The David Knight Show - INTERVIEW Pandemics & Protests — What Are They REALLY About, and How to Handle Them

Episode Date: May 10, 2024

Guest Gard Goldsmith, LibertyConspiracy.com joinsIs "Pandemic Treaty" (and IHR) a treaty? What's the best way to fight it?Local resistance rises to the "Pandemic Treaty". What will it take to nullify it locally? Jimmy Stewart's "Shenandoah" and DostoyevskyWhat is GeoSpatial IntelligenceFree Speech and No-Fly punishment for "campus protestors" — is this EVER a valid punishment?…and moreYou can listen to LibertyConspiracy LIVE Mon-Fri 6pm on Rokfin, Rumble, Twitter (@GardGoldsmith) and Sunday News Assembly on Substack at gardnergoldsmith.substack.comFind out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf 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: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

When you're not weighed down by high interest rates, life lightens up. MBNA TrueLine MasterCards have low interest rates on balance transfers and purchases to give your finances a lift. Find the credit card that's right for you. Visit mbna.ca slash TrueLineCards. Give your finances a lift. All right. And joining us now is Gard Goldsmith, and of course he has Liberty Conspiracy. He's got a Liberty Conspiracy website.

You can see him on Rumble, on Rockfan. He's just telling me he's giving YouTube a chance to see what happens with that. Good luck. And of course you can find him on Twitter at Gard Goldsmith. Thank you for joining us, Gard. Thank you, David, and thank you for being just such

a stellar supporter and uh personally for me i i can't say enough good things about you thank you so much thank you that's really kind and i i didn't mention the fact that he's got a sunday news thing that you can subscribe to uh wrap up uh it's an excellent piece uh you you do a great job of putting together uh several important and uh a lot of important things that not everybody picks up on you know stuff that i don't see there i see in your sunday wrap up that's uh so i would suggest everybody subscribe to guard's sunday wrap up as well or what is it exactly that you go it's on your sub stack right yeah it's on the gardener goldsmith sub stack and i call it the sunday news assembly sort of you know reference to church that sort of thing getting together and i'm

assembling the news there okay all right that's good um yeah so i would suggest that to everybody so what's on your plate what are you thinking about here well first i'll just mention uh to do this sunday news assembly over at the substack i was actually inspired by you because before you and I were in contact, when I was working on that Marxism documentary for MRCTV, I would tune into you every morning and I would be writing down stories that you were covering. I was like, what's that website? I got to get to that website. And then I would send those story ideas to the editors at MRCTV and they would say, oh, this is great. Wow, you're doing such amazing investigation.

I was like, oh, okay, fine. So there you go. You are my AI. You are the AI. I'm a chat DK, right? Yeah, we're here all the time. Yeah, absolutely. Every day, it seems like.

You know, and I wanted to, you talk about different stories that are out there, and I'm so glad that you have been talking about the WHO situation, because it's been very confusing, especially over the past week or so, to find out where they were backing down and where they weren't. And Daily Skeptic has been a very good site for that. And as you mentioned, James Roguski, hats off to him. Literally, in interviews, giving out his phone number and saying give me a call we have to stop this just uh just very admirable admirable uh things to see and i was thinking about that um uh the bird flu scare you know the bird flu pandemic and it just made me think of one flew over the cuckoo's nest with a twist on flu it's just a homonym rather than the same word you know it's medication time it's soon going to be medication time and the

nurse is going to ratchet this whole thing up into a pandemic if we don't watch out yeah it is it is interesting too because uh economist robert higgs would talk about the ratcheting effect and you really nailed it so well um his book crisis Crisis and Leviathan, and he has a sequel to it. He's done a lot of work for the Mises Institute, one of the most admirable people. He's got a terrific speech for a Christian voluntarist like me. He has a great speech at the Mises YouTube channel called The State is Too Wicked to Tolerate or something like that. And he goes through so many of the things that it does and how it seeps into people and that's one of the things that ratcheting effect

nurse ratchet it's perfectly apt because they establish these things they come up with the mcguffins i was going to wear my mcguffin t-shirt by the way i have two um but they come up with these mcguffins and then they hand out all that money and it's it's so important to try to get the local people as you say what was it uh 22 ags are going to be standing up against this saying we will not comply and as much as the federal pressures and the handouts of money are so key uh if you can really stress that to people on the local level and say, look, your political future is not dependent on taking money from Washington that you're not supposed to take. That's right. You have an obligation to your locality. As you mentioned, you know,

we've got the lesser magistrates. That's a very important point going back to Runnymede. And I think it's important to remember this heritage that's been handed to us and and they they've destroyed federalism in so many ways through this you know these tentacles of federal hands out handouts of money but at least it's worth trying and i think we're seeing some some movement there so that's good i agree yeah here in tennessee um you know so much of this stuff has run through the schools and it's run through the schools because of the money they give to the schools. And so you've got some state reps have tried to put through a thing saying, we're going to pull back and not take any education money from the federal government. That's going to be necessary. You're going to have to do that. And even beyond

that, you have to do that as a parent. You know, as a parent, you have to say, well, I'm not going to take the free school because it's not free. You're paying for it. But I'm not going to put my kids in that government school and just accept the responsibility for their education yourself and not have this pressure that these people try to put on you that you have to conform to whatever they decide education is going to be. I thought it was a very good exercise for us to get away from that as parents when we go to Barnes and Noble or something like that.

And they would have these books that, you know, what your first grader needs to know, what your second grader needs to know. And we just go there, Karen and I would go there and we'd sit down and say, yeah, we should tell them about this, but no, we're not going to tell them that. And this we're going to directly teach against we'll teach it and we'll we'll deconstruct it for them you know so i mean you need to take that kind of mindset i think and take control of your kids education and and say i'm not going to be bribed i'm not going to be bullied by this stuff and i'm not going to be

blackmailed and i'm not going to care what this society thinks now if they come they come in and say, you've got to, you're going to mandate this legally. Now you've got to get involved. But right now there's not a legal mandate that you have to do the homeschooling thing. So that you can't do the homeschooling thing that you've got to do government school. So as long as that's not there, take that freedom and run with it, you know, and don't, don't get caught up in saying, well, yeah, we want the government money because we want to have our kids in sports or we want to have our kids in band or something like that. Do it yourself.

You know, don't let yourself be set up into that. And I thought it was really surprising that they would start to try to do that at a state level, but I think it's very encouraging. Well, you know, getting back to this WHO thing, as James Roguski has pointed out, they love to muddy the water and confuse people. It's one of the reasons why they started with these two different things. Because you would say, well, we don't want to do that. And this is what the so-called pandemic treaty wants to do. Oh, well, it doesn't say that at all. What they don't tell you is that that's in the IHR, in the international health regulations that it's in. And so they play that shell game, you know, moving it back and forth.

And so a lot of different things that they're doing with it. But I think people are really, really wised up to this, even though these government officials don't want to go back and relitigate any of these obscene crimes that were done against humanity. They still a lot of people look at this and say nope you're not going to do that again uh you know they may be willing to let this first thing slide and i think that's unfortunate but um they i think are starting to pay attention at least a sizable minority of people are paying attention to this and and saying never again so i think that's a very healthy thing yeah and you know david in my work for for MRCTV, and I know that in your work, we observe these things. You mentioned the bribery and the bullying, you know?

So you've got the carrot and the stick, really. You know, it's a manifestation of the same thing. And this is a time when, even though I'm feeling satisfaction with what I'm seeing, I realize that even in expressing that I'm feeling some satisfaction with that, that could inspire people to say, okay, the danger is past and it's not. And that's it. We have to supply and every generation has to constantly supply pressure to say, is this a treaty? Did you swear to the constitution? Are they going to try to do this through the regulatory means of bribery and bullying? Because if they are, let's look deeper at the Constitution and find out whether those things are valid or invalid based on their oaths.

And I'll give you a great anecdote, David. When I was teaching at a school, it was a charter school, and they had a meeting. And they had their attorney come in. Every teacher had to attend. And they said, the lawyer said, okay, you must conform to Title IX. And in fact, I was relating the anecdote on Liberty Conspiracy live the other night at around about 10 minutes after six, I probably just jumped into this thing. And I said, so I'm sitting there and all the staff is there. And the attorney says,

you've got to conform to Title IX. You've got to be careful of what you say you know your words and i was lucky in fact in your chat earlier i was lucky i was mentioning that when i taught my classroom was actually in the library so the librarian who was very pro-liberty was always there to watch what was going on so i always had a witness if somebody claimed that i had said something bad or you know gone off the rails in some way, he was always there. It was great. It was terrific. And by the way, he's a listener of yours, by the way.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. He's a great guy, great guy. And so I'm sitting there, and this man is saying, you know, you've got to conform to Title IX. And if you don't conform to Title IX, then the state could run afoul of getting education funds, even highway funds. So I raised my hand. Yeah, nobody else is responding. And the name of the school, I'm going to say the name of the school, it was called the Founders Academy. And I raised my hand and I said, excuse me.

He said, yes. I was like, well, considering the fact that we are sitting here at the founders academy and it's supposed to be about the founding fathers and so on of course they wouldn't allow me to uh criticize lincoln and they say oh no you know this is the founders academy i said he wasn't even a founder he stood against everything the founders stood for except well he founded the modern state i guess the centralized modern states i guess he was he's the ultimate founder now he yes he refounded it he did the great reset on america that that was yeah yeah that's for sure you make me think of the film shannon doa again what a

fantastic film and thank you for creating that music to go with that video clip what it's my heart it was oh i love that movie i love it i love that i love that movie i love that song too oh so good. And the way, just as an aside, the way they set up Jimmy Stewart's character, because he's in between. He doesn't want to be with the North, and he doesn't want to be with the South. He wants to be with his farm and his family. That's right. And it's, you know, as a person who's anti-state, the way that they set it up to draw him in to have to deal with this and then as he tries to help his son it is just a

fantastic fantastic story about personal choices whether one takes revenge or doesn't take revenge whether one sticks to christian virtues it's phenomenal so much in it you know it had that relationship thing there where he's talking to his future son-in-law you know yes yes wasn't that patrick uh patrick uh wayne was that patrick wayne yeah i think it was john wayne's son yeah yeah that was a he was the one no no actually that was uh doug mcclure but patrick wayne was in it you know he was already married at that point in time that's it yeah but uh yeah that was that was really insightful they had jimmy stewart play this really grumpy guy that's not like jimmy all, right? Not Jimmy Stewart's usual character.

So he was really kind of gruff and angry about pretty much everything. And he had a real chip on his shoulder, perhaps because his wife had died with God, you know? And so he starts out saying, oh, well, thanks for the food, even though we planted it, we grew it, we harvested it, we cooked it. But thanks, nevertheless, you know, that type of thing. And then it wraps up with his son, who he's given up for dead being given back to him and it was just and he and he gets it and he and they meet at church you know that was uh and so it had so many different aspects of it that were really it really was a wonderful film uh unlike anything you'd see today yeah that's so true i mean me, it reminds me almost of

something that Dostoevsky would do, you know, with crime and punishment or something like that at an Americana level with the Civil War mixed in. It was just beautiful. And it's not that he's a criminal or anything like that, but he has to learn and express himself and understand God's power. But yeah, so the interesting thing is when I asked that question at the Founders Academy, I said, since this is the Founders Academy, can we just note that this money is not constitutional? And the lawyer, he nodded. He said, well, you're right. But that ship has sort of already sailed. That's how I get paid.

Right. Yeah. So I said, are we on the SS Titanic? Because I'd like to get off. Thank you. But it is interesting. And I think to fight these sorts of connections is very, very important. And they have the advantage because they've got the central bank.

Yeah. So they, you know, they already shell out so much money that they're dangling these little treats over everybody. And, you know, just on a moral level, whether I'm successful or somebody else in another state is successful, at least we did the noble action of speaking up. And if we don't do that, future generations won't do that. So every opportunity speak up. That's right. You have to do what you know is right. And, you know, even if the world is going to end tomorrow and you know it, you've got to plant the tree today. You know's yeah that's the key that's the attitude you're going to have i think i got a a comment and a tip on rumble about what we're talking about here junk silver thank you very much uh writes should we all stop calling

this who nonsense a treaty are we being tricked into giving this thing legitimacy by using that term what do you think guard yeah uh absolutely uh because well first of all any connection to the united states government with the who that uh is any in any way the under the un and the treaty signed with the un those break united states constitutional parameters all over the place so any original treaty signed with the united nations are bogus in the first place and people should recognize that. But the World Health Organization, and hey, as much as I'm critical of Donald Trump, at least for a little while, and maybe he was throwing people a curveball, at least he was not going to fund the WHO. Maybe it was all for political purposes to try to buy into things, get people to buy into him as somehow authentic for freedom but uh it's

it's not it's not technically a treaty per se and even if it and of course the health regulations what they're doing is they're revising regulations already agreed to so i don't know how that even works how can you say okay well years ago you agreed to these regulations now we're going to revise those regulations and you don't even have to agree to the revisions they're just going to stand that's insane that's absolutely crazy oh yeah and um they you know they even if even if you're using a an app you know they change the terms of service and you've got to click yes as if you read it which we never do right right Right. Right. Right. And so I think by changing that, we call the terms of service. Here's what I think about it, though. Yeah. I kind of lean towards calling it a treaty.

And the reason I do is because that gives us a mechanism to shut it down. And I really do think that an argument could be made that it is a treaty, because even though it's being brokered by a non-governmental organization a third party you know who or the un or whatever what they're doing is they're bringing all these they're brokering it right but you do have all these countries that are signing on to it and and so then the question is so are we signing on to a treaty with the un with the who or are we signing all together coming together and signing onto this thing that was presented by them i think that that's the argument they will make and that's that's where it gets fuzzy for me and that's that i was going to ask you because i i look at this as a new treaty that they're putting out and and this is where again it gets

very slippery because if they're going to be putting it out as a treaty, then it should be put out as a new treaty with the WHO and the United States Senate would have to approve. The president would have to bring it to the Senate. They would have to approve. So I honestly can't answer that. that i don't know whether they're going to be presenting it as a real treaty or it's going to be one of these accords like the paris climate accords where they're going to try to implement things through the regulatory structure and that's an excellent question and i wish i wish i could answer it better but i just i just don't know um look at nafta for example right nafta north american free trade agreement uh we have the paris climate Agreement. We have the Paris Climate Accord.

We have the pandemic, they call that a treaty. But when you look at these different things, you look at NAFTA, for example, that's US, Mexico, and Canada. That was a treaty, even though they called it an accord. If you look at the arbitration process that was agreed to by the three nations that is um uh they have treaty lawyers who put that together you know so the people who would represent you know corporations had legal uh parity in that abomination uh the corporations had legal parity to the uh to the governments or whatever and and so um they they could go to arbitration and uh the people who had represented either party any of these parties were called treaty lawyers and so i think when

you've got agreements between sovereign nations that by de facto is a treaty and i think that could be used to our advantage because if you look at the paris climate accord uh the argument going back and forth in the trump administration rex tillerson who was an environment who was one of the climate alarmists uh and ivanka were saying no no no don't do anything to it and then there were people that that was the one area where for a year or two he had somebody that was good and that was in charge of the epa that scott pruitt had been a state attorney general and he had fought a lot of the EPA encroachments. And so he had better people that he had in the EPA thing. Of course, it shouldn't have existed.

But given its existence and given the fact they're not going to get rid of it, the next best thing was that they had some people there who were going to fight a lot of this agenda. And they were telling him, no, you must get rid of it. And so what he did was he said, all right, I'm going to get rid of it, but I'm going to get rid of it after the election, after the 2020 election, which he did. He said, well, this is, you know, this was something that was an agreement that was entered into by Obama and Kerry. They self-ratified this. I'm going to undo it. And then immediately within a month or two,

you have Biden coming back into it. But Trump left it in for the entire four years. And so it was being used as a legal excuse to say, well, we must do this because we've got these goals that we've signed on to. So therefore, the regulatory apparatus has to do these things so we can meet those goals. So they have the effect of a treaty, but they never had a vote and they should have had a vote. McConnell never called a vote.

And Steve Malloy, I had him on. He was talking about the fact that we're trying to put pressure on it. Say, call a vote on this thing now before you're out, because we knew that they were losing their majority in the Senate. But they never would. And Mitch McConnell was put in in 2015. For most of that time, Mitch McConnell was the majority leader of the Senate. And there wasn't a single senator who ever suggested that there should be an up-or-down vote on the Paris Climate Accord, because they would not have made it. And so I think that it's a good thing to say that we're going to have to have a vote and do it. But the real power is going to be at the state level.

And if we've got 22 attorneys general who are going to fight it at the state level, I think that's a very good approach. Absolutely right. And I think as you bring up, David, you know, if it is and this is sort of one of the reasons when you first address the question to me, because I am not really sure based on, you know, the viewers question. I am not really sure. And I think I would love to talk to James Roguski to find out whether this is going to be put forward as a treaty and treated that way. And one of the things when you and you've brought this up numerous times, that behavior of Mitch McConnell is extremely revealing when we look at the Paris so-called climate accords. Because, you know, with all their machinations inside and the ways that they can do things in their various chambers, even not allowing something or allowing something to come out of a particular committee, you can really see the way these guys stand and how deceptive they are. They're perfidy of these people. And so just as far as the character of Mitch McConnell goes, right there, you've got it.

You've got it in a nutshell right there. It's a perfect example. He's part of the whole yeah he's on board with a global agenda and that which is on board with all this climate change i got another uh question here this is from uh andromeda on rock fan uh thank you for the tip and he asks what is the definition of geospatial intelligence well geospatial geospatial is uh like looking at where things are on a map so what it essentially its core thing is to map people's political and religious ideology and to uh to analyze first of all to identify them you know what type of person is this religiously politically secondly to put them on the map and as of that, they look at relationships that you have with other people.

So they start making hops out there and assumptions about other people that are there. You see this with some of the geofencing stuff. That's kind of one small aspect of it that's not the full part of it. But, you know, when they started reporting about all the people who were who had financial transactions in and around Washington on January the 6th, Bank of America did that. But even more importantly, you've had situations where the police of a crime was committed somewhere. They would go to the cell phone companies or they go to the cell phone, you know, people who would have that information and they would say, give us the information, give us all the people who were in this area at a given time.

Now, that is really unconstitutional. It is a warrantless search of a lot of different people. It exposes people to jeopardy when there's not really any basis to say that they participate in the crime. So it is a big dragnet. They've had a lot of court cases where people have challenged that. But geospatial intelligence is one way to identify people's political and religious beliefs primarily, but they can look for other things, but primarily it's those two things and then to map it out. And they're really doing it with an intention to anticipate what these people are going to do in the future and do it as a political weapon.

You know, that's the key thing about this is part of the politicization, you know, to censor people, to put them on a list and all the rest of this stuff. It is kind of similar to what you see with the geofencing, except it's extensive i hope that answers your question i don't know you would you add anything to that guard yeah no i think you you say it very very well and of course as an engineer you understand uh that this and let me know if i'm putting words in your mouth but i sort of view this as it's uh data collection political propaganda psychological engineering and uh so that's the end goal is the engineering, but you need the data collection beforehand. And then you want to get into some, they try to get into some sort of predictive templates to apply their propaganda to start to shift people's psychology. And it's very clear what they try to do.

And they've been doing it, of course, very successfully in the school systems for decades and through the media. And I think one of the greatest manifestations of it is how you see Chris Cuomo still holding on to this idea of, well, you know, at the time, I, as a reporter, was, you know, I was fine. You know, sure, Joe Rogan was right about ivermectin. Sure. But that's not the that's not the point it's like no actually it is the point there buddy that's the point the point is yeah he was right you demonized him and you demonized him not because you were a reporter but because you are a propagandist and you got fed information and even now you're trying to claim that the

position you had back then was totally understandable while it wasn't because some of us actually researched this stuff that's right some of us yeah and and there were doctors thousands of doctors losing their licenses losing their entire careers well that man and by the way i even mentioned on my show my nephew works for him now at that one news whatever and he seems like a pleasant guy but you know he's come grudgingly one step but he's got a lot of steps further to you know maybe somebody could talk to him and say hey you kind of missed the boat there and and you need to give these people a little more credit because uh they were right and i hope you admit that you were wrong and you were wrong because you were lazy and you took this information

scott adams who holds himself forth as a sage and uh raconteur uh dilbert cartoonist and he says well okay these people just got lucky nobody could have known that that was a yes we could we all knew we knew we knew the history we knew what these people had been up to for the longest time and there wasn't any doubt about it we had the data we had the history we knew what was happening we got it exactly right and you were going you were exactly wrong you were calling us uh freedom lovers who are nothing more than sociopaths yeah there's a bit yeah there's a bit of a conceit uh for both of those those men and and i've seen you know i've seen some things that scott adams has done and some things that chris cuomo has done and you say okay look if i were in a room with these with these guys i'd try to say hey

you know i just think that there's some arrogance there that i hope you can get off that platform a little bit and at the time it was happening i was very upset uh with scott adams for saying that sort of thing and i think rightly so so many people were really taking risks in their lives and to say well well yeah you know you were right, you got lucky. No, no, they were really taking risks with their churches, with their careers, and they were right. This was persecution, and you don't just blindly say, well, okay, well, look, bygones be bygones, I was wrong. It's sort of like if you're dating someone and they do something really,

really terrible, and they say, oh, well, yeah, they don't apologize. And it's very hard to forgive a person when they just say, oh, yeah, let's just forget all about that. You're like, no, I'm citing you for wrongdoing. Do you have a response? You know, it's too bad, you know. Oh, yeah. And I remember the time that he did it. I respond to him.

I said, well, it's getting harder and harder to tell pragmatists from totalitarians because he was trying to present himself as a pragmatist but he was actually supporting totalitarianism you know we were not being sociopaths we were not putting anybody at any risk to anything there was no risk and we knew that there was no risk but getting back to one more thing i wanted to say about the geospatial intelligence one way that you can think about it is surveillance and tracking but of course not for a disease but because of your political religious views and they justified this kind of stuff because hey we have to look at religion and things like because we've got all these islamic terrorists there but then they change it to people who are christians for example right just like they take

the rico statutes which were an abomination, they put that in there to come after organized crime. And then what do they wind up doing very quickly? They use it against pro-life demonstrators. So they will come up with this type of thing saying, we've got to have surveillance, we've got to have tracking so we don't have another 9-11. And then they use that against their political enemies. Because as far as they're concerned anybody that is a

dissenter to them is a disease we are a pandemic we are a virus just as the climate people say human race is a virus that's going to kill mother earth gaia so yeah that's uh what that what that is really about it surveillance and tracking to uh to to really attack uh those of us that they like to label as extremists and terrorists, if you speak up at the school board about what they're doing. And, you know, David, if I could, one final thing to sort of tie that back into the WHO treaty. You know, you were one of the only people I know, and I was on the air, I was on the radio in New Hampshire, trying to fight this in New Hampshire against the model state health emergency plans um around 2005 2006

they pushed this in new hampshire and it ties into you know the overconfidence that one might have in possibly and again i don't know whether they're going to put this forward as a treaty or you know it looks like they're going to put it forward as a treaty but will it be treated as a treaty i don't know will it be part of an existing treaty? Will nation states have to sign on to this, see the president sign on that will have to be approved as a treaty? I don't know. Then you've got the revisions, the international health regulation revisions. So that's the second prong of their pitchfork there. But if we look at the model state health emergency, model state health emergency model

state health emergency plans that were promulgated from Johns Hopkins and push forward in almost every state after around 2002 2003 to about 2007 one of the things that I think is really important is even as people talk about state sovereignty or you know loc, locality sovereignty, that would, that could be depicted as, well, our state has this, our governor has this, this control to say, literally, they could go into farms or go into pharmacy shops and, and seize all, all those shops, all the material in those shops. They can stop gatherings of X number of people. So then it takes a second level, at least on the constitutionalist side,

to say, where do these things either comport with or destroy the concept of the Bill of Rights and the enumerated powers in the Constitution? On the federal side with the enumerated powers, the Bill of Rights, because very clearly, most of those aspects of the model state health emergency health plans breach so many aspects of just the Bill of Rights themselves. I agree.

And I think that's a very important thing. Jay and Jessica contacted me and said, you know, we need to start doing something to roll back these model state health emergency power plans. And I agree. I think that's really where the rubber meets the road. That's what they had to, you know, that's why Trump bribribed the governors so they could do that and do this with the public health things and I think if we went back and we showed people what you're talking about how how these rules and these laws are put in at the state level how they're antithetical to human rights antithetical to our liberties and to the rule of law and the Constitution.

If we did that and started repealing these things, that's really, I think, always has been the crux of the matter. And that's why they put them in 20 years ago and let them kind of sit this so we can build a grassroots movement to rip out this Model State Health Emergency Powers Act, because that is foundational to all this stuff. And if we were able to get the Model Health State Emergency Powers Act removed, that would go a long way to doing what we hope some of the state officials, the state attorneys general and things like that would do. But we can do that at the local level because they've already because of the bribery and

everything, they've already shown you that they don't have the power to do this from the federal government. So we stop any powers that they were able to stick in at the federal level. That'd be, I think, really the best thing that we could do. And we could do this as a grassroots movement, I think. Yeah, and I wouldn't want to, you know, sound like I'm posing a great effort, you know, setting up as being overwhelming for people or anything like that, but, you know, it takes these multiple levels of effort, I think. You know, I don't want to be presumptive for other people, but to say it's going to take

work, you know, it's going to take work. It's going to take work of making connections with local friends, going to your churches, and not backing off when you say, I need to educate people if I can on what the Constitution stands for. I need to get either myself involved in the political sphere just to get the expressions out there. And there's nobility in this struggle. Even if you fail, you're getting the education out there because it starts with locally educating people with a constant, constant barrage of if you believe that the Constitution

is the set of rules for this nation state and the states within it, then we on a local level are going to look at what does the Fourth Amendment say? Does the Model State Health Emergency Plan comport with that? What does the Fifth Amendment say? What does the Sixth Amendment say? Can you seize this property without due process? Can you block us from gathering at this church? No, you cannot do these things. Can you even send inspectors in to look unless you think that there's a crime no do you have a warrant no all these things they're extremely and they're in the end they become satisfying i think because you gather with people and you say i'm stepping

in a tradition that was handed to me by people and you know you know as as i say i would even prefer to go back to the um to the articles of confederation because i think the articles of confederation were much looser than the united states constitution but they did say yeah they did say anybody who's entering these offices you've got to swear by this constitution so that means that if we want these politicians to abide by these things we've got to be really up on what the Constitution says and express that and tell people about that, because that gets it into the zeitgeist. And they can't, you know, even if they get around it, at least we've spoken up. You know, I agree with you. People need to understand that it's unconstitutional.

People also understood instinctively that it it was unethical immoral and illegal uh you had people saying sorry you got to do this or that or you can't do this or that it's like uh this is the law no it's not the law you don't have a you didn't pass a law telling me that i got to put a mask on my face this is a rule that somebody has come up with uh typically some public health official so how do we short circuit that? Do we take it to court? And do we make the arguments that this is unconstitutional, it needs to be overturned and make that argument in court? Courts are really kind of I always talk about the courts, especially the Supreme Court is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get, right? They are very

politicized, these courts, these judges. And so to me, that's kind of like a crapshoot, you never know what you're going to get when you take it to court. I think we ought to try a different approach. I think what we ought to do is go back. It shouldn't be too hard to identify these things. I mean, it'd be a lot of research that, you know, honestly, I don't have the time to do it. I'd have to change things around significantly to do it.

But if we started something, if anybody started this, they should be able to identify some of this model legislation in your state. And then guess what? Other people are going to see it in their state as well, right? Because we're all following this model. If we can start to identify these things and attack these things individually, I think we get at the very foundation of it without going through these corrupt courts. Because I think the justice system is just garbage. And even if you've got a good court at a local level, these people will appeal it up to the

corrupt Supreme Court or a corrupt federal appellate court. And so I think the way to do it is to shine the light on these rules. Talk about, excuse me, talk about the fact that it isn't, we're not saying this is a slippery slope, you know, something likely could happen really bad. We can point to how they used it in 2020 and say, it's already been done. You want to stop that from ever happening again? You take away this power out of this model legislation. This thing right here, this is what they hung themselves, you know, what they hung their authority on to do this kind of stuff. And I understand that it's not constitutional, but let's remove their excuse.

I think that could be very productive. Yeah, you know, David, you remind me of a couple things. First of all, that makes me think about free speech and the debate over these college campuses and, you know, the protests and so on going on there i just saw recently uh marcia blackburn and she's good and bad you know she's all over the map uh she's got a proposal now to put college protesters on the no-fly list and you just say to yourself look first of all there should be no such thing as no no-fly list you've got no due process you're punishing people that it runs contrary to the fifth amendment the sixth amendment and the eighth amendment okay so marcia you swore an oath to that document okay marcia marcia marcia marcia marcia you're

hitting us with the football come on this is ridiculous you know yeah it is just amazing and and then we've got um other instances where if you look at the way things break down, when the state takes more of this power, it starts to create more instances of the tragedy of the commons, which, you know, when I'm teaching economics, I try to tell people, if you don't have private property control over something, you're going to get everybody arguing over how that thing is being used. So is it going to be a baseball park or is it going to be a nature preserve? Well, the government runs it. So now the people want the baseball park to argue and they're all paying taxes. So they all have some valid claim. And then are you going to have to parse and break it down to say, well, this person paid 10 times more in taxes.

So his voice should be heard more. And then you get into Marxist arguments about, well, the little guy's voice is now being suppressed. It becomes ridiculous. All government entities remove the ability of individuals to be able to value for themselves how they spend their lives, how they spend their money. And so if we look at these college campuses, we have people like Stepanek calling in the heads of the universities.

She's got a major problem with the president of UPenn, Harvard, and so on. And she's doing it again now with the chancellor of the New York City schools in Brooklyn, I think it is. She's calling him in and saying, well, they were saying terrible things about Jews in the hallways. He says, well, actually, we have no record of that. There's no evidence of that in any way whatsoever there was an investigation that but that's the superficial side of it nobody questions the idea that a washington politician is calling in the head of a local school in new york to say somebody in your hallways might have said something bad about a Jewish person. How in the world did we get to this position where that stuffy politician can do that and not actually bring up the question of, hey, here's an idea.

Maybe a person living in New Hampshire or Alaska shouldn't have to be bothered with that. Maybe there's a bigger problem and it's you imposing your will to take my money and my future progenies money to pay for a school in new york and now i should have some say over it maybe i should not how about that and that's exactly the problem it goes with the college campuses as well because even though these college campuses are private they become de facto public places when they're taking this government money. And you see Hillsdale College and Grove City College, they ran into that situation too. They originally were taking federal money. They would take federal grants and things like that.

And the feds said, you have to conform to Title IX nine you have to have equal sports teams for women hillsdale said my brother was going to hillsdale hillsdale a few years after the supreme court case they said we can't do that we can't afford that nobody goes to the women's things we can't afford all these equal sports for women we'd love to do it but we can't so then the that they the fed said they said okay we're going to stop taking federal grants then the feds said of course well if you have any students who are getting federal money it is a de facto subsidy from the federal government because they're choosing to give you the money we gave them so you still have to conform to title nine so grove city and hill still said all right we're not going to take

any students that get government government loans nobody questions the underlying misassumption which is that the government should be handing loans out for universities that's right and then you get the carrot and the stick and the strings and it's all and so that gets into this this question i mentioned on the program a lot called unconstitutional conditions and unconstitutional conditions the one of the best examples of this generally speaking if you look at like um the cornell law site or any of these law sites where they, you know, have easy reference to Supreme Court dockets and things like that, the concept of unconstitutional conditions,

the majority of Supreme Court cases on this have ruled that the state government, the federal government providing you and the state government providing you with some benefit does not allow them to say in an ex-ante fashion, if you're going to take this benefit, you must give up a constitutionally protected right. housing case where and that housing building was actually uh the the tearing down of it occurred a number of years ago and it was under michelle obama's she was attached to some state thing when they were back in illinois years ago back in chicago chicago welfare uh project cabrini yeah yeah yeah exactly and so as you probably are aware that a little little child a child was killed in a drug thing out in the parking lot and so the uh it was a section 8 housing and so they said okay if you if you are as a poorer person are going to take this section 8 housing you are going to have to be open to no knock drug searches in your apartment there's you know aclu

got involved and things like that and uh you know as spotty as they are most of the time uh but in this case they said no you know um you can't tell them that they're going to have to give up a supposedly constitutionally protected right in order for them to get the housing. In order for them to get unconstitutional subsidies. I know. Exactly. It's absolutely amazing. You know, it's amazing. And it is a real mixed bag because I think ideologically or intellectually, the same way when we look at corporations, you say, what exactly are you, you're asking for something from the government. this status. So it's very tricky. And a great example of this, they found in favor of the

plaintiffs. They said, no, you can't do this. But if you look at Hillsdale and Grove City, they said these are unconstitutional conditions. They found in the other way against Hillsdale and Grove City. And I think if they were to apply it to the TSA at the airports, which by their nature, every second of the day, they're breaching the Fourth Amendment. Many times they're breaching the Sixth and Eighth Amendments because they're taking things without due process, making you put stuff in trash baskets and things like that. I don't think the Supreme Court would find against the TSA and cite unconstitutional

conditions there. I think they would be very selective. And I think also, if you look at the universities, that's a very tricky thing, because if you've got pro-Zionist supporters at, let's say, I went to Boston University, and I often mention my last name is Goldsmith, but it's not Jewish. So a lot of people thought I was Jewish at BU because it's like 85% Jewish there. So if I were to be leading a protest in favor of the palestinians and the occupied territory i think by definition occupied territory ought to tell some people something uh say you know duh uh but if i were to there be there in protest if i were on the college campus

and some pro-zionist people wanted to be on the same exact plot of land well they have just as much right under the because bu takes federal money so how do we work this say and this is one of the things where robert higgs says the state is intolerable as an anarchist i try to say when the state tries to manage things like let's say you have free speech rights okay you got to write the free speech and this i won't even go into how it's actually supposed to be up to the states and it's only congress shall make no law as you know that's true um and they had speech laws and religious uh schools for for decades after the constitution but if if let's say you know uh just on the theoretical level i've got a right to free speech well i can't go and

sing in a courtroom because the person on trial has a right to due process so how do those two comport they don't so the state managing these things always makes it such that if you actually dig down this is one of the reasons why you know i try to talk about voluntarism and anarchist philosophy if you really look at the state the state does not work properly so i would be willing to at least go with the decentralized federalist system that says smaller spheres of control where these problems arise, at least you can work them out better. If you're not satisfied, you can get away. The larger the area of control, the more often these problems are going to occur. And we're seeing it now. Universities, thousands of miles apart from each other, or hundreds of miles apart from each other,

running into the same problems. You should be able able to have choice you should be able to go say this is a private university i i do like their policies here i don't like their policies here i'm gonna go or i'm not gonna go and that's it and other people shouldn't have to worry about it well again it comes back to the fact they're going to have this anti-semitemitism awareness monitor. They don't monitor anything else. They continue to fund it. And it always comes back to the money. You don't do what we like, we'll take the money away. But when we look at what is happening, you pointed out, you know, Marsha Blackburn wants to, you know, put people on no-fly lists.

And then you got also here in Tennessee, Andy Ogles, who wants to take the people who were, if you're convicted of some of these activities that they're doing on campus now, then they transport you like you're in Australia. Ship you to Gaza, make you do six months of community service in Gaza. I think that kind of qualifies under unusual punishment. It may not be cruel, but it is unusual. But, you know, it's not about what it's about is it you know that's always the situation these uh what is the real um thing the mcguffin that they're out they got all these different mcguffins but it's not about free speech right and it's not even about anti-semitism what this is about is about these politicians finding some

way that they can get in front of the group and it's like oh I got a way that I can please you okay this is a pack and this is the Israeli Lobby that's here in America let me do this and then you can you know if you like me they're going to send me lots of money because they do that right and right it's about them drawing it to coming up with these ridiculous things that are setting very dangerous precedents that are against the law against the constitution because they're trying to curry favor with apac and other big donors that are out there and that's what this is really about it's not about free speech it's not even about the violence on campus it's about pleasing these people because we've had these

protesters who have been violent they've been racist they've been hateful to other groups a lot of times it's just that we don't our group does not have uh the kind of influence of congress that the other group does and so uh that's what it is it's about them uh you know virtue signaling to a group that's going to give them a lot of money and they're coming up a very dangerous precedents that are going to be used against all of us and this stuff about putting people on no-fly list that is a star chamber process first report that i did when i went to info wars was a guy who got stuck in hawaii and he was on oh i remember that yeah he was on he was going to visit his wife who was in the military and she's in stationed in japan and he's flying on a military plane and he goes across you know he's he's fine going across america then he goes from california to to hawaii and then he's making

the last leg of the trip and just he's already on the plane just before the plane takes off these marshals come on and say you come with us and they take him off the plane so what this is about he doesn't know he's never been presented say, what this is about? He doesn't know. He's never been presented with any charges. This is a star chamber process to put somebody on a no-fly list. And he never could find out either what he was charged with. And now he's in a situation where, how does he get out of here? How do you get away from Hawaii if you can't fly, right?

How do I even get back to the continental United States? He was in a big, big problem. We got him a lot of publicity, and he was able to find some allies in the military to shut this thing down. But last I talked to him, he never knew why. He was on a no-fly list. He never had any charges presented with him.

That's an abomination. Anybody who supports a no-fly list for any reason is somebody who doesn't support the Constitution. It's just that simple. And yet we see these knee-jerk authoritarian reactions to so many things. Trump wanting to say, now he's saying, elect me and I'm going to send special forces in into Mexico to fight the drug war. It's like, seriously? Oh, it's insane. He just keeps stacking more crazy stuff on top of bad rules

and bad regulations and bad prohibitions you know david it's it's so interesting because it's so energizing seeing you talk about these things it is just the it's the best source of energy and you know like we're talking about you know people taking some time to do their things and so on i know how much time you devote to this and i know how much time you devote to this, and I know how much time I devote to this. And I know how much time so many other people devote to this in their various ways. And it's just such a refreshing thing to know. I mean, you're such a, you know, this isn't to like blow smoke or anything. It really isn't.

I'm looking at you on the screen, and I'm like, man, this guy is just so full of power and thought. And I just want to mention, you know talked about um before before I came on we talked about the just the amazing two-facedness of these people that just about four or five days ago almost a week ago we had Anthony Blinken and Joe Biden both announcing how much they were in favor of press freedom. Damn. While Julian Assange sits in Belmarsh prison. While literally last November, Biden put forward, President Biden and Blinken, both speaking about press freedom. Biden put out his AI executive order, which would mean that any software maker would have

to open up and show his security protocols and software under the executive order which would mean that any software maker would have to open up and show his security protocols and software under the executive order and we've got them fighting in court in the supreme court in the murthy versus missouri case oh yeah jay batacaria and they have the gall to talk about free speech so if we can turn that into energy and think about you know like people like you and other folks you look at gerald gerald cilenti and other other good people out there and the people who come into the chat and so on and their local areas i just love it and and we know the bad guys are out there and and it's upsetting and yet i can't help but smile it's just great to know that we can fight these guys and

call them out for how ridiculous they are well i'm glad that you do it as well and a great contribution you've got a a weekly program that people can catch live again liberty conspiracy you can find it on twitter at guard goldsmith as well as on rumble and rockfin and youtube right now and people can go to your liberty conspiracy website as well thank you guard for what you do i know you put a lot of timeacy website as well. Thank you, Guard, for what you do. I know you put a lot of time into it as well. You've got a very long live program that you do on a daily basis. That's why we don't have any sympathy for somebody like Chris Cuomo, who doesn't do his homework. It's like, are you seriously?

I mean, this is the guy sitting in the back of the room, the most popular guy in school, who doesn't do a single thing. But he's the star of the team for some reason i don't know but anyway um it's uh no seriously i hate to see people misled and that's really what is happening with these people who are influencers like that but again thank you so much for what you do and uh great contribution always a pleasure to talk to you i love my david knight pen is getting a lot of work. That's what I'll say. That's good.

Go to the store. Go to the store. Thank you, guard. Have a good day and everybody have a good weekend. And we'll hopefully we'll see you on Monday. Let me tell you the David Knight show. You can listen to with your ears. You can even watch it by using your eyes.

In fact, if you can hear me, that means you're listening to The David Knight Show right now. Yeah, good job. And you want to know something else? You can find all the links to everywhere to watch or listen to the show at the David night show dot com. That's a website.