusRancourt says isolation and propaganda-driven stress, not viral transmission, explain the mortality patterns, and ivermectin worked as an antibiotic.────────────────────────────────────────[01:05:48]Debunking "Vaccines Saved Millions" Counterfactual StudiesTo believe the official math, Rancourt says, mortality spikes would have had to occur exactly when the vaccines were supposedly saving lives.────────────────────────────────────────[01:16:24]"War Pete" Hegseth's Patton Cosplay and Scripture-TwistingKnight blasts Hegseth's purge-the-woke speech and misuse of Isaiah to justify killing, as the Senate votes not to probe Israel's killing of nine Americans.────────────────────────────────────────── Interview 2: Jeff Samelson — Walk This Way ──────────────────────────────────────────[01:23:21]Pastor's Advice: Don't Let Politics Become Your IdentitySamelson, a former Foreign Service officer turned pastor, says Christians must anchor politics in faith, not the reverse.────────────────────────────────────────[01:36:18]Christian Nationalism's Trap: Top-Down Theocracy vs. Grassroots FaithSamelson warns imposed state religion always backfires; real change must bubble up from genuinely converted hearts.────────────────────────────────────────[01:42:17]Romans 13 Doesn't Mean Blind Obedience - Paul Used His Rights as a CitizenSamelson says Christians living in a democracy share in self-government and can appeal to law, just as Paul did.────────────────────────────────────────[01:53:39]Happiness vs. Joy: Why Christian Joy Doesn't Depend on the HeadlinesSamelson distinguishes circumstantial happiness from the fixed joy of salvation that steadies believers through bad news ──────────────────────────────────────── 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 2nd of October, year of our Lord, 2006. Well, today we can have a couple of great guests. We're going to begin with Dennis Rankort. He was a physics professor for 20 years in Ottawa, and we're going to talk to him about what he knew early on about both the climate McGuffin and the COVID McGuffin. And he was just testifying at the Allison inquiry in Canada about the horrific effects of the COVID shots once they started giving them to pregnant women. What did it do to them and to their babies?

But that's just a part of it. He puts all of these things, both the climate McGuffin and the COVID McGuffin, he puts them into a geopolitical context. We're going to talk to him. And it's a fascinating interview. And then we're going to take a look at Pete Hegseth. and his latest performance as a prelude to talking to an Arthur and a pastor, Jeff Samuelson. He also worked in the U.S. Foreign Service, and his book is Walk This Way.

Political engagement for Bible-believing Christians. What should we do and what should we not do as Christians? We'll be right back. All right, joining us now is Dennis Rancourt, and I'm very anxious to talk to him. Of course, he's been in the news a lot because the Allison inquiries that are happening in Canada and what he's had to say about the damage from the vaccines and that program. But he was a skeptic about COVID from the very beginning. And even before that, he was a skeptic about climate alarmism.

And so we're going to talk to him and get his take on what is happening to science and how this is being used in geopolitics. Mr. Rankart was a professor for more than 20 years at the University of of Ottawa. He got the rank of full professorship while he was there. And he is now doing different things. And he's one of the people that has seen the academic mob turn on him. We were just talking about this off air, how there's almost this, this science isn't really done with a scientific method anymore. Critical thinking. They don't want dissent. They want consent. And they will twist your arm to do that. And so he's had a lot of experience as well in terms of protecting civil liberties

and in litigation representing himself as well. But he's had a broad experience in all of this. And thank you for joining us, sir. Very excited to talk to him. It's my pleasure. I'm glad to be here. And we do want to catch up as to what he's doing right now because he has also set up another institution here to help to try to get critical thought there. But let's begin. going back to around, I guess, 2009, I saw a lot of articles going back in 2009, where you're labeled a climate denier by the people who deny science and informed consent. Let's talk a little bit about that. What was, because I think this is a good place to start, because when we look at what is

happening today, especially with the back and forth over the effects of these hyperscale data centers, we saw these people who have been pushing this global warming and worried about methane from cows and all the rest of the stuff. We saw them do a very rapid 180 and just drop all this stuff like a hot potato as soon as they realized that they needed hyperscale data centers. They were no longer worried about any of this stuff. And I think it was very, very interesting point of inflection. What do you think?

Well, I actually wrote an article about a major point of inflection regarding climate ideology that happened recently under Trump. But it's not just Trump. It's pretty global. I think a lot of the elite have real. even Gates made comments to this effect, that they basically have to stop stressing that nonsense because it's leading them to absurd conclusions.

So they've said things like, well, we should concentrate on global health instead. We don't have to be obsessed with climate. So I wrote an article about the current things that have happened legally and in the public view about dropping the climate ideology. There has been an inflection point, and the U.S. has officially dropped.

out of the international agreements and all of this has happened recently. So there's some big changes there and I think a lot of it is driven by geopolitics as well. I mean the entire climate ideology scam, if you like, has been driven by geopolitics from the very beginning. I wrote an article about that. In 2019, I wrote geopolitical analysis of these new ideologies, gender equality, climate, and global warming and all that kind of stuff and how it came about in a top-down way, starting with major conferences that were run by the United Nations, and that changed really the ideology and the morality around all these questions and gave us wokeness essentially.

And this happened as a direct consequence of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Union. So immediately when the Soviet Union dissolved, the West considered that it was time to have new strong ideologies across the Western world that would help them to be the bosses of the world moving forward. And that's how these things were introduced. So I wrote a, I think, what I think is a very important paper in 2019 that people can find in the geopolitical section of my website. So it's always bigger than we think. these big movements in society, usually the biggest wheels, the biggest gears are usually geopolitical. And so I've been involved with climate for a long time. My first critical papers as a professor against this climate ideology were in 2005. And I wrote a big essay at that time, and it got a lot of attention. There was a Senate committee on climate at that time, and it got a lot. It was read.

It was actually read there at the Senate committee. and a lot of the media picked it up and so on. So I've been very critical of the whole thing for a long time. And what I was saying back then was that it made no sense scientifically and that it led to complete contradictions on the left to go in that direction. So I've been saying that for a while. And of course, you were a professor of physics as well. Yeah, you know, you're, you know, you were.

So you had. Oh, yeah. So you had experience to look at that. Yeah. I went on from from that essay and those very critical comments to actually doing the physical calculation of radiation balance on on the planet and doing it rigorously from first principles. And I wrote a paper about that. I think it was 2015, where I showed that even if you doubled or quadrupled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it would have a negligible effect. And I explained the fundamental physical reason for that, which is that the, let's say, the greenhouse effect from CO2 is saturated already. In other words, a lot of people mistakenly say, well, CO2 can't be important because it's a trace

gas in the atmosphere. That's actually incorrect because it doesn't matter that it's a trace gas. What matters is how effective is it at resonantly capturing infrared escaping from the surface of the planet? that's what's important. So it's the cross section. It's the radiation cross section that matters. And a small amount of CO2 very effectively does that to the point where if you add more,

it makes no difference because you've saturated the effect. It's like you've painted the black already and giving it another coat of black is not going to make a difference. So I showed monetatively that that was certainly the case with CO2 in the atmosphere. And so I'm in other words, I'm well-rounded. I understand the basic physics, the radiation balance on the planet. I can do the calculations. I have done them. I understand the geopolitics of the situation and so on.

So I've been very critical of this climate scam, and it really is a scam. And we're still working on climate with a collaborator. Well, we're preparing a large paper that demonstrates that if you look at all the data sets of surface temperature on the, ocean and on land, what you see are sudden jumps in temperature, average annual temperature, happening at very special places in large continental scale regions on the planet, okay? And these jumps are not possible, it's not possible to drive them through a gradual change in the radiation balance. Something sudden has to be happening on the planet.

And so we're elucidating that, and we're showing that most researchers have to just been putting straight lines through those stepwise increases and calling it a positive slope and claiming global warming on that basis. But you don't have to go very far back to see that just a few decades back that the step was in the other direction. So depending on the time window when you take that linear fit, you either get a positive or a negative slope. And so the idea that there's just this warming is from a biased view of the data.

And the data itself gets manipulated through bias that's expressed by the professionals that are working on it. That's another problem. So we're presently writing a large paper about that, where we have all the data for the entire globe, and we make global maps of these steps and the anomalies. And we showed how we challenged governments, the Canadian government in particular, about these steps, and what they were doing to not consider them and consider the underlying mechanism of them. So it's a paper about that. Well, that's a different angle than I've heard before because I've been covering this for a while.

And a lot of times people will talk about, well, you're kind of cherry picking, in a sense, what you're talking about, kind of cherry picking your starting point. And as some people criticized it, said, well, you're also talking about fractional measurements here that we really don't have the historical data to do that. I mean, people were reading this stuff off of mercury thermometers. They were not getting accurate readings down to tenths of a degree, that type of thing. And when you look at the different places where they have put the weather stations to monitor this stuff, a lot of this is based on extrapolation between two points. And they pretend they've got an intermediate point in between some of those where they've moved them to areas that are now heat islands, you know, in an urban area or in an airport area.

So there's all this other stuff that comes into it, you know, in terms of how do you measure this? Absolutely. I've been writing about the artifacts that you mentioned systematically since 2005. So I know all about that. And we've been reviewing it. We've been reviewing it in our recent papers. Okay. That's good. Because I don't think it's over yet. I mean, they've taken a pause on this, but these guys are going to come roaring back with this, I think, to use it for something. Even though, as I said, you've got the people like Elon Musk and Bill Gates who have weaponized this for money purposes and for the longest time. Yet now they've got a new profit center, and this kind of stands a contradiction to that, doesn't it? Yeah. I mean, a lot of these things that they put us through that are propaganda-driven for profit, as you say, and for influence, and they have a geopolitical role as well,

in terms of aligning the Western world and whatever world they can influence along these directions so that they can profit from them and control it. A lot of it, a lot of these scams simply get abandoned, usually because there's a major war. So real wars and real exigencies of a large regime or an empire. And I think the U.S., we have to say, is the center of an empire presently. Oh, yes. And so when empire is challenged in terms of its inability to produce weapons, its efficiency, degradation of its own structures and everything, then it has to adjust. It has to recover from that. And I think that that's partly what's happening with abandoning the climate thing in the U.S. military, abandoning wokeism in the U.S. military. It's because these things create inefficiency. People, leaving the elite and the financiers free to just optimize profit without concern for actual manufacturing ability to make weapons and develop new systems is a mistake that needs to be corrected if you're going to have a war.

So the hot wars that are occurring now in the Middle East and in Ukraine, which are major hot wars that the U.S. is directly involved in, they're seeing the limits. of their military industrial complex. They're running out weapons, and they're living that now, and they're going to have to adjust. And so a lot of the adjustment means you have to stop wasting a lot of effort, creative effort, financial effort, and so on,

on useless things that were essentially propaganda that is no longer working because people now understand in the world, in the developed world, in Russia, in China, People understand that it was all the scam and that, yes, your propaganda penetrates into our jurisdictions, and we have to, therefore, account for that, but we now understand the degree to which all of this is a scam. And so we're going to ignore it. We're going to try to negate it.

And so there's a real geopolitical battle, I think, going on right now as the world becomes multipolar. Okay. And the U.S. is doing everything it can to prevent that. And it's frightening because the U.S. is willing to use terrorism and to have wars in order to prevent development in what it sees as its opponents, which is the sovereign blocks of China and Russia. I agree. I couldn't agree more. Yeah. We're in a very difficult situation right now, and we really are setting on the edge of a knife.

And it seems like there is absolutely no moral or legal constraint on the American government at this point in time. They just do whatever they wish. And I'm sitting here as an American looking at this, just shaking my head. I can't believe that they're getting away with this. And yet they are. Yes. And I think the moral limits were imposed after the Second World War on the U.S., even though it was continuing to make a lot of wars everywhere.

There were moral limits that were imposed by the fact. that they at least had the idea that if the whole world turned against them or a large part of it, that it would be a problem. And we're at a state now where they don't even think that's the case. They think they can just use nuclear weapons in the Middle East, do whatever they want, and let there will not be serious repercussions that people will not be able to respond, that other people outside of that regime will not be able to respond. That's a big mistake.

And I think they're desperate. I think it shows desperation. basically want to grab everything they can secure the continents that they exploit as best they can and then whatever they're not going to be able to attack america kind of thing you know we're protected by oceans and we'll just we'll just do this we'll we'll we'll wreck their infrastructure well right right now these wars uh in the middle east are about the main thing they're about is preventing access to that energy to china that's all it is so they're willing they don't care that Iran this is the I'm getting into my opinion of having studied the

people who do these analyses but they don't care that Iran is destroying energy infrastructure in the Middle East in fact they celebrate it not not open but they celebrate it because that means that China will not get those resources and it means that their resources their domestic resources and the ones they control in Venezuela and in Canada I have to admit that their resources will be the source of this energy, and they will be able to control Asia through controlling that energy source once they've destroyed the energy infrastructure in the Middle East, you see.

I absolutely agree with that. And I've seen this from the people who are MAGA cheerleaders out there saying this is 40 chess, you know, he's going to destroy everybody else's oil supplies, and we'll be the only ones left standing with oil resources. And so this is something that they're being fed. I think they really are consciously aware of this. I think it is absolute folly. But I think that you're right.

They are looking at this. And I think it's not just that we have, the American Empire is not really concerned about what other countries think. I think they're not concerned about what Americans think either. Absolutely. They're not worried about the elections, really. Oh, no, no. Why would they be?

They're completely irrelevant. The elections are irrelevant because they control all candidates and all, the politicians, virtually all. There's exceptions that prove the rule, and that's that, you know. Why would they be worried about elections? It's a show. Yeah. And I think they got a backup plan for it. They're already starting to work at, they've got Heggseth looking at having the Defense Department sort out to see any signs of foreign interference. If you see some signs of foreign interference, then I guess they could just declare the election. If they don't like the results, declare it null and void and do whatever they wish. And I think we're at that kind of a point in

the American government as well. Yes, I would agree with you that you can feel the desperation and you can see that they're willing to use desperate measures. And they're also even willing to, you know, be based in Latin America rather than the U.S. if that's more convenient or they feel that it's better. They can move a lot of their infrastructure and their manufacturing to other places that they are, where they have complete safety, you see. So they're looking at, yeah, And you're right, they completely disregard the American people. For them, there's two classes of regular American people. There's the people they don't care at all about,

who are the regular workers. And then there's the professional class, which they simply buy out. They control through career advancement, the salaries and bonuses and things like that. They completely control the professional class. We saw that during COVID. They controlled all the medical people. all the hospital administrators all everybody that is professional capacity acting for them is control there's no professional independence

whatsoever it's disallowed and it's punished fiercely by the medical associations and so on so you can see that they they have the American public that they control who are the professionals and the American public that they're willing to exploit to the limit that will suffer the inflation that will, you know, and that's just the way it is. And that's not to mention the actual more about 12% on average of the U.S. population that lives in serious poverty, not to mention them, right? Because they're there as well.

And you don't have those high percentages in other countries, in other successful countries. Like it doesn't exist in China. It doesn't exist in Russia, not those levels, not that degree. So there's a problem with the U.S. empire. It's rotting at its domestic base. I agree. You cannot have a successful empire if you don't have a well-stratified hierarchy where everybody contributes and everybody feels that they're being treated fairly.

If you destroy that, you destroy the strength of the empire. And don't you see the AI proposals that they're putting out there? Don't you see that as really exacerbating that, taking it to an entire new level? I mean, they're talking about, don't worry we're going to put you on universal basic income. We've got now Republican congressmen who are going around saying, yeah, we'll fix all the infrastructure, we'll do all the roads, we'll give you all free education. You want to pay any property taxes on and on and on. So it's not just universal basic income. It's universal basic infrastructure.

It's all going to be somehow magically paid for by these people who have accumulated unbelievable assets. astronomical amounts of wealth and hoarded it. But they're all going to be philanthropist now. Oh, yes. Yeah. Right. It's incredible. It's absolutely incredible.

There is no reason given historical reality that you would believe that scenario. There's absolutely, you have to believe the opposite. Yeah. It's crazy that you just look at the tendency. You look at historically what is going on here. This is a crumbling and failing input. Now, it's not going to happen tomorrow. It takes, you know, these things, it runs on the geopolitical time scale.

So it takes decades and it's gradual. But if they don't start making corrections and if they don't start learning from the jurisdictions that have learned certain things that secure themselves and that become, if they don't start learning and correcting and applying new methods, they're just going to create incredible suffering domestically elsewhere. I agree. And like Hemingway said, you know, goes gradually, then it may happen suddenly at some point. And I think that's going to be, it's going to be a very difficult thing. As we see the petro dollar that's been weaponized, they're now losing that. People are

setting up their own currency systems and competition and independence from that. And yet, and that has been the basis for what you were talking about in terms of taking the professional class and controlling them financially, bribing and blackmailing people to do exactly what they want. But as that leaves, that's going to make it very difficult for Americans who are used to having when all of our credit cards get cut up, it's going to be really tough. Right. Right. That's kind of related to AI because I think they understand that they're going to control a petrol dollar as long as they can and in the Western world for sure. But they also understand that they can always switch the basis of the currency in terms of the real world

to actually tying to every individual person that they control, which is where the surveillance and control of your bank account and control of everything you own, that means that your productivity as an individual is directly tied to the value of, say, the U.S. dollar. Okay. So you don't need to have people wanting to use the U.S. dollar needing the U.S. dollar in order to buy energy, you simply have that everybody cannot escape it. You're caught with it. You can only advance even down to the individual level by using this currency. So it's locked in. So I think that there's another component which is the backup plan for the petrol dollar, which involved, complete control of individual, what used to be freedom.

Would you explain it as maybe something like, you know, we look at the Internet of Things where they can track individual things. And they're talking about the Internet of bodies. We look at them talking about the tokenization of assets. And, of course, the very beginning of the Trump administration, we had Doug Bergam, the Interior Secretary, Scott Bessent, Treasury Secretary and Commerce Secretary Lutnik. And they were all talking about, yeah, it's not really a problem of $40 trillion or whatever.

That's not a big deal. I mean, look we got a couple of hundred trillion dollars worth of land that we control in national parks and resources and things like that. And we could tokenize that. You know, you think they'll do something like that. I think they're already doing it. And Canada has announced that it's doing it and that this is the best strategy moving forward. Carney is all about that, all about using pension funds, Canadian pension funds,

to invest into the war. Canada is joining Europe. and Europe and Canada together are the U.S. leads in the Ukrainian war to attack Russia. So they are tied to the U.S. Empire. They must do what the U.S. Empire says. And the U.S. Empire says, well, we're going to share the task. Europe and Canada, move in. It's wartime.

And I think that's what Carney is all about. So how do you fund these wars initially, presently? is you use those financial resources of the states. In other words, you got Europe and Canada in order to have the funds to buy what you need. The problem with that strategy is you can't buy what you need. You have to manufacture it. You can't just say to China, well, now we're going to ask you to build the weapons to attack you. You actually have to have industry.

you can't gut that Germany cannot gut its industry and and then buy what it needs to make a war somewhere else. And we see that, you know, they seem to plan things out for a very long time, like with the COVID stuff and everything else and many of these other aspects. And yet in other areas, they seem amazingly short-sighted. And we're talking about being able to buy this stuff from China. The fact that China over a long period of time first acquired the technology for these rare, with magnets and other things like that. They're necessary for defense weapons as well as for consumer goods. They got the technology to do the refinement and gradually got control of nearly all of it.

And then Trump gets into a trade war with them and they cut it all off. And so it's kind of interesting to see how short-sighted they can be in addition to their long-term plans. But I think part of it may be just, I don't know, ego politics is what I call. geopolitics now under Trump. It really is kind of what he wants it to be and he doesn't really think about the secondary tertiary effects of any of this kind of stuff. It's just straight ahead like a bull in the China shop. Well, I don't know. I think that when you are playing, well, when you are fighting a geopolitical battle and you try different things, you learn as you go. You're necessarily going to make mistakes necessarily because it's very complex and the other side is responding.

So you have to adjust. And I think it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, you know, I don't think it's all about the stupidity of Trump. I think Trump is just an instrument, and the empire is run by influential financiers and high-level elites and the CIA and the military. Together, you know, all these arms, it's run by that, and they have decided this is what they're doing. Trump is just going to implement it. And in doing that, they're going to make mistakes and they're going to adjust. And the thing is what we see as mistakes are not necessarily mistakes in the sense that it could have gone the other way. You know, China could have not dared to use rare earths.

And, you know, then they would have had pretty much a great victory there and lots of more leverage and so on. So it's a way of testing your opponent as well. So it's not necessarily a mistake that the opponent dares to fight back. But of course, there's the straighter for moves. I don't know. What do you think about that? Was that a blunderer? I think that's kind of a major blind spot they had.

No, I don't think so. I think it ties into what we were saying earlier, which is the empire is happy to destroy all the structure in the Middle East and is happy to close off these routes for transportation to China, among other things. So it's perfectly happy to have. close down. What the U.S. is concerned right now is that Iran could let through a lot of the cargo if they control it and they let through people want to keep using it. And that's what's of concern to

them. They want to close it down. They're playing this game, which I think is a lie, to say, well, yeah, there's going to be inflation and that's a horrible thing. So we have to do everything we can to keep the petrol going. You know, Trump has said the lie that he wants, he doesn't want Ukraine to attack Russia's diesel manufacturing capabilities and things like that, just complete nonsense. I mean, it's a lie. Of course, the U.S. is telling Ukraine to do exactly those things, providing all the weapons and so on.

So he's trying to convince the public because they need to be somewhat worried about the public because huge sudden inflation can really turn people against you in a serious way and can create a lot of, I mean, it can go all the way up to. to a civil warlike situation, right? So they have to have, they have to be somewhat concerned. They have to convince you that it's because the bad guys on the other side did this. It's not because we wanted this. We didn't engineer this, you know.

So you see that as kind of a briar rabbit saying, don't throw me in that briar patch. Don't blow up the diesel stuff. He really would like for that to happen. I agree with you. I think that's a smart way of looking at this. And let's talk a little bit. I want to talk a little bit about what happened with COVID and what was the early warning signal to you on that because I think is important for people.

They're going to keep throwing things at us. We need to learn skills of critical thinking and you certainly have excellent skills in that area. Let's talk a little bit about that. But before we do, let's talk about this recent Allison inquiry. Tell us a little bit about that. What is happening with that in China and Canada and what you were telling people. It's all the same everywhere. Just kidding.

Well, the Allison Inquiry was put together, it was funded by a nonprofit organization that is the same organization that organized what was called the National Citizens Inquiry in Canada, which was a very successful way of getting experts to be heard on the question of COVID. Okay. So then they decided to acknowledge and give the venue to victims of these vaccines. And so they are working with a member of parliament, who is this a member of parliament, Allison? And they put this together. It was a four-day affair in which you had mostly victims and also the family of people who died directly after being vaccinated, but also some experts.

So I was one of those experts. And they had Senator Ron Johnson up there who opened it as well. It was a very successful event that unfortunately the bought out state media in Canada did not cover. But it was covered very well. It did break through in one mainstream newspaper in the Toronto Sun, I believe. And the independent media covered it very, very well with in-depth interviews and quality. videos of all kinds and so on. So it's on the internet,

everything that happened there. It's well documented. It was well run. And I had a chance to show our latest data, mortality data. So I was able to demonstrate rigorously that when they, when the CDC forced that all pregnant women would be vaccinated in any trimester of their pregnancy,

as soon as that date was turned on, the death of women during childbirth went up threefold. Wow. And I showed that graph. It's a very stunning graph. It's slide 20 of my presentation, which is available online there. So it was not a coincidence. It was like a knife edge.

It just went straight up on that date. You can look at the mortality by week, and it's just boom. It's like an explosion. So I showed that data, and it's the first time that that graph has been shown. and that the data has been shown and its official data of the CDC but that no one has yet dug into and and and showed that this was in the data so we showed that and then we said okay if that's the case what happens nine months later you start vaccinating pregnant women you impose it what happens nine months later when the ones that are not killed the ones that don't die

most don't die they get birth what what about the survival of those infants and guess what But we show the data again. This is the key slide in the Allison inquiry where the mortality of infants, male and female, steps up, straight up, nine months after they started vaccinating the pregnant women. Wow. Okay. So it's very conclusive. So now it's a little bit before nine months because when they started back.

Let me back up here a second and say, what was the cause of death for the infants? How did they do? Oh, well, you can do it many different ways. One is to simply look at all-cause mortality of infants. If you're less than one-year-old and you died in the year, say, let's record your death. That's one way to do it. And so when you do it that way, it avoids the problem of whether or not the diagnosis is correct, is proper, right? Because it's obviously someone who was born not long ago who died in that year.

So the safety signal from that exactly maps on to the safety signals from specific ICD10 codes of cause of death of infants near the time of birth. Okay. So we showed them both and we showed that they map exactly the same way. And so when you look at, you see that in 2020, infants were not dying, despite the fact that there were peaks of mortality in the general population. and everyone was screaming about COVID, infants did not die. There was no excess mortality of infants in 2020. In 2021, when they started vaccinating the general population, again, there was no excess mortality of infants.

Only in 2022 did you see a sudden rise in that mortality, and that is the year that corresponds to nine months after they insisted on vaccinating pregnant women. Wow. So all of these dates and graphs and analyses are shown in my slides at the Allison Inquiry. So it's a very stunning. Now, when I said that nine months later,

you can also look at the data on a by-month or by-week basis. Okay, so that's how I'm able to say, well, here we are nine months later. This is happening now, you see. So there are many ways of looking at the data, and there's ICD 10 codes for specific diagnoses, and then there's always all-cause mortality, which is the fallback position.

So I showed death of women during childbirth. I showed that their infants, if you were vaccinated, died more. Mind you, in all of these studies, we don't actually know the vaccination status because the government won't tell you. Really? What the vaccination, yeah, they won't tell you what the vaccination status

of associated with the dead persons was. And yet we know if these women, because they changed the rules used to be they were very cautious about vaccinating pregnant women but after they changed that you know that if you go into a hospital setting they're going to be putting a lot of pressure on you as well oh yeah it's it's it's it's it's violent the pressure they put on on pregnant women it's um it in itself causes trauma extreme stress uh they're very very militaristic about that and that's but that's well documented the policies are clear, the direction to clinicians and physicians is you make sure they're vaccinated.

If they really refuse, you note it in their medical records. And then the next time you see you or anyone sees them, you try to get them to vaccinate again. And you just keep doing that every time you see them. So it's very systematic and it's very aggressive for sure, for sure. So the other thing. Yeah, go ahead. I was going to say the other thing we demonstrated was, that you know vaccines were approved for toddlers and six-month plus-year-olds fairly late in the game.

So not at the same time that it was approved for the general population. And there's a specific date for that for six-month to four-year-olds, okay, and in the U.S. And what we've showed is that in the year of that approval, the death, the excess death of one, to four-year-old shoots up. Wow. Out of the graph. So it's a clear, a clear safety signal,

unambiguous. Nothing happens before. The year before is also in the U.S., the year where financial aid to families and workers was dramatically cut. So in the U.S., there was a federal program that gave over a trillion dollars in aid because they were closing the economy down

and the workers couldn't go to work and so on. And then half the states decided to come to work. cut that fund that federal program so that created an immediate intense problem for those people and you can see a mortality spike at that time precisely in June of 2022 when that happened okay but then beyond that when they approve the vaccines for these ages you get a much higher peak again okay now in canada they didn't cut the funding that they'd given suddenly they did they had four different programs and they were cutting them gradually over a year and a half or so so there's no excess mortality in Canada in relation to that only in relation to when they approve the vaccine for the toddlers so in Canada it's

clear it's just straight no excess mortality and then boom it goes right up when they approve the vaccine's there and what is so insidious and evil about that is that part of the push for them approving these things for young children was to make sure in the United States that they got their legal immunity according to the 1986 Childhood Vaccination Act. And, you know, that was, they wanted to get it on the schedule for children, which they now had on the schedule for children, because that gives them another piece of legal immunity because if they were to pull off this Prep Act immunity, they've given themselves so many different covers, they've got to have multiple ones out there. And so they're willing to sacrifice these children, willing to kill pregnant mothers and babies for their money,

for their legal immunity and all the rest of the stuff, it's just unconsciously evil. Yes, to sustain what is essentially a military program, to have the capacity to inject everyone with what you want, when you want, under the cover of really strong propaganda and collaboration by all the professionals. That's the goal. You want to have that military program in place and you want to be able to activate it when you want. Yes. And that's why the flu shots are a permanent part of our landscape, even though every scientific study has said these flu shots don't work.

There is no benefit from the flu shots. Every serious comparative study, it's unambiguous scientifically, it's unambiguous, but there is this industry of flu shots, and it's because you want to be able to do that. The motivation for it is explicit. When they ask for funds to Congress, it's about bioweapon preparedness. That's the pretext that they use, okay, for having the ability to inject everyone like that when they want. So this is what's going on. It again ties back to geopolitics, you see.

Yeah, I got to say, you know, I can always see the effects of mass propaganda and advertising in the population. I got to say that it really really concerned me. It was beyond the scale of anything that I thought would be possible. I thought when we started seeing things happening in 2020, that it was going to be a bridge too far. That maybe, you know, people, they're going, wake people. I had the same, I had the same reaction as you. I thought, boy, if they want to impose vaccination on everyone for this, it's just going to fall apart. Man, they don't know what they're doing. But it didn't. There's no way back to work. we have estimated the public and we underestimated the power of relentless propaganda and pressure.

And I guess that is really the issue. And still you have people who have not come out of that government-induced coma, I guess, is what you should call it. Well, they've now bought into it. They have invested in it. They have put their families at risk. They put their own lives at risk. They have seen the consequences in many people around them. and they have, you know, put their heads in the sand about how there could be a link to the vaccination.

I mean, myocarditis is a huge deal, and that safety signal was evident from the very start. So heart conditions, yeah, heart conditions are huge, our huge problem. Yeah, now we have to have kids who are going to participate in sports, have to have electrocardiograms. And that's supposed to be normal. That's the new normal. Nothing to worry about, you know, they just put it out there as like a PSA. Oh, by the way. We're going to be doing this now and nobody asks why.

And if they do ask why, they simply hire some scientists to say that, oh, it's because of COVID. The virus made us susceptible in this way. They write these garbage papers along those lines whenever they're asked to do it, whenever they're funded to do it. Yes. Now, you never bought into this. You were speaking out against this whole idea of a pandemic back in 2020. And I was a. well, but tell us what your reasoning was.

What was the tell when you were looking at this stuff? Well, I did two things very, well, three things very early on. The first thing I did, I was working with a group called the Ontario Civil Liberties Association. And the first thing we did when we saw all this propaganda and recognized what nonsense it was and did some background reading and so on is we wrote directly to the World Health Organization as an association and we said, what the heck are you doing? This is contrary to what is known scientifically. One never does these things.

What are you doing? Abandon your plan immediately. Do not suggest that general masking of the population, for example, is a good idea. It's not. And research is clear on this. So we wrote to them. And of course, we didn't expect an answer, but we wanted to put on the record that we were doing this. Okay.

So if you go to the Ontario Civil Liberties Association website, you can see all the documents. You can see everything we were trying to do. That's one of the very first things I did. And then the second thing I did is I went in and reviewed all the scientific literature that was available at the time on whether or not masks actually provided a benefit in a respiratory circumstances. Okay. So I looked at only high quality studies that were comparative clinical studies where you actually did randomized control trials or you couldn't completely randomize because you know when you're, you're wearing a mask or not, but still, within the limits of what was possible, identified the best studies. And there was about 10 or so studies that were of really high

quality. And all of these studies, without exception, said, we cannot detect a benefit, a benefit from wearing these masks in terms of preventing infection. We don't detect it. That means that science is, if there is a benefit, it's so small that it cannot be detected, by the best methods that you have in science. Okay? So I wrote a review paper about that immediately. And it went viral. I put it on ResearchGate and there were hundreds of thousands of downloads.

And then ResearchGate took it down. So I wrote to the editors of ResearchGate and I said, what are you doing? Why did you take this down? It's a review of scientific papers. How, you know, what are you doing? What are you doing? And you know what the answer was? the editors replied and they said,

well, there are too many websites that we don't like that are linking to this paper. Wow. Wow. It's getting too. Basically, they were saying it's getting too much attention from in

environments that we don't want to respond this way. Okay. So we're just taking it down. And think about how their power to do that kind of stuff to ferret that out is going to be accelerated and extended under artificial intelligence. I mean, that's the key thing when I look at it.

Their ability to audit and to monitor everything that we're doing to collate all this stuff to look through the haystack for the needle, it's going to get very precise and it's also going to be very, very broad, the net that they cast on people, isn't it? David, I want to add one thing, though, about what I did in 2020. Second of June 2020, I published a paper in which I said, there's no pandemic and there's clear evidence for institutional assaults that cause death. Okay.

So what I did back then as I reviewed, I accessed all the mortality data as a function of time, all cause mortality for Europe, the U.S. and Canada. And I showed that there were hotspots, that there were peaks that fired up immediately when the pandemic was announced. Not before, never before. There's never been excess mortality anywhere in the world until they announced the pandemic. So somehow this magical virus was waiting for the announcement, waiting to cause death exactly at that time, okay, which is contrary to all the accepted models and theories about spreading of viral diseases. It's contrary to it.

So I said, this is impossible. These peaks are synchronous around the world, and they only happen in hotspots, nowhere else, and nothing happens before. And they happen in hotspots where there are large hospitals and where they're applying these incredibly dangerous new protocols. So I said, this is directly due to what you're doing in care homes and hospitals. This is evidence of assaults. And I wrote that paper and it got a lot of attention.

And it was the first paper in a large series. We've now written 30 large scientific reports. that are all available. I mean, the heavy lifting that we do scientifically is all on our website, correlation dash Canada.org. You can find all these reports. But that was the first thing that I did, and I did it on my own, and I was adding, adding arrows with a pencil on the graphs and things like that. And then people saw that, and they said, hey, this guy's doing, you know, the young researchers actually approached me to work with me. And so since then, we've developed, you know, some collaborations and we've refined our methods.

And there's a lot more brain power and manpower to analyze these things. And you're 100% right. Because over this last week, you mentioned Ron Johnson being a part of the Allison inquiry of it. This last week I covered an inquiry that he did where they were talking to people who had family members who are victims of the hospital protocols. And just horrific stories of what happened to people. getting poor care or no care, and then they would set upon them with these ventilators and Mdesivir and all the rest of this stuff. You know, we now have the testimony, the firsthand testimony, so many people who suffered

from these protocols that were really weaponized. What I remember from it, I'll never forget. It was August of 2020 and the American Hospital Association, the AHA, and it was really an aha moment for me. They came out and they said, what do you mean you're not going to pay us a 20% bonus? I was like, what 20% bonus? CMS, the Medicare Medicaid bureaucracy that's here in the United States, was giving them incentives. I knew about the incentives for giving somebody a COVID diagnosis and putting them on a ventilator.

They'd give them $9,000 to say they had COVID. They would give them $39,000 if they put them on a ventilator. But then they also gave them 20% bonus on everything they did if they were a COVID patient. And they came to them and they said, well, we need to have some. validation of this. We've got to have the PCR test, which I've talked about that endlessly. But we've got to have a PCR test. You told us at the beginning, they said that you didn't have enough of those and that they didn't work. You need to hold up your end of the bargain. So there was this little public spat that was there and didn't get a whole lot of attention.

But when I saw that, I thought, man, look at how they have just thrown money at this situation and thrown it at these corporate hospitals that are under private equity ownership. And, I mean, it's just all money, money, money. And they knew. exactly. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. They bought everyone out. All the hospital administrations, all the medical associations, they bought everyone out with a large amount of money, and they made sure that they were obedient and so on. And they made them sign contracts to that effect. And that story is really well told in a recent book. I want to show this. This is called Sacrifice by Thorpe and Farber. And they go through all of this for the case of pregnant women and their infant. And they

They outline all of this coordinated, buying out of basically everyone, all the people who work in that area of medicine. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. It was all about money. I want to plug this book because I'm very impressed by it. Good. See if I can get them on and talk about it. That's great.

And, of course, when you're talking about the fact that none of this stuff happened before they made their decorations and so forth, that made me immediately think of the meme I've seen over and over again. and it's like the Amish and they said, how come nobody in your community is getting COVID? And so, well, we don't have television. Exactly. I remember that meme. That's a good one.

Yeah. Well, you know, one of the things we've done also, and I talked about it at the Allison Inquiry, is since that early time, we've really grown our collaboration. We're able to analyze much larger data sets in a much more sophisticated way. So we were able to ask the question,

is there any evidence? that something was spreading in the world. Okay, that caused death. And what we found, so we were able to analyze all the data in the U.S. down to the county level, very high spatial resolution. Wow. And by week, so very high temporal resolution as well. And we did the same thing in Europe,

down to the same small degree of level. So we've got two continents, basically, where we're doing this detailed analysis, and we proved, as far as you can prove, Well, we invalidated the hypothesis of spread. We proved that that was not happening. So we see that the patterns are geostatic versus geothermal, which they should be, if you believe their theories.

So we show that the virus refused to cross national borders, for example. We show that, you know, in cases where the law change, we showed that in some major airports that were receiving many, many flights from China and Asia and so on, nothing happened. Whereas in other, there were these hotspot peaks. But the places where there were the hotspot peaks is where the hospitals said, as soon as you get symptoms, come into the hospital and we'll put you on a ventilator. We'll treat you.

Don't worry. And so they did that in the land and they killed people. It was a huge hotspot. They did not do that in Rome. same poverty level, same population type, same big airports, all the same kind of flights. Nothing in Rome. No excess mortality.

And we're talking about that geotemporal. In other words, if we're going to look at, we always see the movies about contagion and things like that. And so, you know, they show it starts with this person. They get on a plane and it hits somebody else. Yes. And you can see this thing start to spread out over time, over area. It's like ripples in the water.

And yet that's not what you saw. You saw these isolated things based on government policy, right? Exactly. And it's important to know that they actually have theoretical models, which I've written papers about myself, peer-reviewed papers with Joseph Hickey, who's the main author. They actually have a way of calculating how that spread is supposed to occur. And so they include everything, personal to person contact, commuter transport in a city,

airport transport, they include everything and they calculate what should the map of death and disease should have looked like for COVID. And these maps look nothing like the mortality maps that we have. They're contrary to it. They're contrary to it. And so they actually go in and do these calculations. And if you compare it with empirical results, it disproves the theory, if you like. Now, you put out a paper, we've got time, I want to go over this before we end.

The COVID-19 illusion, biological stress-induced bacterial pneumonia. Talk a little bit about that because it seems to me like if you're wearing a mask, that would kind of exacerbate that condition, wouldn't it? Stress as well as bacteria? Yes, yes. Well, you don't, I wrote a paper and the title has the word, transmissionless pneumonia in it. You can find it on the correlation website.

I think it's an important paper because it does all of the scientific background about how do you get a respiratory condition. Okay. And from the science, it's clear. For example, Sheldon Cohen, who is a professor in the United States, spent his career demonstrating trying to find what determines when a college student will get a respiratory condition and how sick they will be when they get it. He did this for years.

He was actually infecting college students with fluids from sick people and trying to get them to be sick to see when they would be sick and when they wouldn't be sick and how sick they would be. He had hundreds of volunteers and he was doing this for many years and he wrote some seminal papers in which he clearly showed unambiguously that the very first factor that determines when a healthy young person like a college student will be sick is how much stress are they experiencing in their lives? That's the factor that controls it unendiguously. Yeah, it's interesting. Let me interject here because I interviewed the Baileys from New Zealand,

and they talk about something I've been meaning to go back and do more research on the cold house in the UK that for 45 years, they were trying to do the same thing as this gentleman and you were just talking about. And they couldn't find a mode of transmission. They're exchanging saliva with people who are sick and people are not sick for 45 years and finally just shut it down without an answer. That's right. That's right.

There's never been a scientific demonstration of transmission. It's that simple. There has never been one. And there have been hundreds of studies. So he found that the second thing was social isolation. If you were isolated, you were going to get very sick. Which is the opposite, what you would think in terms of. of contagion, right?

Yeah. So those are just some of the beginning historical science background. I wrote a large paper about reviewing all the science. So it turns out that you have microbiomes in and on your body. You have a microbiome in your respiratory tract. You have another one in your gut. You have one on your skin, full of microorganisms of all types. There is everything in your body to make you sick.

goes out of balance or if one population of one species of micro takes over and does horrible things, you can get sick and die very quickly. Okay. So what are the things that can cause imbalance in your microbiome, the respiratory one in particular? Well, it's the stress. And one of the really well acknowledged scientifically modes of pneumonia is called aspiration pneumonia. So elderly people have trouble swallowing in their sleep.

they might swallow their own saliva. So some of the microbes from the gut go into the lungs, and then they get pneumonia and die. That's an example of a scientifically recognized transmissionless pneumonia. It's from your own body, basically, given your circumstances of stressful living in your old age and so on. Well, it turns out that scientists are now recognizing that most of respiratory conditions are from your own body.

It's not about transmission. So this ties in with the idea that they've never been able to find transmission, you see. And so this may well have been an epidemic of transmissionless pneumonia's or respiratory conditions, okay, that was induced by all of the stressors and assaults that you were putting on to people, including the fear, propaganda, and everything. Yeah. So depending on your... Oh, the stress was horrible, wasn't it? Yeah. Oh, yeah.

Yeah. So that's what I argue is that this was about, and the CDC itself recognizes that more than half of the cases where it analyzed it, there was bacterial pneumonia that coexisted with their COVID. Okay. So that means there was a large epidemic of bacterial pneumonia, which they refused to treat because they put out memos saying, do not give antibiotics. You were considered an improper medical person if you were prescribing antibiotics during the COVID epidemic. Wow. So antibiotics prescriptions dropped dramatically throughout the Western world at the same time that there was this epidemic of bacterial pneumonia, which is the kind of respiratory condition that's normally believed to kill people, not viral. Okay.

So that is why Ivermectin works so well. Ivermectin is a very powerful antibiotic, and it works really well on respiratory conditions, including tuberculosis and so on. So I believe that MDs were not killing viruses. They were treating bacterial pneumonia with Iverminton. And that's how they saved the lives of people that were lucky enough to be treated either with antibiotics or Ivermectin. That's fascinating. And when I stop and think about it, you know, you look at the mask,

and that was a whole other level of stress and also very very dirty I mean you could see people who are wearing masks all the time their face would break out even so we look at that's going to increase the bacterial aspects of it, increase the stress it's going to be... I wouldn't go too far in that direction

because, you know, dirtiness doesn't make you sick like in the sense that in the sense that I think that's overemphasized like if you if you look at Sheldon Cohen's work he was actually putting as dirty as you could be right into the throats of young people and the only ones that got

sick are the ones that were stressed okay the others did get sick and that were socially isolated so I think that what about increasing the bacterial load or whatever of the biome you know in terms of holding it there like that you know exactly you have to

you have to do something that's significant enough that it gives a burst to your microbiome that will throw you off balance for a time and that potentially could run off and kill you. Okay, you have to do that. And so I'm not saying that it's impossible to transmit a bacterial infection from one infected person to another. There is only a few papers that have demonstrated that for the case of tuberculosis. In the case of tuberculosis, there's a classic paper where they managed to give it to hamsters. So what they did was they, what they did was they had tuberculosis rooms in hospitals, and they

vented the air from those rooms into a room somewhere else where they had hamsters in cages, and the hamsters got tuberculosis. Okay. So that is considered a proof of transmission by the authors, not a proof, but evidence for. And even that study has been severely criticized because the hamsters were stressed. They were in cages. They were kept in conditions that were not ideal. And they were subjected to a draft and so on. So yes, there was a bunch of bacteria in the air that could do this,

but the hamsters were stressed as well. They may not have caught it. So there's a few studies that suggest transmission in bacterial cases. So I'm not against the idea that, for example, in a household where you're really living intimately with your children that went to daycare and that got sick and so on, that you won't also catch a respiratory condition.

I'm not saying that that's impossible. Of course, there be some stress involved in that as well. Exactly, exactly. I'm saying that in the general population, if you're trying to understand epidemiologically what happened, it's not really important. Yeah, it is, it is amazing. Would you like the masks?

I mean, you talk about, aspiration and something like that causing somebody to have bacterial pneumonia. Seems to me like, you know, that might help to facilitate that type of thing. You know, you might, to some degree, I don't know. But it was when they started telling everybody to wear two and three masks and they kept changing their story on it, to me, that was a big red flag from the very beginning. The fact that even if you go back to their simulation, I remember the simulation that came from the Imperial College of London.

That was pretty much debunked by the Edinburgh College. He said, first of all, you don't have the famous curve that Foucho was talking about. Said you got a straight line. Everybody that gets it's going to give it to two points, some odd number of people forever, right? And so they said, first of all, your model is not like that. And secondly, they said you've got a poorly written computer simulation that gives us a different answer. Every time we give it the same input and run it through, we get it. get a different answer.

No, there's just so many layers of wrong in these scientific papers. It's unbelievable. I mean, I routinely pick up a scientific paper that is having an influence that's being talked about in the media and so on that's having a policy influence, and I, you know, pull it apart and show all the errors in it, you know. So there's a class of scientific studies that are called counterfactual studies. I'm not sure if you've interviewed anyone about that. But what they do is they claim that the vaccine saved millions of lives.

And the way that they do it is they say, well, if you hadn't given it, all these other people would have died. We didn't see that because we gave it. But if you had it, you know, millions of people would have died. So I picked up each of the most influential counterfactual studies like that and showed, this is interesting. We showed that for to believe them, if you use their own methods, what you have to conclude is that there were, peaks of huge, never seen before peaks of excess mortality, exactly when you were rolling out the vaccines. So the mortality would have had to happen exactly when you save these people's lives, you know, given the two-week lag for immunity and all that. That's what you had to do to produce

their counterfactual result. I mean, it's ridiculous. It is. It is. Yeah, yeah. I remember at one point in time during the Obama administration, he came out with an unemployment stats that were not very favorable. So they talked about jobs created or saved. And it's like, oh, how do you determine that you saved somebody's job? They had the job before. They got a job afterwards. And so then we saw the same thing happening with all the COVID stuff. Oh, these are people that didn't die. So we're going to claim that we saved their lives. They weren't even sick. Yes. Yes. And, you know, one of the things we've shown in our many reports is that there's many jurisdictions where there's a very strong correlation between when you roll out the vaccine and when you get a peak of excess mortality.

Okay. And on the basis of that correlation, we had extrapolated that the vaccines would have been associated with 17 million deaths worldwide. Wow. When we wrote our papers, okay. Now, people went after us, including some serious scientists, who said, that's crazy. This cannot be about vaccine toxicity. The toxicity is not that high.

It's orders of magnitude smaller than that. And, you know, that criticism is correct. We went a little far when we were talking to the media about that it was directly causal. But in the paper itself, we were more careful. But the point is the reason you have this correlation is because when you roll out the vaccines, that is very disruptive in hospitals and care homes. It's an immense source of stress because you're not only rolling out the vaccine in a military style. You're also rolling out a campaign of testing at the same time.

And when you test positive and given these these fallacious tests, you often test positive. Oh, yes. Not. Okay. When you test positive, there are huge consequences for you personally. You get isolated. It disrupts your care. Your care schedule is completely overturned.

Your family can't see you and so on and so on, right? So these campaigns, these rollouts of testing slash vaccination are often directly associated with peaks in mortality. And we think that's the main mechanism for it is the disruption and the stress that it carries with it. Now, in addition to that, the vaccines are technically toxic. And they do kill people. There is no doubt about that. But not in the huge amounts that the stress from rolling them out. does. Do you see what I mean?

Yeah. Wow. It truly is when you go back and look at that, beggar's belief that they could be this ruthless, doesn't it? And the amount of damage that was done. But hopefully, with your research and people who are doing this along with you, maybe we can start to educate people. People need to be skeptical about this.

And I think the only positive thing about this, Dennis, is I think that once somebody sees the truth about something like this, that they were hoodwinked about for some time. It brings a whole new level of skepticism that they can't get over. And we need to find that crack, you know, to get that in there with people. I don't see it quite the same way. I don't have a lot of confidence that we can get people to have cognitive dissonance and realize and start to have a wave of awareness

and all of a sudden people that want their freedom and that think for themselves. I don't think that can happen. But what I do think, the reason I do think this work, what you and I are doing is valid, is because it strengthens the people who already have that awareness or that tendency to want freedom or the common sense to recognize that this is crazy. It gives them tools. It gives them weapons. It gives them a rational understanding of, it kind of supports their belief, their initial gut feeling, you know.

And I think that that is very important, but because those are the people that are, going to cause some change. The angry victims that come to understand what was done to them and how cruel it was and everything. And where scientists are saying scientists and MDs are saying, yeah, indeed, you're right. You know, they become the people who drive change, I think. That's a good way to look at it. I agree. Yeah. I don't have much trust in education or being able to get the message out to the larger population. I just don't think. I think you can fool a lot of the people all the time, but the people who see that they were fooled, it's going to be difficult to get them the next time. And that's go, we've got to start to increase the ranks of people who thought

something was fishy about this. So many of them, part of the gas lighting was to make everybody think, well, you're the only one who sees this. You're the only one who's saying this. Yes. See, we shut down everybody else who was saying this. And so nobody else is complaining about this. You must be wrong. And I think that, as you're pointing out, the people who are already a bit skeptical and things really aren't adding up. Once they look at that, it's like, yeah, I remember when they did that last time. We have seen, as a matter of fact, not everybody has quit going to the schools that they saw, how they were operating when they saw them via, you know, a televised classroom.

So we had a lot of people who started to wake up to some of the things they saw happening in schools, how they were using the kids and the ways that they were with them. talk about stress and what they did of very young kids. You had a lot of people who woke up about vaccines who were already kind of wondering about it. And so, but it hasn't, as you pointed out, you know, it's not 100% people, still the vast majority of people, still going to do whatever the government tells them to do and take all the vaccines they tell them to do. But other people who have seen this once they see it, they can't go back to that system.

That's right. And I find that the people who are most going along with this, are the professional class. Because they've bought into it. They get large benefit from buying into what the establishment wants. And they just rationalize it. They're really good at rationalizing. They're highly educated.

And they rationalize away whatever they see that might be a problem. And they rationalize their own behavior and going out and getting a boost every time it's announced. So I find that the professional class is far gone. I agree. And I remember seeing a chart that was, they tracked, and I forget what this thing was, but it was basically going along with whatever this was, the masks or this or that. And the people were opting out of it, they correlate it according to educational level. And so, you know, if you had a high school educational level or below, you're down here, you really didn't buy into that stuff. And then it went up as you got more and more educated

until it peaked at master's degrees. And then when you got to PhDs, it dropped. a little bit down. And so I thought that was kind of interesting. At that point, people are starting to think a little bit differently, right? They've been trained maybe to think a little bit more critically. But up to that point, you succeed by basically fitting in with the system and the institution. That's what you've been taught. Well, a lot of people are highly educated, but they're not encased in the establishment. They didn't get the job that they wanted, basically. So those people will have been trained to read the literature and so on, and they can be more critical. But the ones that are actually locked in,

there is nothing you can do there. And we have seen that with climate. We have seen it with COVID and all the rest of the stuff. It was so great to talk to you. Really enjoy that. And tell people where they can find you now and get, you've got a substack as well as a website where you're doing research. Tell people where they can find those things. Okay. Well, I guess the main, well, Okay, easily accessible and easier to read and kind of more fun would be the substack. So, Denise substack, I'm sure one can find the substack. And the main heavy lifting science is at correlation dash canada.org. So that's the main website for that nonprofit organization.

And my website that has everything I can put on it and all the different themes of research and everything is denier-on-coron-court. So Dennis with one end, rancourt, all one word. And we've got that under your picture there in the lower thirds. Oh, thank you. Thank you so much, Dennis. It's a pleasure talking to you and thank you for the hard work that you've done and the truth that you've shed on all of this fraud and lies that have been out there. So dangerous. It is very important to have people like you who think independently and who use your analytical skills to uncover what is really true.

And I know you've taken a lot of heat for that type of thing as well. We all do. We tell the truth. They come out to you. But thank you so much. It was a real pleasure talking to you. Yeah, the pleasure was mine. Thank you.

Thank you. Using free speech to free minds. It's the David Night Show. Yeah. Pete Hexeth actually did this. The guy is shameless. He recreated patent except for the pearl handled revolvers in the uniform. Basically, what he did was,

Patton. He came out and he said, we're no longer the woke department. Simple translation, no fatties, no trannies, no beardos, no weirdos, no wimps, no radicals, just warriors. He said, the ideological clowns are out, or are they? Send in the clowns. Don't bother they're here. And of course, when you look at Patton, he doesn't have any of those impressive tattoos of War Pete. But he said, the patriotic cowboys are in with testosterone. Asteroom testing on top. You couldn't do a better parody of him than he does of himself or that he does of George C. Scott. And when you look at his idea of what he wants to do with the military, let's take a look at what he

said about his new program. He's getting rid of 20% of the generals. And let's understand it is very bloated at the top of the Pentagon. I don't have a problem with reducing that and doing some of the things in terms of evaluating merit if he can do that accurately. But, you know, when he starts to get rid of these people and he brings in the other people who are going to be the experts, listen to his experts, they're going to be bringing in with the Meridian program. And that's why today, at my direction, there he is doing patent.

I'm announcing Project Meridian, an effort led by America's best minds to study the future of warfare. Under the leadership of the department's chief technology officer, Emil Michael, Project Meridian will be co-led by three of our nation's best minds. Who would that be? Paul Merlucky and Newt Gingrich, all of whom are up in the audience with us today. Please stand if you would. Folks, we're doomed. You better not start any more wars.

We're going to have Elon Musk and Newt Gingrich. You're going to be telling us what I'm doing, Palmer Lucky. And then what I really object to and what we're going to talk to, our guest, Samuelson, about Jeff Samuelson. We're going to talk to him about the real role of Christ in our life and how we bring that to bear in politics and other aspects of our life without abusing it. And I think probably the best example of abuse and scripture twisting is War Pete. With the sentiment of the sixth chapter of the book of Isaiah,

Lord, here I am. Send me. Send me to kill people. Send me to fight the redcoats. Send me to fight the communists. That has nothing to do with Isaiah. And you ought to know that. You scripture-twisting, disgusting person.

Every time I see that, I just want to scream at this guy with some four-letter words here. But we don't want to do that either. And as a matter of fact, he goes on to basically indict himself before everybody there and God. Our department is, you might say,

putting on the full armor of God. Because while we wage physical war, we all know the real battle is spiritual. God is good. Evil is not. Yeah, so don't be evil. The military must understand the difference. Yeah, maybe there's a code of conduct.

The preclans and religious support teams, live your calling, stand firm, preach truth, minister to the flock, fear no man. And don't kill innocent people. How about that? The Lord is on my side. I will not fear. He hates those who shed innocent blood too, by the way, Pete. What you are so proud of doing. She called him a war pet. He is the pet of Trump with all this stuff.

And then, of course, like all authoritarian, the problem that people that he has is that it's not that he's doing anything wrong. I mean, we should thank him for killing innocent people. We should thank him for extrajudicial killings. We should thank him for murdering people in the water, ships that should never have been attacked in the first place. He goes back and kills the survivors. Yeah, we should thank him for that.

And if you are upset with him for that, it's simply because we've got a free press. We shouldn't have a free press. Yet our so-called press makes Iranian state media look reasonable. Our media's shameful lust for political... No, you make Iran look reasonable. The consequences of reckless so-called reporting. So-called journalists juiceed up on Trump derangement syndrome.

I think they're fighting against our president, but they're really undermining you, our war fighters. That's right. Yeah, you should never question what the government does. And because he's got a big American flag behind him, He has license to do anything, especially if he quotes the Bible. Let me just finish up with one thing here before we get our guest on. And that is the utter disregard for human life, no matter how many people are involved.

This is the murder of, I think, nine people in Israel. And the Senate took a vote on it. They said, some people said, we need to have an accounting of this as to why and what happened in Israel. The Yaser 47. The Nazar 51. the motion is not agreed to. Yeah, they don't want to know. They don't want to know.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning. Isn't that disgusting? Isn't that disgusting? They don't want to know why Israel killed all of those Americans. Just don't ask. We won't tell about that. All right, we're going to take a quick break, and we'll be right back to talk about what is the appropriate way for a Bible-believing Christian,

not somebody who's going to use the scripture as a beard to murder innocent people like War Pete. We'll be right back with our author Jeff Samuelson. And so stay with. We'll be right back. Joining us now is Jeff Samuelson. He is a pastor of 21 years. And of course, he's been in a very political area. I guess we can say. Washington, D.C. Doesn't get any more political than that. And so we're going to talk to him about how do you walk the line, the fine line between getting too political or ignoring it altogether.

And then how do you keep people together who are already very divided politically? So his book is Walk This Way, Political Engagement for Bible Believing Christians. Thank you for joining us, sir. I'm so interested in talking to you and getting your advice and experience in all of this. And of course, I didn't mention in the introduction that you've also been in the Foreign Service. Tell us a little bit about that exactly what you did. Yeah, I was in the U.S. Foreign Service for a number of years. That was my first career.

I started that right out of college, got my degree in political science, and then did that. I served as a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Singapore, which is where I ended up meeting the woman who would be my wife, at the embassy. That was at church. And then I also did, served at the embassy in Bogota, Colombia, in South America. Okay. And you say that with the appropriate accent, too. Congratulations. I'm sure you had a lot of experience with that. Let's talk a little bit about the two ways that people can fall off of this horse. And whenever we have an issue, you know, you can fall off one side or the other. You can get too far forward to one side or the other. How do we balance this thing? What do you say to people? I mean, is it something that we just completely ignore?

Or is it something that becomes the core and dividing issue in our life? Well, one of the points that I make in the book and Walk This Way is that it's really important to remember who you are as a Christian when you're approaching these issues. And you've got to have that as front and center as the motivating and guiding principle in your life. If you get to the point where politics has become the thing that takes over and just, you know, it's your first and only concern and only later you start worrying about how it's going to be a Christian. That's problematic, not just in terms of your faith, but it's also going to be problematic in terms of how Christianity and Christ is represented to the world. I like to say that, you know, I wrote the book to put politics into the context of Christian

faith and life where it belongs because too many people are doing or are encouraged to do what is taking Christian faith in life and trying to fit that into one's politics. I agree. Yeah. And of course, with my program, which is basically focused on news, I do want to try to keep that balance in it. It's something I really struggle with. And, you know, there's so much noise that's being thrown at, especially at this point in time. So much noise that's constantly, you know, conflict that is there. And so you want to talk about that and react to that. And of course, there are very important things in our life that we just can't ignore, as I've said many times, you may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you.

And so we have to talk about this. And I worry that I spend too much time on politics and not enough time on what really matters. And so I don't want to just give people the bad news. I want to give them the good news as well. Yeah, it's a, that tension is I opened the book in the introduction with a few vignettes of how just kind of showing different ways that this tension between politics and Christianity can show up in people's lives. And the first of those is a case of a baker who has just found out that the government's going to be changing its taxation policies. He's going to have to pay a lot more and that may be enough to put him out of business. And he's dealing with, you know, his wife on one side who is saying,

know, you're a Christian, just stay out of all this. And then his mother-in-law on the other side saying, well, no, actually, this is something that matters. You should be doing what you're going to do. Then I've got another vignette in there about a man or two church members, one of whom has gone all out for a particular candidate to the point where he's forgetting his Christianity. And then the other trying to kind of calmly bring him back on that. And so it's so easy to lose sight of things, you know, of what's really important. I agree. That is a struggle all the time, isn't it, to keep things in priority. And that is especially true when government has become such a big footprint in our life. It really, you hardly can escape it anymore. It's always

there in one form or the other. You know, when I looked at your book, one of the things I always think about is Augustine's city of God. And he talks about how we are citizens because, you know, at the time he's talking about it, Rome and all these different things that we think of as nation states are basically just cities. And you were a citizen, right? And so he talks about being a citizen of the city of God, but you also live in the earthly city.

And he responded to, he wrote it, first part of it really is response to people who are critics of Christianity, saying it's Christian softness that has destroyed Rome and caused the fall of Rome. Of course, his idea was that it was really the moral decay of Rome that caused it. So there's that discussion that's there. But really to understand who we are as Christians, I think, is a key thing. And it's a really comforting thing. If that is how you see yourself, it puts it in a different perspective, doesn't it? Exactly.

It's the comfort that we have, knowing that God has everything. well in hand, that no matter how out of control things may feel to us right now, he's got a plan. You know, he's got you safe in his hand. You don't have to freak out. And there's a lot of, you know, Christians who see what's going on politically in the world and they are inclined to freak out. And there's a lot in scripture that, you know, I'm pretty sure if you do a concordance search, you're never going to find the phrase freak out in scripture. But there's certainly. There's certainly plenty that addresses that idea, particularly in the sermon on the

Mount when Jesus tells us all about how not to worry. But I'd say one of the important things is that this doesn't mean, and you're alluding to some of this earlier, that it doesn't mean that as a Christian, you just shut it all out, that you just say, well, I'm not going to pay any attention because this disturbs me. And I've come across that a lot as well, yes. Yeah. Or to take the attitude of, well, this is beneath me as a Christian. This is all too dirty, too something or other, too polluted or corrupt for me to be concerned about. But as you said, you know, politics is interested in you. You are a member of this. And one of the things I appreciate about you're bringing Augustine or Augustine, however you choose to pronounce. I'm from Florida. So I'm always confused about that myself. Yeah. Is that a lot of American Christians, and I didn't write the book just for American Christians, but it's obviously written in an American context.

They really see these questions only in terms of their American experience. And looking back into history or looking into countries elsewhere in the world and thinking about, well, how would this be different if I were confronting this issue in another place where I didn't have a vote? or where the prevailing government is entirely anti-Christian in some way or another. It both helps you to appreciate more of the blessings that we do have, living in the nation that we're in, but also puts into perspective just, okay, what's really important here? And how can I make the best use of the blessings that I do have? I agree.

And I think that, you know, go back and we see so many times, the message, fear not. And, of course, brought by angels. And I was thinking, you're talking about this. Well, if the angels, I show up and say, a freak not, you know.

That's probably the new living translation. Yeah. Yeah. But it's, yeah, if you think about it from that standpoint, it's like, hey, dude, chill out. You know, it's, it is kind of interesting to think about that in a popular context. But when we look at,

one of the things I think is kind of pacified people is this almost kind of fatalism nihilism and I don't think we're called to that either. Certainly the apostle Paul was not called to that. He wasn't passive. He insisted on his rights as a Roman citizen, didn't he? Yeah, and that's actually one of the things that I bring out in one of the early chapters of Walk this way, that what we see of Paul in the book of Acts is a really interesting lesson in the two citizenships that we have as Christians. The citizenship as part of God's kingdom and citizenship as part of, you know, the kingdom of what's called the kingdom of the left in some cases that, you know, this earthly world, you know, the nation that were citizens up. And there were situations where Paul

got in trouble, you know, he was harassed, he was opposed, he was stoned, and he never, you know, put his hands up and say, hey, you can't do this to me. I'm a Roman citizen because those were the times where what was at stake was the gospel itself. And he was saying, no, if I do not submit to this, it's going to mess with my witness in this case, my testimony. But there were other cases. We see this particularly when he's arrested and he and Silas are arrested and imprisoned in the city of Philippi. And then we see it also when he's arrested back in Jerusalem when he managed to get the the whole of the sanitary and mad at him. And in those cases, he takes a stand.

You can't do this to me. I'm a Roman citizen. And in those are cases, this is where it serves the purpose of the gospel to make that stand and to use that. And so it's just a really interesting lesson for us, I think, in terms of valuing what we have with both of our types of citizenship. I agree. And when we look at this passivity, you know, one of the things that Jesus prayed, he said, I pray that you would protect them. Not that you would take them out of this world, but that they would not be of this world.

And I guess that's really what we're talking about. We can't get out of politics, but we don't want to be of politics, do we? We don't want that to be the only thing that we're doing. Right. If somebody asks you who you are, and the first thing you say is I'm a Republican or I'm a Democrat or I'm a, you know, It's a political identity. Okay, maybe as a Christian you should take a step back from that and realize, no, that that's not really my essential identity. My essential identity, first and foremost, is going to be as a redeemed child of God, as a follower of Jesus Christ.

You know, granted, that's not always going to be, you know, the appropriate thing to bring into every conversation where somebody might ask about you. But we want to be careful not to let politics be the thing that takes over our lives. because it can't. I agree, yeah. Well, let's talk a little bit about the tension with people about Christian nationalism, you know, and everybody's got a different definition for that, of course. And I don't know, maybe there are some people self-identify as a Christian nationalist. I think it's mainly a label that is applied to other people when you want to characterize them.

But talk a little bit about that. And, you know, what is the involvement that we, if we're going to get involved in politics, how deeply should we go in it? And so you have the two different approaches with that. Do we want to have a government that is going to openly endorse the basics of our faith and the gospel? Or is it something else? Do we want to have them to embrace some fundamental principles? How do we then change the government other than just praying for the people in power,

hoping that there will be some kind of a moral awakening? at some point in time. But how do you divide that aspect of it? Yeah, as you mentioned, one of the problems with talking about Christian nationalism is that everybody has their own definition of it. You know, some people, all that really means is I'm a Christian and I love my country and I want it to be more Christian. You know, for other people, it's I want a theocracy.

You know, I want this to be, you know, entirely run on Christian. principles by Christians and so forth. And of course, most people are going to end up somewhere in between, you know, in there. And there's a whole range and gradations of the things. And there are some people who actively advocate for a kind of theocracy as well. Right. And that's the point at which I say, you know, in addition to knowing scripture, it's really helpful to know some history and know something about the rest of the world. Because there have been plenty of nations that have been established as officially Christian nations and have had established religions. And when we look at how that has worked out over time, it usually hasn't gone so well. That's absolutely. And it's

confusing the kingdoms. I use this language in the book. It's got a long theological history of the idea of, you know, there are the two kingdoms in this world, the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of of, you know, the set, what we might call the secular kingdom or something like that. But when one intrudes upon the other, problems come. When you've got either the church telling the state what to do or the state telling the church what to do, there are conflicts. There are things like that. And as Christians, we may cheer when, you know, rah, ra, when it looks like the, you know, the church is telling the state what to do and we're finally getting our way. But usually what that ends up meaning is that it can turn

around just as much and the state can end up influencing what's going on in the church, which we don't like, which we're not going to cheer. And so it's always going to be intention. There's always going to be a balance there. But I think the way that it works out best for us as Christians, particularly living in a democracy, which we thank God for, is that what we want is Christians in government. We want, you know, a Christian influence on things. We want, you know, people who know what the right thing is, making the decisions about what's going to be and not be in the United States

or any other democracy. I agree, yeah. But to make the government itself a Christian in some official way, then you have to ask, okay, who's defining what is Christian here? Yes. And what's the recourse when the government is doing something and they're doing it in the name of Christian, but it's not quite right. What do we do in that case?

And it's a case of looking at what could go wrong before jumping forward with all the things that we think could go right. I agree. Yeah, I think if we're going to have a Christian nation, I think it has to be a grassroots organic thing. I don't think that it can be imposed from the top down. And as you point out in history, we have seen that type of approach tried over and over again from the top down. It's always worked best when it comes from the grassroots up. I think even the founding of this country. It was coming from the grassroots up. And this founding of this country, speaking of history,

I think was a large motivating factor of that was the fact that you had a unified church and state in England. And it was weaponized against many people's consciences and their faith. And their and beliefs, and they were sick of it. So they came here for that type of thing. I often think when we talk about, you know, these different areas of life, often think about a guy, I think he was in the Netherlands. You probably know his name better than I do. Abraham Kuiper or Cooper, I don't know, it's pronounced different ways. I hear it at different times. He was a pastor, I think, and he became prime minister. And he talked about different spheres of authority. And, you know, We've got this sphere over here of government.

We've got another one of family. We've got another one of church. We've got another one of the individual. And we need to keep people in their lanes or in their spheres, I guess. Are you familiar with his work? Not in depth. Familiar with the basic concepts there. And for the most part, those are things that, you know, I think most of us, if we look at

that and say, oh, yeah, that makes good sense. Yeah, that's the way we want it. The problem is that there's, you know, it's like. like a Venn diagram. These things don't exist completely separate from each other. There are intersections and overlaps, and it's managing those intersections and overlaps that that's where the conflict comes. I agree. Yeah. And of course, he was looking at it mainly from the standpoint of, you know, what is the controlling authority here, you know, in this particular sphere. And we look at that in terms of, let's say, you know, keeping government intrusion out of your home or your family,

And so we say, well, wait a minute, we have this institution here that these two things can coexist. They can interface with each other. But unless there is something seriously wrong in one of these spheres, there shouldn't be an intrusion from the other sphere into it. And I think that was kind of what he was talking about. But let's talk about the other thing that is always something that comes up when you're talking about government and Christianity. And that's the Romans 13 interpretation that people have. many times I have seen people who are very passive in terms of what the government does, and they will appeal to Romans 13.

No matter what the government does, I should just go along with it. What is your understanding of that? Well, if we lived in the Roman Empire at the time that was written, that would be pretty much our main option, because we didn't have a vote. We didn't have a, you know, really an ability to appeal anywhere. I mean, we do have the example of Paul appealing his death sentence, you know, appealing to the emperor. He was taking advantage of his citizenship in that way.

So there wasn't exactly, you know, Christians weren't exactly powerless. You know, they could always appeal to the law. But it's difficult because we have gotten so used to our American system of government that we kind of take it for granted that we can influence. things. And what complicates things is that, you know, the idea of government of the people by the people for the people, that means that we have some authority. We are, to a certain extent, the government. And so to a certain extent when we say, okay, well, I'm going to respect the ruler of my nation as an American, we're saying I'm going to respect myself. But at the same time, because, you know, the majority chooses who the rulers are.

That also means we have to respect the decisions that are made, you know, even if they are not the decisions that we would have made. It's also, again, one of the reasons why we are so thankful for the Bill of Rights and such that we have here in the United States that protects the minority, which Christians do well to see themselves as a part of most of the time. I agree. And when you look at Paul, essentially what he was doing when he pushed back against the government. He was standing on his Bill of Rights as a Roman citizen, wasn't he? Yeah. Yeah. And so I look at that and, you know, far as I've lost so much confidence in elections

in general, I, that's where my involvement with the government comes. It's like you have sworn to this objective standard, the Constitution, and you need to abide by it. And if you don't, I'm going to make some noise about this. That's basically my perspective on that. But yeah, it's kind of So when we have this situation and you're a pastor or let's say you're a family even, right? And you've got all these different political issues that come up because we're starting to approach the holidays in just a couple of months here. And people will be faced with this even if it's not an issue within a congregation, but it will always be an issue whenever you get a group of people together.

I had one pastor who said, we're going to make these decisions will be made by me and the elder in terms of the way the building is. I've seen too many churches have church splits because they can't decide on the color of carpet. And so those type of minor things, we're going to make those decisions. But how do you keep the peace when people will tend to fight even over the color of the carpet? Maybe they want a red one or a blue one. Yeah, it's difficult. It's one of the advantages to keeping the practical edge of politics out of the church.

And by that, I mean the, okay, who are you voting for? You know, what's going to be, you know, the party that we like. To the extent that it's possible, particularly as a pastor or a leader, to try to keep that out there while still preserving the ability to talk about issues. And particularly even deeper than issues, talking about the principles that are involved. for instance on pro-life issues. You know, you want to make sure that the people in the congregation understand, well, this is what's at stake. This is why this is important to us. This is what scripture teaches us.

This is what when we look at, you know, what science and the world and history tells us, this is how this applies in this case. And therefore, when you go to the ballot, this is going to influence how you choose to vote. without actually coming out and saying, okay, well, John Smith is your candidate, he's our candidate, he's the one that we're going to support. When you approach it in terms of principles and then issues as applications of those principles, it's a lot harder, you know, not impossible, of course,

because we're all sinful human beings, but it's a lot harder for the individual members to get up in arms about, you know, you're bringing politics into this, or, you know, you're bringing your politics in and it's opposite to my politics. it helps ensure that, you know, to the extent that people engage within the congregation, you know, person to person about these issues, it's done on the basis of those principles

rather than on the basis of what political party you're a part of or what candidate you're supporting. I agree, because if you start to take it to the candidate, now you're starting to talk about personalities and things. And that brings a whole new dimension to it. And we don't want to be somebody, I think, who is focused on a particular person, or person that we start to follow. That's the kind of idolatry, in my opinion. We want to focus on those issues. And if people really understand the core issue,

and if it is something that is fundamental to Christian beliefs, they should understand that core issue. And pastors should not avoid that, right? But if they understand it from an issue standpoint, they'll be able to apply that. And I think that's the key issue. Again, it's as opposed to, well, we're going to have this political party

and we're going to set up a theocracy of something We don't have a top-down imposition of stuff. We need to make sure that people are genuine Christians, that they embrace these principles, that they understand these principles. If they understand that, and if we have a Christian nation, then we will have a Christian nation. But it's got to be Christian before it can really bubble up, you know, out of the heart. The mouth speaks, but it's also out of the heart that the nation turns, I think, as well. Yeah.

Yeah, just, you know, getting into my biography a tiny bit, one of the reasons that I decided to leave, excuse me, leave government service and study to be a pastor, it's something that had been in my mind, you know, for a very long time. But one of the reasons I did that was I realized that if I really wanted to make a difference on so many of the issues that I was concerned about as a young man, the place to do that was at the heart level. I agree. I wasn't going to do it by, you know, getting into politics as a, you know, I recognize that that was not going to be my area where I would serve.

But, you know, addressing it at the heart level of, you know, okay, this is what's important to us as Christians because of who we are, because of what God has done for us, because of what we know about him and his will. These are the things that matter and therefore take this out into your life. You know, this is how you as a Christian are going to bring this into the voting booth and all the other. areas of your life. Today, you know, it's like, how are you going to be talking on social media? How are you going to be, you know, talking to your neighbors? What are the things that you're going to support? What are the things you're going to like and dislike? You know, address that at the heart level first, you know, and the other things will flow from that. I agree. Now, when we take a look at some of the headlines, let's just use an example of this, you've got to, you say,

calm it down when we look at some things. So let's take some. Let's just take the economic news, for example. A lot of people are concerned about rising inflation and cost of gas and food and these other things. Rather than fretting and worrying about that, what is the Christian to do and how do we calm that down? Yeah, it's a good question. First of all, we don't just ignore it. And particularly with inflation, that's something it's hard to ignore unless somebody else handles all of the money and purchasing and such in your house, you're going to notice that. Maybe the chauffeur fills up the limousine. Yeah.

But when you see something that, see, or hear, or read, or experience something that, you know, hits that discordant note, you know, you just say, this is not right. This is not the way things should be. You don't ignore it, but you notice it and you process it and you see it. And then as a Christian, you don't jump to a response. You know, you may say, I don't like this, but you don't jump to a response. right away. Instead, you center yourself as a child to God. You know, you pray about it. You say, Lord, this is something that's disturbing me. I think there's something wrong here. What do I need to know?

What do I need to do? And then that next step would be to assess it. Okay, what do I actually know here? You know, I know that my price, you know, the prices have gone up, but what do I know about the rest of the situation? Do I know why they've gone up? Is this something, you know, temporary or is this, something permanent. You know, what's responsible here? And then you learn what you don't know. That's the, you know, as a next step. Okay, I realized what the holes in my knowledge are. You know, there's obviously something more here. What should I learn? And then once you've got all that, then you measure it against the word of God. You know, I don't think you're going to find much in scripture that directly addresses inflation, although there actually are a few

passages, I believe in Proverbs that condemn the idea of dishonest weights, you know, which kind of relates to some of the... I think Jesus took a chord to some of the money changers. Yeah. But you measure, you know, what you have learned against God's word. Okay, what does actually influence things here? It's like, okay, you know, maybe this inflation is something that's, you know, is just going to happen. And I'm just kind of selfishly upset about it. And that's all that's going on here.

Or maybe there's some core. issue that's really involved here, that this is something I, you know, there are Christian principles that apply to and I'm going to, you know, address, want to address that. And then after you've done all of those things, then finally you move to implementation. And I say, okay, what am I going to do? You make the plan, you know, maybe it's, you know, just how you're going to vote in the next election. Maybe it's going to be the letter that you write to the editor, the thing that you post on on Facebook, you know, whatever it might be. But then whatever it is that you, you act on then as a final trust, which I think is really key for us as Christians and it's too often forgotten, you

trust. You know, you simply say, I've done what is within my power to do. Now I leave it all in God's hands. You trust, you know, the outcome of whatever it is to him. And even if what he ends up making happen is completely opposite to what you thought was supposed to happen, You trust that he's got a plan. He's infinitely wiser than you are, and he's going to work things out because he's got you safe in his hand, and he's looking out for the interests of his church in this world. I agree. That's a great way to put it. And of course, speak to the difference between happiness and joy. We hear that all the time as Christians. You know, happiness is kind of something that happens to you, right, based on your circumstances. What is it that brings us that kind of joy? Yeah, that's actually a topic that has been near and dear to my heart for a long time. Happiness is kind of a surface level thing.

It's not really, you know, it can be affected or by things it can disappear in a moment, can come in a moment. But joy, that's bedrock stuff. And as Christians, you know, our joy is in Christ. Our joy is in knowing that our sins are forgiven because Jesus Christ, you know, took them all away, wash them away with the blood he shed on the cross. That is permanent. That is fixed. There's nothing changing that.

And it's mine. It's yours. It belongs to every believer. That's joy. We know we're going to heaven. We know that whatever happens, he's got everything well in hand and he's looking out for us. We've got that deep down.

Sometimes it bubbles up to the surface. And that's just the most wonderful thing in the world. Other times we're going through. bad things. And just because we're not feeling the joy at that moment doesn't mean it's not there. It really is. It's down deep in our souls. And we look forward to the day when we're in glory, and that's going to be all that we feel. But it's still ours in the present. And we can tap into that at times to help us through the bad times. I agree. And you know, many times, you know, we start to pray to God, usually start with a thankfulness about what is there. And I think it's that

thankfulness, that gratefulness, understanding, you know, going back and recalling the good things that have happened to us in our life, the good things that are happening to us right now, no matter how bad these other circumstances are, I think that is the key thing that kind of keeps us centered. You know, it reminds us that God is good, that he has a plan, and it reminds us that we're not abandoned that he's with us, even in the Valley of the Shadow of Death, isn't it? Right. Yeah, yeah. That gratitude really is key. Keep that in mind. And it helps ground us, you know, spiritually for sure. It also helps ground us politically. You know, be thankful for the things that you have before you start, you know, rushing and grabbing and running after the things

that you think would be better to have. I agree. A quote from you in this book, the feeling of being a stranger or an exile in the world of politics is not unreasonable. The sense of differentness and separation that a believer has is a strength, however, not a weakness. I think it's a great quote. Talk a little bit more about that. Of course, we know that we're strangers and pilgrims in this land. And I guess as we look at the directions that society is going, perhaps we don't have the kind of influence that we should have in the society because we see it getting stranger and stranger in different ways, don't we? Yeah.

Yeah, it's natural as human beings to just want to fit in, you know, and we want to the rest of the world, you know, at least, you know, our little world that, you know, our community to be like us. You know, we don't like standing out, you know, we want the sense that, you know, these are my people and, you know, they're not going to rub me the wrong way. I'm not going to rub them the wrong way. kind of rubs up against sometimes our innate sinful selfishness that wants to stand out. You know, everybody look at me.

But as Christians, we are different. It's simply the reality of things. And if we're focusing on the idea of, okay, well, I want to fit in with the rest of society, that usually means that we're downplaying the things that are essential to us as Christians. Good point. Yeah. In the other approach, the right approach is to be thinking, okay, I'm going to be a witness to the world of a better way. I'm going to be a witness to people who don't yet know Jesus that following Jesus is what they really want. They may not appreciate it.

They may think it's awful or dumb or even evil, but it's not. And I'm going to live in such a way and I'm going to do my apologies. in such a way, that people see that there's something different in a positive way about me. And that's what makes me, you know, it doesn't mean that I have to run as a Christian, Republican, Christian Democrat, whatever it is. I don't have to put that, you know, say, this is me as the Christian, you know, which often then, you know, gives the impression, well, then that means everything else is unchristian. No, no.

But it means that this is the way we live. This is the way we talk. This is the way we engage with the world so that people can see Jesus in the way that we deal with the world. I agree. I agree. Yeah, it is a very, very powerful thing. And, of course, psychologists have understood this. The idea that you want to get in line under authority or the peer pressure that you feel from people around you, both of those things combined, we see those being pushed towards us in media that we consume and in social media and things like that. But again, we don't want to fall off on the other side, do we? We don't want to be intentionally abrasive.

And I've got all the answers, and you don't have. And so that should be tempered with, I think, a humility that we don't have all the answers and that we are not some special, we're not above and beyond everybody else around us either. And so I think that is a key thing. How do we balance that? Yeah, well, one of the chapters in Walk This Way, is focused on, I believe I call it a compendium of Christian character. And it's basically, you know, a survey of what Scripture says about this is the way you are going to be as a Christian.

It's one of the things that I think a lot of people just kind of take it for granted that they know what it is. And we tend to think, well, the way I am, that's the Christian way, which has things very much reversed. in terms of the way you should be thinking about it. And so it's just a survey the various areas of Christian life. And, okay, this is how you are going to be as a Christian. And then I don't get too deep in the weeds on it, but I encourage the application of, okay, what's that going to mean for you when you engage with politics?

You know, if you mentioned being abrasive, well, where is being abrasive going to come off as a, Christian virtue. It's not there because it's only going to be turning people off. And if people are turned off to you by your behavior, that means they're also going to be turned off to Christ whom you represent. I agree. And no matter what sphere of life you're dealing with, that's not something that any of us is going to want as a Christian. I agree. Yeah, I think there's some moral principles that are there that we drive that stake into the ground and we're not flexible on that. But then on other things we need to be a little bit flexible and giving, as you pointed out. We don't want to

come across as though we have everything figured out, and we are absolutely perfect. And so there needs to be that devotion to the truth and these core principles needs to be tempered, I think, with humility. And I think that is a very difficult thing. It's easier to say than to do it, isn't it? Absolutely. Absolutely. Well, it sounds like a very interesting book. And you've got some wise advice in this. Again, we're talking about the name of the book is Walk This Way by Jeff Samuelson. And let me give the subtitle here. Political Engagement for Bible Believing Christians. And that's where we want to bring that back to. Thank you so much for joining us, sir. Very good discussion. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. And if anybody's interested in

finding out more, you can find it at my website. It's jeffsamelson.com, S-A-M-E-L-S-O-N. And it's available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble and just about any digital format that you might be interested in. It's a release on October 6th. And we've got your name up there under your name key there. I might have been saying Samuelson. I apologize if I did, but it is Sammelson, S-A-M-E-L-S-O-N. And at Jeff Sammelson.com is where you'll find information about that. And do you have a substack and things like that they can find at that website? I have a newsletter. It's completely unrelated right now to the topic. It's called Five Star Monday Mornings. And it's basically just some stuff for Christians to start off their week in the best way

possible. That's great. That's great. Well, I'm sure people like to see that. Again, they can find that at jeffsamelson.com. That's S-A-M-E-L-S-O-N. Thank you so much, sir. And again, the book is Walk This Way, Political Engagement for Bible Believing Christian. Christians. Thank you. And good luck with your book. It sounds like a very important topic. One would be very appropriate for the times that we live in right now, especially. Thank you so much. Thank you. The common man. They created common core and dumb down our children. They created common past to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future.

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

Please share the information and links you'll find at the Davidnightshow.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. The davidnightshow.com.