The David Knight Show - Interview: Minnesota ICE Killings And The Echos Of Ruby Ridge

Episode Date: January 30, 2026

Libertarian author James Bovard draws chilling parallels between the federal killing in Minnesota and Ruby Ridge, warning that the same playbook—lies, suppressed evidence, exaggerated threats, and absolute immunity—is back in force. Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

Joining us now is James Beauvard. You can find him at gembovar.com. He writes for a variety of outlets and has for many, many years. He is a libertarian, or we can say a classical liberal, because that's something that Stephen Miller's wife doesn't seem to understand. That's the same thing as, of course, there's a lot of things that they don't understand, aren't there, Jim? But he had a very interesting op-ed piece on mezes.org.

The latest federal killing in Minnesota echoes Ruby Ridge. And I think he's really right in a lot of different ways. We're going to talk about how it is similar to that. You know, if you're around at that point in time, that should be etched indelibly into your memory, what happens, Ruby Ridge and Branch Davidians and things like that. But even at that time, a lot of people were not really following that very closely. And of some of the people who are following it,

I think they've forgotten the details of it. they certainly have forgotten the lessons of it because there are a lot of parallels here in this. And we need to learn those lessons so we can stop repeating these things over and over again. Thank you for joining us, Jim. Hey, thanks very much for having me on. And thanks for not forgetting about Ruby Ridge. How could I? It's amazing.

Gary Spence did a great job in that trial. And again, what an interesting character he is in terms of defending Randy Weaver. And, well, not defending him, but in terms of getting. some compensation for him, but you can never compensate really for what he lost. Let's talk a little bit about the parallels. But tell us, you put up a tweet that really went viral about this, which is the basis of your article. I guess it's why you decided to write the article.

You had a lot of people take exception to you drawing parallels. Exception, yeah. I mean, you know, with their pitchforks and tors, yes. Yeah, it was interesting. If you go back to folks who were politically conscious in the 1990s, people who were skeptical about government power, both liberals and conservatives and libertarians, Ruby Ridge was a rallying cry for what happens when the government is off the leash

and when federal agents have a license to kill. As federal judge Alex Kaczynski said, the Ruby Ridge case, you had the federal FBI snipers were given and basically a 007 license to go out and kill people. Yeah, that's right. The basic rules of engagement were if you see the adult meals outside the cabin, kill them, you know, no warning or anything,

even though they'd never fired upon the federal, they never fired upon the FBI. So, but. And we've seen that over and over again. I talked about how apparently with this absolute immunity, these people are all 007s. So I said, I don't know, maybe that refers to their IQ. Well, I had that impression.

I was wondering about that with some of the feedback I was getting. It was interesting to see the absolute instant hatred for drawing a parallel between what happened at Ruby Ridge and the killing of Alex Preddy in Minneapolis last Saturday. And it was funny. It's been a while since I had that much visibility. on Twitter, and it's interesting how the standard insults have changed because now it just seems like about 40% of the response that were just like, you're a retard. Yeah, exactly. Or OK, boomer.

I'm thinking, is this the best you can do? I know. Is this the best deprecation you have in your arsenal? You are retarded. And then you try to go back and forth with these people. and then they start flinging the F word in every direction. And, you know, I like George Carlin. There's a time and a place for the effort.

It can be effective. But when you're just kind of, when this is all you have, it's like, you know. Well, they don't even know what deprecation is. They'd have to look that up if they could even smell it. Oh, yeah, yeah. So, yeah. So the most common report was retard. And the second most common report was Boomer.

Oh, that's it. Yeah, boomer, yeah. Okay, so I know how to read. You know, there was some guy who kept attacking me, and he was making such ignorant comments. I finally said, you know, maybe what we need is a go fund me drive to get you hooked on phonics. You go to get the software program. So he can read.

That didn't seem to make him happy. So, you know, I tried. I tried. That's great. There were other folks that said, you know, good luck with your grammar. You know, because they were just, if you're going to call someone a retard, you should be able to spell your entire sentence correctly, you know. Otherwise, it kind of boomerangs, you know.

It's not a good look. You reply to them, okay, boomerang. There you go. So what was the tweet? What exactly did you say in the tweet? Oh, that's a good question. Let me pull it up here. I've got this reopened.

it was interesting. I'd first commented on the on the Ruby Ridge thing first parallel on

late Saturday and then I was getting so much hostile feedback. So what I did this is an article in the parallels in both cases the feds suppress evidence brazenly

lied about what happened, exaggerated to the threat to federal agents, and offered bizarre justifications for their killings. Yeah. And that is, let's see. Yeah. And we can start out. We could add to the, on my list, I made a similar list like that. The needlessly aggressive use of force, which seems to be a hallmark of our government

anymore. Yeah. And that was, that was a point, you know, that I made in the Macy's article on. how the latest killing echoed Ruby Ridge. But it's interesting because you have so many people who are conservatives who understood after January 6th, 2021, after the Biden folks came in and vilified everyone, every Trump supporter who'd been in the same zip code as the U.S. Capitol.

That's right. And tried to ruin their lives. And you had the FBI formally classifying all these January 6th, cases, 800 or more of them as terrorism cases. That's right. Because someone walked into a government building. Yeah. I talked about that.

And one in particular, I think one of the most egregious ones I saw was you had a couple of elderly guys that were there and they had their middle aged, one of them, middle aged son. And they walk up, the doors are open going into the Capitol building and they got a couple of cops here and said, is there a restroom around here somewhere? Yeah, sure. Go right in here. They go in and use the restroom.

And that's all they did. they come back out and as they're getting ready to go back out the same way they came in there was a female cop and she says no no no go this way she's pointing trying to get them to go onto the floor of the Capitol building trying to trap them and and they did charge them because that's why that came out was because they actually wound up charging them with that you would think that they would have a memory of that and a perspective of it but they've got like the the memory of a fruit fly it's absolutely amazing they don't they can't they can't understand these different principles and the similarities that are there. And that's a big part of it.

It's a big part of the group think that's there, the tribalism that is there, is that they're going to go through the fine-tooth comb and they're going to identify how this person over here was a bad person. We've got an ad hominem attack and they're not part of our tribe. So it was justified. That's basically, when you peel back all the layers of this onion, that's what it really gets down to when you see this rabid response that I've seen from a lot of people on social media. Yeah, it goes back to what historian Henry Adams said 100 years ago. Politics has always been a systematic organization of hatreds. Yeah.

And, you know, it was, it was, it was, it was intriguing to see the push button hatred after the, after the protester got killed. Mm-hmm. And to see, and it was. It was funny because I was posting stuff on Facebook and then on, they're on Twitter. And so late on Saturday, I said, well, you know, there was a TV station there in Minneapolis. I think it might have been an ABC station that said that actually, if you look at the video, it looks like the federal agent had taken away the guy's gun before he was shot.

And oh my God, you would think I had just made the biggest heresy in the world because the outrage. How could anybody say that? And it was like I was, it was like I was trying. It was almost like we were supposed to think that federal agents had somehow performed a miracle by saving everybody from getting shot by this guy. Like it was, Stephen Miller or was that Bobino? I think it was Bobino who said,

the agents did a really good job because they stopped this guy from killing police. Yeah. And I'm thinking by that standard, they could kill everybody. a demonstration. Well, you know, it really has, that's one of the things I remember most about Ruby Ridge and then about Waco as well, was how people lined up as to whether or not they liked

David Koresh in his group. If they didn't like him, oh, yeah, do whatever you want to to him. You know, I'm a Christian, and so I looked at that and I saw these people that, well, you know, we don't like this guy. We think his theology is aberrant and they do weird things in their church and stuff. So, yeah, yeah, go after this guy. I'm not part of, I don't want to be associated with them. And so they basically were cheering the incineration of men, women, and children.

It's like, what in the world is going on here? But of course, you see that now over and over again, like you point out, it's the systematic organization of hatred, you know, which is. Yeah, and it was the same thing with Ruby Ridge. The part of what happened is the feds were very quick to vilify their victims. being the Randy Weber and his wife primarily. They had some bad ideas and in the writing that I did about it. I was very careful not to say, well, you know, maybe they've got a point.

No, no, no, no. I mean, these are bad ideas, but then there are a couple people out there who think that I have bad ideas. That's right. So, you know, I don't want to give the feds a license to kill people with bad ideas, but this is what a lot of the people who want the government to fight extremism, this is what it turns out to be. People have different ideas than you do. They say, well, you know, got to take them out.

You know, I mean, it's hard to have free speech if someone's hateful, and what's the definition of hateful disagrees with me. So, but we've seen that ever since the Clinton administration. And of course, you know, when we look at, The way people responded first to the killing of Renee Good. What I noticed was the Maga people came out and said, oh, she's LGBT and she was part of an organization that got some Soros money or whatever. And it's like, okay, well, you do realize Scott Besson is part of that LGBT movement.

And you do realize he got a lot of Soros money, didn't he? He worked as a partner with the guy for a long time. And yet, you know, they're completely blind to that because now this guy is, he's whitewashed, he's baptized or whatever because Trump picked him and he's working with Trump. And the same type of stuff, if you equated Ashley Babbitt to Renee Good, which I think was a good comparison because they were both shot at point blank range when they were no threat to anyone. And yet they came back and it said, yeah, but look, you know, she's, I don't like what she did with this or what she says about that.

I don't like her lifestyle or whatever. So again, it's the demonization of this kind of thing. And now we've seen it. They kept digging and digging. It took a lot longer for them to find something on Alex Prattie. But what they were able to find on him was a BBC video where he got into a fight with some Border Patrol agents or something like that. I don't know if you've seen that or not. That went viral yesterday.

Yeah, I haven't watched all of it, but I've seen it. So here's my thought. He kicks the tail light out and it's like, okay, but they didn't kill him that day. and would that justify him being killed that day even? And he wasn't doing that the day that he was killed. It wasn't doing anything like that. Yeah, there was a story that I wrote that came out on the day before he was shot that said, look, I mean, you have protests, you're going to have assholes.

Because there's almost always people who behave like assholes of protests. And the same thing if you've got police, you're also going to have a holiday. That's true. That's true. So there's an interesting point here on the, looking at the, um, at what,

uh, Alex Prady did before he got shot. So we don't know the names of the two federal agents who shot and killed him. And I would be very interested to see what their records were. Mm-hmm. If they had, uh, you know,

a record of abuse of force or if they had shot somebody else before. Right. Or if they were new hires. Yeah. So, I mean, this is, this is a real big this is something which comes up in in big cities if some cops shoot someone

especially if the cop has shot people before and especially if there was any kind of pattern to the cop's killings or shootings this is this is very germane to making any kind of judgment but the Trump people have decided we have no right I mean I don't know when or how federal agents got their right to kill anonymously. Yeah, that's right. That's right. But this is what it is at this point. And it's funny, but I mean, it's kind of a variation of what we saw a couple months ago. There was a lot of controversy initially about how our war department had done a second hit on the survivors out there near Venezuela.

and, you know, it was, there was video of that killing, and I guess it was being seen on Capitol Hill. Then all of a sudden, our secretary war, Hegson comes out and says, well, of course we can't make that public as confidential, it's got this and that. And it's like, you know, so it's a license to kill. Yeah. But the thing is, you know, he put out and bragged about their shots against these boats in the past. And I said that about the, this was, I think, wasn't the circle back where they killed the shipwrecked people.

I think that was the very first strike they did. And I said of the video that he put out proudly, I said, that's criminal. That's an act of war. They didn't interdict that. There's clearly processes for them to check people, if they suspect them of being drug dealers. And again, I don't agree with any of the war on drug stuff.

But they have their own rules about that, and they violated all the rules. Well, and it's interesting trying to figure out, if there's laws or, you know, constitutional rights that the Trump administration is going to recognize and uphold. Yeah, for anything. Yeah, I mean, because it's, you know, trying to understand what went down in Minneapolis. I mean, it's amazing that the first response by the DHS, by Bovino and people like that, was like, well, people got no right to know their names and we're going to shift them out of the state so they can't be held legally liable. by Minnesota officials.

It's like, where did they get the right to kill in Minnesota? I mean, this is not a recognized federal right. But there again, it goes back to Ruby Ridge, and you had the FBI sniper who killed the mother holding your baby by the cabin door. Yes, I'll never forget his name. It's been burned in my memory. Lon Horiucci.

That's right, yeah. And you had the Janet Reno, and the Clinton Justice Department and the Clinton, President Clinton, moving hell and high water to block any prosecution by the state of Idaho of the FBI sniper, even though a confidential Justice Department report said that his shot that killed Vicki Weaver was totally illegal and unjustified. That's right. Yeah.

Recount some of the details about Ruby Ridge because it has been a while for people, and even people who were following it at the time, You know, there was a lot. At the time, the internet can be both good and bad. But I got to say that, you know, when Ruby Ridge happened and then when you had the very long standoff there with Branch Divideans, it was a bit difficult to get information because the only thing you could get was mainstream media, whitewashing of stuff. And we did have a bulletin board that I was a part of at the time, but there was no internet, right?

So people in the area were getting information and putting it out. And, of course, it wasn't verified. but of course we knew that the stuff coming from mainstream media was verified BS. So it was interesting to look at these things in real time. But go back and recount some of the things with Ruby Ridge that you see are parallels to what's happening. Okay. Well, I'll start giving a thumbnail Ruby Ridge here. It started when an undercover alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, ATF agent,

and trapped Randy Weaver into selling a sawed-off shotgun. It was a, then on August 21st, 1992, three U.S. Marshals dressed in ninja outfits and with face masks, ill-ligally intruded on Weber's land, and ambush Weber's 14-year-old son and a 25-year-old family friend Kevin Harris. The marshals fired some machine guns at the, at them, and killed the boy's dog, a firefight ensued a U.S. us marshal was killed as a boy was running back home towards his family's cabin a marshal a marshal shy him in the back and killed him yeah yeah um what and and it was a big issue then in the justice department confidential report was that the marshal service never separated the different marshals who had who had killed the boy and been in the firefight and gave them thereby giving them a chance to create their own

cover story, which was later proven to be completely false. But so the marshals gave a storyline to the FBI that made the FBI panic. The next day, FBI snipers arrived. Within an hour of them taking position, every adult in the Weaver cabin was either dead or severely wounded, even though they never were fired a shot at the FBI. You had FBI sniper Horiucci shot Randy Weaver in the back as he stood outside his shack, and then fired a shot that killed Vicki Weaver by the cabin door as she was holding her baby. Now, the FBI initially said that they were justified in killing Vicki Weaver

because she'd been in their front yard firing at the FBI helicopter. That was a complete scam, and that fell apart. And so once that story fell apart, the FBI said they killed her accidentally. Yeah, yeah. That sounds like Christine Holmes thing. the agents were stuck in the snow and they were attacked. Oh, yeah, yeah. They're just making this stuff up, the contempt for everybody.

It reminds me what Jake Tapper just said to one of these guys, the guys going on about what happened with this Alex Pready thing. And he goes, you do realize there's video of this, don't you? Well, and that's the only reason why we've got a chance at hell of getting the truth on this. Because if you think of the initial storyline that the Trump, Trump top officials put out on the Alex Freddie shooting, he had his nine millimeter pistol out and he was assaulting law enforcement. And they were, you know, he was there to massacre them.

And, you know, to the New York Times credit, you know, within an hour of the Trump top officials saying them, you know, New York Times were saying, you know, actually there's videos that show something completely different. And so many papers came around on that quite quickly. but you had the Trump people claim to this absolute nonsense version that would whitewash the federal agents who killed Freddie. And it's like, okay, if you're going to lie so brazenly, why should we trust you on anything?

That's right. That's right. Exactly. Yeah, it is brazen. It is arrogant. It's an insult to our intelligence, isn't it? It is my saying. Well, it is except for people on Twitter. Yeah. Because a lot of them you really can't insult their intelligence.

Because they're just, you know, it was like, you know, but, you know, but Stephen Miller said this. And, you know, it was like it was handed down from Mount Sinai. Yeah. And it's like, well, no, actually, you know, it's, that's, that's, that's not what happened.

So you're calling them liars. Well, you know, use your word. Yeah, that's right. You got a better word than a liar? They were grossly mistaken. Yeah. But so the, an interesting thing with this was that there was,

there were a lot of people in the Just Department who were very unhappy how it went down at Ruby Ridge. And there was an internal investigation that came out with a 500-page report. The government kept that secret. And early 1995, FBI chief Louis Free

does a press conference and announces basically whitewashes all the FBI policy makers and the snipers for the killing of Vicki Weaver and everything else that happened in that case. So a couple days later, I did a piece for the Wall Street Journal

called No Accountability at the FBI. A couple weeks later, Lewis Free attacked me in the article in response he wrote to the Wall Street Journal. And so, you know, it was funny. There was a friend of mine from Argentina who had done some work with. And on the day that the Lewis Free letter condemning me came out in a Walser Journal, he calls it and says, well, I just wanted to say goodbye because, you know, he's from Argentina.

He figures, you know, I'm not going to be around very long. And I said, oh, you know, I can't imagine the federal officials ever doing anything improper like that. But we're starting to approach that point, perhaps. I don't know. There you go. But so I kept digging, and I eventually got a copy of that 500-page confidential report. And I wrote about that for the Wall Street Journal. I also wrote about the case for Playboy and American Spectator.

And I think my stories... Let me interrupt you a second. How did you get that 500-page report? I mean, did they give that up with a FOIA request? No, no, no. They did not give it up with the FOIA. I was going to say, I wouldn't think they would, yeah. No, look, it was not given up, okay?

Okay, you found it through some alternative sources. Well, I came into possession. Okay, there we go. How about that? That's the way you put it, yeah. We'll say it like that. But, no, it was... Pentagon paper style.

And having that report, it just completely destroyed the entire storyline the feds had created going back two years or more earlier. And it made a mockery of Lewis Free's claims. And they finally suspended some officials at FBI. And the top official of the top official of the... FBI violent crimes and major offender section pled guilty was sent to prison for destroying evidence on the Ruby Ridge case. Oh, I didn't know that. I didn't think there's some details I didn't know. That's good. I'm glad somebody went to jail for something. Yeah, it may have been the evidence that

he destroyed would have showed that Long Horiucci intentionally killed Vicki Weaver. Or maybe it didn't show that. We don't know because it was destroyed and the cover up was successful. And they gave him a metal, didn't they, Lonhoriuchi? I don't know, but there was a story which I did... Accommodation or whatever, yeah. Maybe, I'm not sure, but what the Marshal Service did

is wait until, you know, three and a half years after the Marshals there killed Sammy Weaver and then gave their highest valor commendation to the marshals who had been at Ruby Ridge in early 1996. and I wrote a Wall Street Journal story about that. There was a lot of pushback among some of their editors,

but that's a different story. But, no, it was brazen that they were, it was it was a Wyatt Earp, who was a U.S. Marshal? I don't know. Someone like that. He was a movie consultant. Right. I mean, I'm not, I'm, it'd be kind of rude to stop the interview

do an internet search and Google search. So, no, but so it was utterly brazen, but, and it's just, it's just interesting to see how many lies. I mean, lying and killing goes together like ham and eggs. Yeah. Oh, yeah. And you have that with the federal agencies, like you have it with the mafia. Yeah.

So, and, um, well, certainly somebody's going to kill somebody as serious as that crime is. They're going to lie about it. And, uh, yeah, and so that's what we see when the government, does it? You know, it's kind of interesting. We talk about the situation in Venezuela. One of the things that I've said is that, you know, Madison said the weapons of defense abroad always become instruments of tyranny at home. And I think that applies to their attitudes towards killing people, their attitudes towards war, whether it's foreign or domestic. I think once they have crossed that Rubicon in their mind like they did with Venezuela,

It's just a matter of time before they start doing it domestically as well. And I think it's kind of amazing, too, when you look at Border Patrol and immigration control and all the rest of the stuff, they're so focused on their political border, but they don't think there's any boundaries whatsoever in law for what they do. So these are people who say, yeah, we've got to have borders and so forth, but there's no boundaries for us. I mean, Trump has even said that. You know, he was asked that question. He had no problem about saying, well, no, I don't think there's any restrictions that I have any rules. and international rules or laws that I need. I'm constrained by my morality.

Oh, that was so comforting. It was just, I mean, there are so many things which Trump says, which are just, you know. Yeah, that was a golden moment. You know, that's kind of like Nixon saying, well, when the president does it, it's not illegal, you know. Yeah, but it's going back to those border patrol agents and the ICE folks, I mean, it's almost as if we, that those federal agents need to have absolute

power in order to preserve the American way of life. Yeah, yeah. Except that the American way of life and federal absolute power, it did not use to go together. That's right. Well, we just had that a week or two ago. We had some Israeli billionaire named Slow Mo, and he said, we're going to have to destroy the First Amendment to preserve it, right? So we've got to destroy the rule of law in order to have America.

We've got to destroy the Constitution and everything else, right? That's the logic behind what these people are telling us. Yeah, I mean, and some of the Trump actions on freedom of speech have been appalling. Oh, yeah, yeah. Same with a lot of the other things they've done. But it's just part of what's fascinating to me on going back to the parallels, the Ruby Ridge and the killing on Saturday, what were their rules of engagement for the DHS agents?

There was a video I saw online. Bobino was talking to the agents, giving them a pep talk. And he was telling him, if anybody touches you, then, you know, take them down, arrest them. You know, just, you know, do maximum penalties for him. And this is the same attitude. Christy Nome said something similar that if somebody, if some protests or mentally touches you, boom, that's assault, so and so forth. Well, you've seen the videos of these, a lot.

the federal agents being super aggressive with people. Yeah. Throwing them down, bashing them, assaulting them, spraying their face for no reason with the pepper spray. I mean, this is such an absolute disparity in standards of conduct. You know, how are people supposed to be free when federal agents have their right to beat them? That's right. I remember years ago there was a protest at Berkeley.

I don't even remember what it was for. And you had all these people that were, you know, setting cross-legged on the ground. and you had this fat cop go along with pepper spray right in front of their faces just spraying them and that outraged everybody and rightfully so it's like what are you doing that for and yet you know we have the same situation happening now with these ice agents there's that one picture where they had this person pinned to the ground a guy puts the spray can right in his face or her face and sprays them with that there was another one after the shooting of rene good i've played that multiple times a video I've played multiple times on the show

where you got this guy going around kicking they put on they chalked up the sidewalk with her name and things like that and then put some candles there and you probably saw that he goes on kicking the candles over the guy said what are you doing what are you doing do you know who you and the guy gets right up in his face

and and you know gets like about an inch from actually hitting him with his body says get back get back get back you know keeps pushing him back just thuggish schoolyard behavior. It's just beyond belief. Trying to goad the guy into touching him so he can go off on this guy. He and all the other ones around there, it's going to be a gang bang if he just lays a

finger on this guy. And he's doing everything he can to provoke that. And we've seen them coming up to people knocking phones out of their hands because somehow it's now a rule that if you are photographing the police, which you have a right to do, Supreme Court has said that over and over. I believe it's the Supreme Court. There's been multiple court cases. I don't know if it got up to the Supreme Court or not.

But you have a right to film the police. We all know that that should be there, whether the law says that or not. But they come up to people and threaten them, threaten to put them in a database, knock the phone out of their hands, and all the rest of this stuff. Yep. The Trump DHS has been very explicit that there is no right to videotape federal agents in public.

To videotape them, even when they're wearing masks, just to docks them. And that is considered to be a crime, and the federal agents are entitled to use force to shut that down. And as you mentioned, there have been a Supreme Court has not made this explicit, but there have been a number of federal appeals court rulings that said, look, you know, people have got a right to videotape the police in public. I mean, there's a certain point where the videotape could become too aggressive or too interfering.

But, I mean, there are, you know, there's lots of the Trump supporters who would like to have a five-mile zone of no cameras. Yeah, I guess are they going to go around, Jim, and are they going to arrest Flock and Amazon for the ring cameras and stuff? Because we've got cameras everywhere in our society now, whether you like it or not. And most of us aren't wearing mask when that's happening as well. Well, and it's interesting how you have, you have got two sides here. One, you've got total secrecy for the feds. They've got their face masks. Nobody's got no agent's got a name.

People got no right to know the name of the agents that killed somebody. On the flip side, you've got total surveillance. You've got these agents going around and sticking cameras in people's face. in saying that their face and name will be in a database now. Yeah, yeah. So the terrorists or whatever protests or database. Somebody does that to me. I tell them, spell my name right.

Let me give it to you just in case. Oh, yeah. I mean, it's kind of late for me to worry about being in those databases. That's right. You know, their society, I guess, Jim, we could look at it. Their model for society is a one-way mirror, right? You know, where they are on the opposite side of the mirror. You know, you look at it and you don't see them at all.

You only see yourself that's there as they're putting you in the databases that are there. But you're not allowed to see anything they have. Yeah. And it's important to keep in mind. Donald Trump has often said he's going to make America great again. But he never says he's going to make America free again. That's right. Or make America constitutional.

And Trump's idea of American greatness seems to be focused on the presidential power. Yes. Yes. Yeah, he's going to make all power. He's going to make America a monarchy again. Well, and what's appalling to me is you've got so many conservatives who are cheerleading for that. Yeah. I'm just thinking, are you that historically illiterate? Exactly. But to ask that question is to answer it.

Yeah, what are you trying to conserve at this point? You know, we've had the terms neocon. We need to come up with something for the Trump cons or something like that, which says that they don't adhere to any principle. of individual liberty or economic liberty or the rule of law or whatever, that's a Trump con. We're just here for loyalty to Trump because that gets us jobs. It gets us money. That is the highest freedom. Yeah, that's right. That is the highest freedom, having the opportunity to obey Donald Trump's orders. And it's like, and it's unfortunate

because Trump has some good ideas. He's had some good policies. I had a story in New York Post last Sunday on Trump's talk about banning the red light cameras. and the speed cameras in Washington, D.C. I mean, those things are an absolute menace. They cause so many accidents. They've killed people. I didn't see that he said that. I would agree with that, but I don't think that he'll do it.

I don't think that he'll do. Trump had not said that, but if someone in his transportation department has proposed to ban those cameras, and it's a great example of how the government can be a scound rule, because what happens is you have those, red light cameras put in, and in order to maximize revenue, what they do is shorten the yellow light. Yeah. Oh, yeah, absolutely. And then cause a lot of accidents and fatalities.

So. Yeah, I agree. Yeah, I was surprised because I thought, wait a minute, does Trump ever even drive a car? You know, this is one of the things when you see Scott Best. No, no. I mean, and this is, so. My chauffeur has complained about this. This is a fascinating angle on it, too, because I see. that Trump has had bodyguards going back for the last 30 or 40 years. Oh, yeah, sure. And his absolute

contempt for Second Amendment rights of anybody going to their protests is supposed to disarm and put themselves at the mercy of the feds. I mean, this is such... And you can see that with that other elitist billionaire, Scott Bessent, who gets a free pass for working for Soros from the Maga people for some

reason. And when he's saying, you know, I can't imagine anybody taking a gun to a protest or whatever. And it's Like, he says, I've been at protests. I didn't take guns. I thought, I said to my wife, I said, they were probably protesting Bessent. That's a good point. That's a good point.

Probably I get by Wall Street or something. Yeah, I mean, I've had the experience of being a protest where there were guns and protests where the guns were banned. And it's like, you know, it's life. It's life. I mean, guns are part of the American way of life. And it's also a symbol of American freedom. That's right. Yeah, I've said this multiple times on air since he said that. I said the safest protest I was at was a protest at the Alamo where they were trying to get the carry laws changed in Texas. And you had hundreds of people with rifles slung over their shoulders and police left everybody alone. It's a great deterrent to violence.

Well, this is it. I mean, it was fascinating to see the absolute panic by the federal agents as soon as someone. It says, gun, gun, oh, we got to shoot him 10 times. Yeah. I mean, that was an absolute disgrace. Yeah, that's right. They were beating the hell out of this guy who they'd knocked to the ground, unjustifiably, and then they panicked and killed him. Yeah.

And it's like, how in the hell anybody can uphold that kind of behavior or see it as a model or say, yeah, but he was a bad guy because he voted for Tim Waltz, you know, whatever. I don't care. That's right. And I don't care about what happened in that video from the BBC that was released on Wednesday, went viral on Wednesday. I really, that's not relevant to this particular case.

First of all, I said, look, you can see the gun is stuck in the back of his waistband there in his back. It's like, yeah, and he didn't pull it out, right? So what's the deal? This is the point. They didn't kill him either, you know? So if they could deal with that, then. Yeah, it's totally appalling to see Trump talking as if it,

anyone, anybody with a gun should be presumed guilty, especially if they've got a second magazine. And how many bullets do the cops carry, you know? Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, well, I was at the, I was at the Bundy Ranch standoff there on the ground. Oh, that was a great one. Yeah, it was. It was a big win. Because what was good about that, it wasn't just a protest. They had a specific thing that they wanted. They said, we want the cows back, you know, so that stole from us. And so it was very interesting. But one of the things that came up in the aftermath of that, when they came after several

people and sent some of them to jail, they had a picture of a guy who was up above on the on the road, trying to present him as a sniper. And he was down, this is one of the protesters' side, and he was down behind this concrete barrier there, you know, road barrier. And so was a woman behind him. him. And so in the court case, I said, so why is the defense attorney, they were trying to make this guy out to be the aggressor and the only threat that was there? And the defense attorney says, so why were you bending down and said, sorry, you can't ask that question, you know? Obviously,

he's hiding behind the concrete barrier because they were threatening to shoot us, right? And they said, you can't ask that question. Well, and there's a, that's a case I wrote about for USA Today. And it's fascinating a crux of that case and part of the reason there were armed people there was the Bundy's feared the FBI put snipers around their house to kill them. Yes. Oh, they did. It's just like happening at Ruby Ridge. Yeah, they did.

There was actually some of the guys there cleaned out a sniper's nest one night there. Oh, that's interesting. Yeah. Okay. I wasn't aware of that, but I know there was a federal judge. Her first name was Gloria, Hispanic lady. But so the feds, I think in their retrial of maybe the Bundys themselves, the feds finally admitted that, yes, they did have snipers around the land

or the home of the Bundys. And so there was a real threat. Whereas what the Obama people had done was trying to betray them, and then the Trump people as well in the first term, is to betray those protesters. as just kind of complete liars, uncrustworthy troublemakers, because they were saying

there were FBI snipers around their house. And of course, that's nonsense. But when it finally came out, the federal judge was so furious, I think that she just threw the entire case out of court. That's right. They would have hung all of them. I mean, you know,

if there had been, there was a BLM agent who became a whistleblower. Oh, he was great. He was great. Yes, a Mormon guy. If it hadn't been for him, that judge would have railroaded it.

because they did already send several people to prison for long prison sentences. And I didn't follow up on that to see if they got a pardon with it or not. But basically with the whistleblowers information, she realized that they'd been lying to her, and that got her angry. And so she acquitted them with, you know, prejudice or why. So they couldn't come after them again. But she had been really rough in terms of shutting down obvious questions like that. You know, why is this person hiding and crouched down behind a concrete burial?

And other people who didn't have guns were doing the same thing. And it was simply the answer is because I was there, heard them yelling, get back, you know, disperse or we're going to shoot, you know, and they had their guns pointed at us. Wow. Wow. Well, it's pretty amazing. It's good that it's good that didn't make you lose faith in the system.

I didn't have any faith in the system to start with. So, yeah, I didn't lose any more faith in the system. Well. No, I don't have any faith in the system at all. That's a That's great Well, tell us what you're up to And I see a book there in the back

Last Rights Is that a recent publication that you have? That's the most recent book I've got Last Rights It's an update of all the different Government crimes and abuses I did loss rights over 30 years ago And Last Rights is how things have gotten a lot worse

Since 1994 when the loss rates came out Yeah, we're scraping the bottom of the barrel now at this point, aren't we? Well, there's a lot of good examples to write about, but I don't know how much good it does. So I'm, I've got the books. I've got, I write for various think tanks, Mises, libertarianists,

to accuse your Freedom Foundation. I do stuff for New York Post. I do stuff for some magazines. I've done some stuff recently for reason. So, you know, here and there, just trying to help. also keep positive cash flow. And again, when you look at somebody who I've never seen more open contempt for the First

Amendment than Donald Trump, I think he's surpassed Richard Nixon on this. The $10 billion lawsuit that he's got against Wall Street Journal that you've written for. Oh, amazing. Oh, yeah, I mean, Trump and his lawsuits is like $10 billion because you said I sent a birthday card. Yeah, and then they show it. Here's the freaking card, okay? Well, yeah, but, you know, but I'm still suing you. It's like, I mean, there's, this is called slap suits.

What's the, it's an acronym? Strategic lawsuit against public participation, I think is how the acronym goes. But Trump has done that so much. Oh, yeah. And as some, I mean, okay, I mean, one of the things was most astounding I think Trump was suing 60 minutes because of how they edited an interview with Kamala Harris.

I know. I know. And you had the White House press secretary threatening a massive lawsuit if was it CBS did any editing of Trump's interview or with them recently. It's kind of like, so editing

is now a crime or what? Yeah, don't do any editing. Yeah, everybody has to do editing. I mean, the you've got a time slot that you've got to fit this into. Yeah, I mean, if Trump was smarter, he would realize he needs an editor as much as anybody. His good Lord, you know, going on for two hours,

it's like he's inspired by Fidel Castro. That's absolutely right, yeah. So you got your ticket yet for the Melania premiere that's going to be today. If you buy a ticket, you can have a private screening because you'll be the only person in the theater. Well, this is going to be interesting. I mean, I hope that there's not a war to distract how the movie does badly.

Well, it's kind of interesting. You know, we're talking about the lawsuits about don't talk about me and Jeffrey Epstein, things like that. Because they threatened a lot of people, Melania did, with lawsuits as well as Donald Trump. And I think it's going to be kind of interesting what happens with Michael Wolfe, because they had threats of lawsuits for people who were repeating what Michael Wolf had said, essentially about Jeffrey Epstein. And I thought, well, why don't they sue him? He's the one who is a source of this information.

So they threatened him with that. And he said, okay, that's it. I'm going to sue you. So he's kind of kicked that off. It'll be interesting to see how that develops. I think we'll get more information out of that than we will out of any of the Epstein documents that are setting on Pam Bondi's death purportedly. Well, it's so brazen that the Trump folks have got total contempt for disclosure, contempt for federal law, contempt for their president's own promises,

and the top law enforcement officials promising. And it's like, okay, it's almost as if they have decided that they don't need any credibility with most Americans and almost all the media because they're so powerful or they're so wonderful or that they can get away with anything. So it's, that's Nixon like in a way, as you said earlier. Yeah, yeah, it is. Absolutely. Well, you kind of got his start with Roger Stone, who's got a tattoo of Nixon on his back.

And that was one of the things that I thought was me. I worked there at Infowars for a while and, you know, Rogers got that tattoo of Richard Nixon. How does that square with the idea of being libertarian? I never could figure that one out. Well, yeah, I mean, it's, I won't, I'll not. ask you any questions about a former employer in his position on the shooting. Oh, yeah, exactly. Alex Jones. It's been disgraceful. I tweeted about that. I got a lot of people angry at me because of what I said. I said, I can't believe I ever worked for this guy, but he completely flipped on the

police state. I mean, he did documentary after documentary about the police state. Now he is all cheering it, you know, as well as foreign wars. I mean, he's just, you know, money talks, I guess, and we can kind of assume who's paying him, you know. Wow. It's a. Truly, it's amazing. Well, it might pay off his next libel lawsuit losing. Yeah, that's right. That's right. Well, Jim is great talking to you as always.

And again, the book is last right. That's your most recent one. And people can get that anywhere. Books are sold, I'm sure. And they can find your website, which will have, I guess, links to any of the articles. Since you write for so many different outlets, they can go to gembovar. and find your op-ed pieces there in your articles. That's the best place for them to find you, right?

Yeah. Hey, thanks so much for having me on. Thanks for your kind words, and thanks for keeping up the fight. Well, thank you. And thank you for all the work and the research that you have turned up. I've done some very valuable research with that. Thank you, Jim. Appreciate it.

Have a good day. Well, that's it for today's broadcast. This is my grandson here, and we're going to all try to stay warm. He's got his special penguin suit. I want to thank everybody who has supported us this month. We're at about 75%, but we're going to go by this afternoon Friday and check the PO box again, and we will update the gas gauge to let you know where we wound up. Hi, Karen.

I see you. But thank you so much for joining us. Have a great weekend. And again, be careful with all the ice. Goodbye. The common man. They created common core and dumbed 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 is 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.