The David Knight Show - INTERVIEW Should the FACE Act Be Voided by Dobbs; "SEALS Beat Biden" Documentary

Episode Date: February 12, 2024

Over a quarter million resisted Biden's unconstitutional, unethical military mandates for jab. JAG Attorney Davis Younts joins to talk about the victory won by SEALs and others and the ongoing recriminations by Biden. And, the FACE Act has been weaponized by Biden against pro-life protestors unlike any other time in its 30 year history. Six people have been recently convicted and face over a decade in prison. Will their appeal show that the Supreme Court Dobbs decision effectively repealed the FACE Act as well as Roe v Wade?Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and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.

Happiness. We all know what it feels like, but sometimes it doesn't come easy. I'm Garvey Bailey, the host of Happy Enough, a new podcast from The Globe and Mail about our pursuit of happiness. We know people want to live more fulfilling and positive lives, but how do we actually do that? Is there a happiness code to crack? From our relationship with technology to whether money can really buy you happiness, we'll hear from both real people and experts to demystify this thing we're all searching for and hopefully find ways to be happy enough. You can find Happy Enough wherever you listen to podcasts. I don't know that I've ever done anything or been involved in a team effort,

because that's what it was, a team effort that had more return on investment than that one in which we engaged in. Capital of Afghanistan. Bow to the Taliban. If you want a better new normal, anytime soon, Americans need to put on a mask. He told me that there was no chance that my religious accommodation, or that any religious accommodation, would be granted. And sure enough, within hours, I was terminated.

I had no income. I had no health care benefits. I had no job. They come in handshaking, angry, telling us that they don't want to hear about our rattlesnake religion. Saying that we never wanted to be SEALs and that we're not courageous enough to fight war. Anything below 95% capacity in a raid is considered critical. My rating, the rescue swimmers, we were at 89% and the commandant is ready to cut these guys loose over a vaccine mandate for an untested shot. The oath is not for the easy times.

The oath is for the hard times. And it's whenever you have to make that choice between doing what the Constitution says or doing what someone else is telling you to do. Be a patriot. Protect your fellow citizens. I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Every military member does that. So if a military member's rights are not protected, they're not protected for the rest of society. These are the individuals that are actually willing to risk their lives to fight for the Constitution. Are you willing? Would you be willing to throw your stars on the table over a principle would you be willing and that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which i am about to enter so help me god God. And I meant it. Seals beat Biden dot com.

And that is a very powerful documentary. And you saw our guest in that documentary david shantz because he was involved in that fight and we're going to talk about that but before we get to that i want to talk about what is going on with the face act because david shantz doesn't just he's got military experience as a jag officer and he is he knows how to represent people in the military sphere legal sphere sphere, but he is also a Christian who gets involved in this. And so we're going to begin by talking about the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, the FACE Act. Thank you for joining us, Davis.

It's always great to have you on, and you're always there at the most vital issues, I think. Thank you for joining us today. Hey, it's a pleasure to chat with you again. Well, thank you. I've talked about this briefly this week. The people here, it was in Tennessee, just outside of Nashville, or right around that Nashville area, several people, six of them, who have pro-life people who had a peaceful protest at a clinic, and they're now been convicted they are awaiting

sentencing they may get 11 years of prison and up to fines of 250 000 and this is really being weaponized by the biden administration isn't it's been on the books for a while hasn't it right so the face act was first uh passed by congress and then signed in 1994 by president clinton and this really was this is the kind of legislation that really was a trojan horse the idea was it would also protect um clinics that provide actual pregnancy care and not simply you know uh planned parenthood abortion mills, and other things. Unfortunately, that's not how it's used, and it really has been weaponized by the Department of Justice, particularly under the Biden administration,

to go after Christians who do things like prayer and sidewalk counseling outside of abortion clinics. Yeah, and we haven't, 1994, we haven't heard anything at all about it. Now, all of a sudden, we're hearing it over and over and over again. It really is amazing how they're using this. Talk about some of the other cases as well. I mean, we've had situations and we've seen the picture of a guy that they tried to get with a face act and they SWAT teamed his family and all the rest of the stuff. But he wasn't even close to the entrance of it. That was up in Pennsylvania, wasn't it? I think, if I remember correctly.

Right. Yeah. You're referring to mark howick so yeah that was a a protester who'd done a lot of work a lot of prayer and counseling outside of abortion clinics and and what happened in his situation and this is really really instructive for what we're dealing with on the face act he he dealt with there was a very um angry violent vile person who was constantly coming at him trying to antagonize him and actually was yelling vile things at mark's son and so mark stepped in between this man and his son the man fell down there was some physical contact the man fell down and what was interesting is the local authorities in pennsylvania looked at this case looked at all aspects of this situation, did an investigation and dropped the charges. And then all of a sudden, you know, the DOJ gets involved. They SWAT Mark and his family,

you know, early hours of the morning. That's how they like to do these. And I've spoken to FBI agents that are whistleblowers that are,. They'll lose their job if they don't do these SWAT raids to arrest these people, which is completely unnecessary and unfortunately puts agents at risk when they do this. But I think Mr. Houck's case is a really good example of the problem with the FACE Act. And one of the main issues with the FACE Act is why is the federal government, why is there a federal law that targets behavior that would otherwise be legal behavior except the location where it's at? Number one. And number two, there are already laws on the books in every state.

There are already city ordinances that would deal with anything inappropriate that's happening at these places. So the reality is if someone is breaking the law, if they're actually obstructing access, if they're trespassing, if they're actually obstructing access if they're trespassing if they're committing assault even if they're being disorderly all there's local ordinances there's city ordinances municipal codes and state law that would prevent that illegal activity and would address it but that's not good enough for the department of justice and and so again this was you know this that to me, this FACE Act really is a Trojan horse that once they're inside the walls, now you have a politically motivated Department of Justice that is anti-Christian, anti-faith, doesn't like anyone saying things that are

against the narrative on, you know, abortion as some sort of medical care. And that's the real issue now. So it is being targeted. and these people are people with no criminal history, no violent past, that are now facing over a decade in prison for peacefully praying and singing outside the entrance to a clinic. And, you know, it's not just the fact that, as you pointed out, the local law enforcement looked at it and said, there's nothing here. And we all saw they had video that was on outside camera there. Everybody could see that there was nothing, no big deal.

And so, you know, the video was there. Everybody could see that. Local law enforcement saw there was nothing there. And yet the Biden administration comes after them. And at the same time, as you pointed out, in 1994, when they created the FACE Act, it was going to be comprehensive for a lot of different things but they don't do anything on the other side to protect uh crisis pregnancy centers from even arson or bombs that are thrown on them they won't even investigate that will they no they they absolutely will not and that that's a critical

issue you know no one i would never no one's advocating any kind of violence or law-breaking when it comes to sidewalk counseling outside of these clinics. But what they are really targeting is that peaceful behavior. They want to end that. They want to scare people into not even doing the kind of counseling that saves lives, that saves these pre-born children over and over again. And I think the other interesting issue about the case in Tennessee, as well as just the FACE Act cases, is federal courts and the DOJ are not reacting well to the Dobbs decision. And here's what's so important.

There's an argument to be made that the Dobbs decision is, look, there is no federal right to an abortion. That's right. If that is true, then what is it that these individuals are doing and why does the federal government have any role or jurisdiction over this? Because again, what they're alleging is they're doing something that is violating a federal right, right? That's why the federal government has jurisdiction. But even in the case in Tennessee, the judge refused during motions practice. And as

they were, the attorneys were drafting the jury instructions. And I spoke to the attorneys, the judge refused to entertain that and even refused to instruct the jurors on the fact that Dobbs says abortion, there is no federal right to an abortion. There's no constitutional right to an abortion, refused to instruct the jurors on that. So again, I think that's a significant issue. And that may be the end of the FACE Act if federal courts, if the appeals courts and ultimately the Supreme Court look at this and say, okay, wait a minute, we have ruled there is no federal constitutional right to an abortion. And so where is the jurisdiction for the federal government on the FACE Act? So that may be the undoing of it unfortunately as things happen here you have individuals with no criminal history no

violent past who could be doing significant time in federal penitentiaries waiting for relief from the supreme court if it ever comes would they would they have to go to jail if their case is on appeal would they still incarcerate them it's up to the discretion of the judge. Wow. It's up to the discretion of the judge. So often people do sit and wait in confinement while their case is on appeal. Wow. That's amazing.

And, you know, when you look at it, it's the judge's instructions. And when I covered this case the other day, I talked about a guy who was a marijuana advocate up in New Jersey, called himself New Jersey Weed Man. I forget what his real name was, but that was the name that he went by. And he had a large amount of marijuana. They were going to try him as a trafficker. And he said, you know, I think there's enough people here that don't like the criminalization of marijuana that I could get a hung jury if I argue for jury nullification. And he did that.

He took it is actually in the state constitution. The jury should judge the facts of the case, but also the law itself and the penalties that could be imposed. And that goes all the way back to William Penn in England. When they came after him, he helped to establish jury nullification. And so he showed that to the jury, and the judge said, take that down. I'm going to lock you up. Well, the jury had already seen it, so they voted 7 to 5 to acquit him.

But the prosecutor came back, and he went before another judge. The judge let him put up that card, which quoted from the New Jersey state constitution, and he let him keep that up and then he got his acquittal of 12 to nothing so it really comes down to the judge's instructions in many cases judges will tell the jury you have no right to judge the law you're just here to judge the case and I will tell you you know these other things like you talked about the fact that the judge would even keep them from keep the attorneys from telling them, talking to them about the implications of the Dobbs decision.

But what about jury nullification? Let me ask you as a lawyer, what do you think about that? It is a Hail Mary thing, and he couldn't find any lawyers who would do it. That's why he represented himself. Well, you know, jury nullification is, this is my frustration with it as a practicing attorney. The reality is that jury nullification was a fundamental part of our constitutional system. Thomas Jefferson himself said that the jury is the only anchor yet imagined in the mind of man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

That's a mouthful, but think about what they were saying. All of the founding fathers believed in the concept of jury nullification. In other words, if the federal government or any government is going to put a citizen on trial, ultimately, not the judge, ultimately the jury can say, factually, this may be accurate, but we do not believe this should be called a crime. Therefore, we are going to say not guilty of a criminal act. And since our founding, there has been a gradual at first, and then a much more violently rapid movement to eradicate the concept of jury nullification from our court system, which is truly unfortunate. The end of the day, our system, there are so many checks and balances in our system,

but one of the critical ones was this concept of jury nullification, where a jury of your peers, of your fellow citizens, could look at the government and say, no. Yeah, yeah, that's true. Not guilty and not guilty because of the Constitution, not guilty because of morals, ethics, justification, whatever it is, not guilty. That's right. That's right. Yeah, there was no question that William Penn was defying the rules to not meet as a church if you're not meeting as the official state church. No question about that at all. They shut that down.

And that was such a foundational thing. You know, even into Victorian times, you know, Gilbert and Sullivan, who did all the light operas and stuff, they even had one called trial by jury, you know, because that was such a fundamental concept. And if you stop and think about it, it is as important, if not more important than something like free speech, because that really is where they you can stop. The tyranny is with a jury nullification is such an important thing. But and, you know, I looked at that and I said, now, you know, if you would have gone for jury nullification, I got to believe that there's going to be a couple of people, even in liberalashville uh because of tennessee and surrounding areas i gotta believe they could at least find a couple of people who would say no i'm not willing to lock up uh uh you know these these uh family uh these these law-abiding family uh oriented people for a decade and give them a quarter of a million dollar fine i gotta believe you'd find at least one or two people like that until the prosecutor got tired of of coming back after him i think yeah and i i know honestly that's what i was hoping for yeah and in those cases is that there like that until the prosecutor got tired of coming back after him, I think.

Yeah, and I know, honestly, that's what I was hoping for in those cases, is that there were people that were just willing to do the right thing. But again, in federal courts in particular, they've done everything they can to prevent attorneys from arguing for jury nullification. Attorneys can be held in contempt for doing it. There's only a couple states where it's still part of the constitution. One of the New England states, I can't remember which one off the top of my head, still has it. It still happens there. That's the only state where it's still there, but it is a challenge practicing law to essentially allow a jury to see and understand

what you are saying without crossing the lines with regard to jury nullification and trying to empower them to do the right thing. And I've successfully done that without blatantly arguing jury nullification against the instruction of the judge as an officer of the court. There are limitations that are placed on attorney, but juries can see through to the right thing and they need to be empowered to do that. So there was a subtle reform that needs to happen. And again, it would have to be subtle at first and then not, but we need to go back to that concept of jury nullification. It's absolutely critical. Yeah.

And it's so bad that, you know, as you point out, if a jury's, you've got a juror who openly says that even the jurors have to be careful when they do jury nullification in most cases, because they, if they start talking about jury nullification,

you get kicked off. That's right. If you don't have the time to do jury duty, just tell them you know about jury nullification. They won't see you in the first place. But what you're talking about in terms of the way the Biden administration has really criminally applied this law that is 30 years old and it is uh and weaponized it for political purposes and um and abused this law it's another example isn't it of of how uh things go wrong when we try to centralize it all and we try to federalize everything instead of these types

of things being done by local law enforcement and local law. You're absolutely right. And honestly, and people think it's radical when you say it, but we should be asking questions in this country on why today, why we even need an FBI, why we even need a Department of Justice when it comes to criminal cases. And I'd submit to you there's a great argument that we don't. And if we look at the history of the FBI and where it came about, you know, the FBI was really created to deal with a specific problem, which was interstate bank robberies, right? You know,

you, you know, Bonnie and Clyde would rob a bank in Kansas and then they would flee to another state and they would get away with it. But now, you know, states can evolve and develop and they can do interstate compacts when it comes to crime. They can extradite people and do those other things. So in a modern era, especially with people moving the way they are and the agreements we have for other crimes between the states, I think there's a lot we could look at and we can see the danger of the growing federal government, centralized government, all of it. Every time we move things to D.C., we lose freedom and the states lose accountability and responsibility every time that happens. So I agree, but simple things like jury nullification need to come back. We need to be pushing those things so that we can recover freedoms. And it is supposed to be a

government with the consent of the government, a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Those words are not idle words when we think about the intent and the meaning of that. And so, yes, we are a nation of laws, but we're also a nation of political will. And the people need to understand we need to have that. And it even goes into bigger concepts when we talk about things like Supreme Court rulings and orders. You know, our founders never intended those things to be the final edict that we all had to just stop what we were doing and follow. They intended that to be sort of an advisory opinion for a political leader. And if a political leader said, you know, that's very interesting court, but you don't have a way to enforce that. And I disagree.

And then the people could vote that leader, that political leader out of office in the next election if they chose not to go by it. But that's the kind of role that they envisioned for the courts, not what we have now. And again, that's another example when we talk about federal courts and the Supreme Court of this federalization and centralization of power, which is really dangerous to our freedom. Yes, exactly. What does check and balance mean if you can't do that and that's what you're talking about is it was exactly done by Andrew Jackson who said you know the Supreme Court's issued their opinion let's see him enforce it

and he was wrong in terms of his policy but he was right in terms of the way the Constitution and the authority of all these different things happened but you know when you talk about how we've centralized everything and the Dobbs decision and the central point that you were making was that the FACE Act may ultimately be overturned when people look at the fact that it was supposedly there to protect what the Supreme Court had decided was a constitutional right. And yet they didn't have the authority to really do that. They didn't have the authority to decide when life began.

And that's what the Dobbs decision was about. I said before the Dobbs decision, and it really, really surprised me that it happened. I never thought it would happen. But I'd always said that the appropriate response to Roe v. Wade was for the Texas governor to say, well, you've made your decision. Let's see you enforce it. We will decide what murder is here in Texas. And that's essentially what the Dobbs decision said. It said, this is under the 10th Amendment. These things should be decided at the state level. And everybody understood that and started

freaking out because it said, wait a minute, that means that they could overturn their definition of marriage and they could overturn this and that and all the rest of these things that the Supreme Court has crossed over the line to do. So this is a very important case. And this FACE Act is not only a miscarriage, a political persecution, but it is also something that could have very far-reaching constitutional implications for the Supreme Court and the judicial system, I think, if this is overturned. Yeah, I couldn't agree more. And again, with the Dobbs decision, you know

Fundamentally, I believe that life begins at fertilization And so the Dobbs decision was flawed because it didn't go far enough right that our fundamental obligation should be to protect life however, what the Dobbs decision got right is a fundamental understanding of our constitutional republic and our federal system where the states really do have the authority and over these things and really most of the authority was supposed to rest with the states so in that respect we've seen some very good jurisprudence from our supreme court pushing back on federal government power we just need to see more i agree yeah i'm concerned you, I understand people's concern about protecting life, and I share that. I'm just concerned that if they were to put in a federal law, which is what a lot of people are talking about, and already when you see Pence and other people talking about it, they typically are picking 15 weeks.

15 weeks is way beyond what they've done in Florida and other places. It's way beyond even what they did, what they have in France, where they just relaxed it and they've extended it to 12 weeks. It used to be more stringent than that. And so who gets to set that level? Well, it's going to wind up being set politically if we make it a political thing in Washington. And so it might be at 15 weeks with the Republicans. And when they put that in, I don't think New York and California will enforce that. And you can't force them to do that. But I think when they take it all the way up to 36 weeks or beyond, I think that most of the Republican states, they'll obey that.

You know, and so we're going to get the worst of both things if we make it a federal issue. I've seen that in the past. You know, the Republicans say, well, that's a federal law. I got to obey it. The Democrats will say, no, we're not. Take a look at marijuana legalization for example and so um i i'm concerned about that let's talk a little bit about um uh what is happening at the border because that's another constitutional issue i've talked about it uh when it first started happening i said that's a very important constitutional issue and i'd like to get your

take on that but i said at the same time people need to understand that there's a lot of grandstanding that's going on i mean we're only talking about a two and a half mile area you know and that's the only place where they're really putting anything there and so uh the border is still wide open uh everywhere else out of 2 000 miles you got two and a half miles that they're really fighting over but it's got important constitutional issues on it doesn doesn't it? It does. You know, the practical impact of this is minimal. The border is wide open. The policy of our federal government, our Department of Homeland Security, is to just invite as many people in as possible, regardless of who they are, where they're from, or what

controls we have over that. That's obvious. What's happening is just beyond absurd um but this issue is critical because it goes to a fundamental question of does the governor of texas have the ability to take action to protect the border the sovereignty of texas and ultimately to protect the property and lives of the citizens of texas does the Does the governor of Texas have the authority to do that? And I would say they have an obligation, both a legal and moral obligation to do that. And so ultimately, you have a lot of interesting issues that rise up from this. You have an older

case that was, Scalia wrote a very famous defense to it. It was called the United States versus Arizona, where essentially the majority of the Supreme Court said, if it has to do with immigration, it's the sole province of the federal government. That's it. Right. And that's a very overview summary of it. And, and Scalia was talking very eloquently about the issue of state sovereignty. And, you know, he used language like the constitution isn't a suicide pact for the states. They have the ability to protect their citizens, to protect their sovereignty, sovereignty, to protect their borders. And that's really the issue here. Does the state of Texas

have the ability, does the governor have the ability to act in an emergency, in a declared emergency where it is a threat to the property and the lives of the people of Texas to do this? And the answer is, of course, a county sheriff would have that authority, both under a constitutional system, but also under God's law, the doctrine of the lesser magistrate, it's all there. But what's particularly interesting, I think, and critical that we address is the federal government is not simply ignoring the law. They're choosing to circumvent federal law and the sovereignty of our nation to do what they're doing.

And so that's the bigger issue here is can states act? Do they have sovereignty? But also what happens if the federal government, the executive, is refusing to do their job and protect our nation and protect American citizens? What can a state do? And so we've had the Supreme Court make an initial decision, but they said that Biden could undo any border barriers and he could open up the border if he wished, but that's not a final decision. Where is it in that Supreme Court process? Right. So all of this was essentially an emergency appeal by Customs and Border Patrol to seek permission to be allowed to cut the razor wire, right? And Texas was trying to prevent them from

doing that. So that's it. That's the only thing the Supreme Court was looking at. And the argument presented by Department of Homeland Security, by the feds, if you will, was, well, they're interfering with our ability to do our job because we need access to these areas so we can process these illegal immigrants. And so the Supreme Court said, Texas, you can't interfere with them doing their job. And so they can cut these down so they can do their job. Of course, nothing about that emergency decision. And there wasn't even really a written opinion.

So we don't really understand what all of the logic or rationale was. We just know what the vote was. But ultimately, they don't go into any of the other issues. They just said, for now, on an emergency basis, Texas, they're going to come in. They're allowed to cut this stuff down so they can do their jobs. That's interesting. Yeah, I guess the first time I covered it, I talked about Occam's razor wire. Common sense is going to tell you that that isn't what they're really about.

And we all know why they want to get to those areas, because they're going to facilitate the immigration of people who, as I've said in the past, I believe the real issue underlying all this, regardless of what kind of barriers or enforcement you've got at the border. The thing that is the real issue is the welfare magnet. And they're pulling people in. Those welfare magnets have a really strong pull, even if they're all the way up in New York City. If they start giving free benefits to everybody and make themselves a sanctuary city, these people who are at the border, when they ask them where they're coming from, they're coming from all over the world.

But where they want to go to, about 95% of them want to go to New York City. And so that welfare magnet is a big part of pulling people in but from the from the um legal standpoint as you said i agree with you i think they have the authority and they have the duty to protect uh lives and to protect the border from what everybody agrees is an invasion and of course there's broad political support for this so it's become a real big political football. But I think there's some very, very important legal issues, as you said, because, again, this goes back to the power of the local states. And I think this is an area that we see coming up time and again in many different areas because the federal government has become

so politicized, so dysfunctional, so corrupt that people are increasingly looking to the state government to interpose itself. I think that's possibly one of the most important benefits of this grandstanding that's happening at the border with the governors that are going there. I think that's perhaps one of the most important things. What do you think about that? Yeah, that really is the point here. I think the practical implications of this that could benefit the country for a long time is that a governor is willing to stand up and say, no, states have sovereignty. This is dangerous. And federal government, I think this

is important. Federal government, you are not doing your job. You are failing to follow the law. You're failing to enforce the law. So someone has to, we as the lesser magistrates have to step up and do this. And I think it's very powerful, even if it just seems like grandstanding that other governors are willing to support Texas. They're willing to sign on. They're willing to endorse what they're doing. And there are governors that are willing to send the National Guard to go and support Texas in what they're doing, independent of any sort of federal support to do that. I think the other interesting thing we will see legally in the future is Florida developed a state guard, right? And people talked about this. Oh, what is DeSantis doing?

He used his authority of governors to create a state guard that cannot be federalized, right? And people talked about this. Oh, you know, what is DeSantis doing? He used his authority of governors to create a state guard that cannot be federalized, right? It's not, there is no, you know, I served in the Pennsylvania National Guard when I was still in the reserve component. And in that you have a dual status. You are a member of the state militia and you also have federal recognition. So I had federal recognition as an officer. So normally when you're in the National Guard, you have this dual status. Those State Guard members, you know, we might think of them as like Texas Rangers in Texas. But in Florida, they did that.

And they did that for specific reasons where they didn't want to have to wait for or rely upon a federal government that might not help them when they need it because of political implications. Right. Because it's a republican-led state um and so i think that's very important so i think other states are going to be looking into similar things because they're realizing practically they cannot rely on a federal government and they and they also can't rely on them not just because of incompetence but because of everything is so political they may not come to their aid. Yes. And if I remember correctly, the Florida Guard, part of the reason that he was doing that was to try to protect people from these Biden mandates for the military, which is the next thing we're going to talk about here, that you've been very heavily involved in.

That was another aspect of it, to even protect the Guard from the federal government, from federal overreach. So I think that is a very, you know, again, to have state guards instead of something that is under the federal government. But this move away in many different ways from this overreaching federal authority that's put its tentacles in every aspect of our lives. Nobody says the joke anymore, but, you know, we used to always say when somebody would get over a rod about something

well don't make a federal case out of it but everything is now federal case and so i think the pendulum is starting to swing the other way and i think one of the most important things about this even though there's a lot of political grandstanding that's going on and a lot of political moves because biden did not nationalize them because then you'd be nationalizing them in order to open up the border. So I think that's kind of held his hand on that. But and so that was a good political maneuver. But I think the best thing that could come out of this would be for conservatives have

started, have adopted this mindset that has been the mindset of liberals for a long time, that everything needs to be done by the federal government. And I think it'd be a very healthy thing for people to start looking more to state and local government to intervene and to interpose against an increasingly authoritarian and intrusive federal government. I think that's one of the most important things, don't you? It absolutely is. And practically speaking, we understand it.

It is in our DNA to think that way as a nation, right? We don't get a revolutionary war. We don't split with England as the colonies without the idea and the concept of the doctrine of the lesser magistrate. In other words, local authorities who have the authority by the people that they govern to act and act responsibly taking these steps. But the other practical implication, not just that it's in our DNA as a nation, we can actually have influence over what happens locally. I mean, how much effort does it take? I mean, people can think about the county you live in. Do you know who your elected district attorney is in your county? Do you know? Do you know if they're a Republican or a Democrat? Are they conservative? Are they a Soros funded DA? And what do you think it would

take? Look at the number. I mean, in so many counties across the nation, it's a few hundred votes, maybe a few thousand votes. It would make the difference between who's your district attorney. Why does that matter? That's one of your chief law enforcement people in your county that's going to decide who's bringing charges or not. That's just one example. Your county sheriff's critically important when we talk about law enforcement and protecting citizens of the county from federal overreach. So you can have an impact. A few churches get together.

They rally behind a good, solid candidate, not violating 501c33 status but actually encouraging people to understand the issues all of a sudden you can swing an election at the county level and even at the state level when you when you act together that way so practically speaking we can have so much more influence there than we ever can in in the swamp that has become dc oh you're so right even elon musk has said i've been saying that for the longest people always well who do you like for president i said you know who do you like for, well, who do you like for president? I said, you know, who do you like for your local sheriff? Who do you like for your local town council? And you look at the fact that for a presidential election, you're one of 300 million people voting.

You may have a million times more effect in your local election than you do. Your vote is a million times better, more powerful than it is in a federal election for president or anything like that. And the closer you get to you, the more effect it has. Even Elon Musk has pointed that out. And he pointed out the brilliance of Soros by focusing on local district attorneys. We should be that smart. We should learn from these guys.

They know what they're doing and they know how to manipulate and get control. And so I agree. I think it is the local issues. But it also then comes down to the individual. And that's what we were showing at the beginning, the trailer for the new documentary that's coming out, talking about this struggle that you've been involved in very heavily from the very beginning.

You're in the trailer there. Seals beat Biden, that documentary. Tell us a little bit about that documentary. And then we'll talk a little bit about what the current status is of, of these things. So tell us a little bit about that documentary, and then we'll talk a little bit about what the current status is of these things. So tell us a little bit about the documentary, Davis. Yeah, absolutely. So Seals Beat Biden was a concept that was developed. It's a relatively new news media outlet called the Republic Sentinel. And they came to me, they came to former Navy SEALs and others and said, hey, we want to tell this story.

We want to tell the story of what happened. We want to do it well. We want to honor these people, but we also want to do it in a way that we can prevent things like this from happening and also shine a light on the implications of everything that happened with the COVID mandate on the rights of all American citizens. So that was sort of what was behind the project. So the Republic Sentinel was fantastic. What's out now currently is part one. It's a three-part series. I'm not exactly sure when the second part is going to be released. It should be released very soon. And then there'll be a final third part that's released as well. So you can follow what's going on at sealsbeatbiden.com. It's free. You just have

to give them your email address in order to log in there, but you can set up an account and watch it free. It's very, very well done. And I think some of the most powerful aspects of it are just telling the stories of individuals like Asa Miller, one of the Navy SEALs I represented in this, talks about what it was like for those guys to go through this, talks about people being put in isolation, being essentially in solitary confinement, what it was like for him. And Ace is in a great position to tell that story because he was one of the Navy SEALs from the very, very beginning that said, I don't believe this is right. I don't believe this is constitutional. We need to take a stand, not just for ourselves, but for everyone in the

military that's afraid to speak up because they're not a Navy SEAL and for the American public. And he was willing to be court-martialed. He and I sat in a room together and I said, if you don't follow this order, you understand what could happen. And he was ready and willing to be court-martialed if that's what it takes. So I'm so glad that he's able to be in it and tell part of his story. And there's other people that were critically involved in sort of rallying people to this cause and creating not just a rally point, but a way for people to get this information out there and have the courage to take a stand within the military. So it went from isolated individual military members

working on this on their own to, at one point, I think we've talked about this number before, but even the DOD admitted that there were two over 260,000 military members that were not compliant when the mandate came out. Wow. Right. Over 260,000. That's over 13% of the total military force that were not compliant by the time the mandate came down. And that's the DOD's numbers. So, you know, how far we trust that talk about the future and how we we take stands against things like this in the future and learn from what happened that's excellent and it all begins with the individuals and you know i've seen some articles um there was one i saw the other day

somebody said you know there are more people involved in all of this than you think you know just as they want to make everybody think well you're the only one who had a family member die from this shot, or you're the only one who got paralyzed from this shot. I know it was happening to everybody. They did such a great job of trying to isolate and atomize and, you know, cover this up with everybody. You point out 13%, 260,000 people, even according to their numbers. And of course, you look at the things that they're doing with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, how they rigged those numbers last week.

It's just amazing. But they always rig the numbers. They rig the COVID numbers. They rig the protest numbers and all the rest of this. But it really did come down to the individual. When you make this stand, each and every one of us is going to have to make that stand as an individual and make that individual decision and i like the way the documentary trailer started with that vice admiral i think it was uh who said the most important fight

he's been in and it is true because this is a fight for our country or fight for our constitution and for everyone's individual rights and i like the way they came back to him. And he said, you got to be willing to throw those stars on the table over the principle. And the sad thing about it that bothers me, Davis, is the fact that they have pushed so many good people like that out of the military. I think that's a big part of the agenda. What do you think? Yeah, you know, and I didn't want to believe that, right? And very early on in this, people started talking about a purge or otherwise.

But I was, you know, I was a jag. I was a lawyer in the military. I was a lieutenant colonel. I submitted my religious accommodation request. I trusted the process. And then it was denied, and it was denied improperly. It was denied for the wrong reasons. And so I had great pause, but I'm like, okay, I'm going to appeal my own religious accommodation. I'm going to help everyone else do it. And I quickly realized from

the beginning, they weren't going to be granting these religious accommodation requests. The goal was 100% compliance, no matter what. And then it doesn't take very much imagination to start thinking about, okay, if you have a significant portion, you know, 10, 13, 15, whatever the real number was, percent of the force that is objecting to not just to being vaccinated, but being, but objecting to the way this is being done and the way it's being forced on the American public and on the military for their, their moral, ethical, and religious reasons, then you have to realize, wow, who's leaving the military then? It's people that are willing to question orders. It's people that are willing

to say, no, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I'm not going to turn my back on that. And people don't fully understand the documentary helped tell this story, but I can just rattle off examples of how this policy was in direct violation of constitutional rights and in direct violation of federal law. And they knew that and they refused to stop. I mean, the best example, and it's almost humorous if it wasn't so serious for so many people, but the Department of Defense Inspector General, the Inspector General's office, supposed to be the watchdog for the Department of Defense, and they work for the man, so you have to wonder how independent they really are. But even they did a cursory review of the religious accommodation process, and they said,

Department of Defense, you are not doing this correctly. It is impossible for you to be doing the individualized review that's required by law there are not enough hours in the day days in the week you know weeks in a month in order to do this because you're spending you know they they did a calculation it's like even if you were working 10 hour days with no breaks you're spending minutes at most on each one of these individual accommodation requests that's not what the law requires the dod ig wrote a wrote a memo, sent it to Secretary Austin, the Secretary of Defense, and said, you need to see this because our initial analysis is you're violating the constitutional rights and you may be violating federal law by the way you're doing this. And it was ignored.

Yeah, yeah. It was ignored by the Secretary of Defense and no one even knew that that memo existed until it came out through a FOIA request almost two months later. In other words, they were kicking people out, ending people's careers, continuing to do this without even a strategic pause to say, okay, hey, we need to look into this. They simply didn't care. know if there's no other lesson that we can learn from the documentary from what happened with the covid mandate in the military is that we had an executive branch and military leadership that were willing to ignore federal law and the constitutional rights of military members to accomplish a goal which was 100 compliance with an experimental vaccine yeah yeah and we had a lot of people who uh were scientists or people in the medical

community and they didn't wake up until they're working on it and said, yeah, we got this other thing over here. Maybe this works and maybe that works. And that happened in many different ways, many different places. And they were immediately shut down. We have one solution and you're going to do this. And it's like, wait a minute, there's something wrong here. Right. And so you're seeing that everywhere. But fundamentally, what happened to people in the military? It's essentially the same thing that we see in private companies or we see in the hospitals, for example. The government bribes people with money, and then it says, and then you're going to do this, or we're going to take that money away. And so it ultimately comes back to what that vice admiral said.

You've got to be willing to throw those stars on the table over your principal. And that was the same thing that happened to nurses and hospitals. You know, they hold your career, they hold your livelihood and your lifeline up to you. And you have to make that decision. Am I going to stand by the money and the career or am I going to stand by my principal? And that's why this is a story for everybody inside the military or outside the military and a lot of people have gone through this fire and the good thing about this is they've come out on the other side and I've talked to so

many people have absolutely no regrets about whether they lost their job many of them found something else to do they're happier about that the people have regrets are the ones who had their arm twisted and went along with the coercion those are the people I see over and over again who have regrets. Yeah, absolutely. And there's just been tremendous community built out of what happened. And this idea you were talking about earlier of isolation, during this whole military fight, there were so many times when someone would call me and they'd be like, I'm the only person on my entire installation. My chain of command is telling me I'm the only one. I'm the last holdout. What do I do? I'm all alone here. And I'm like, nope, you're not alone. I have talked to five other people that are your same installation that are being told the same thing by their

command. They're being lied to about that. But just even the idea, and that was part of the whole idea of what the Navy SEALs like Asa Miller did and were willing to do, is they were willing to risk their careers in order to get the word out there, hey, you're not alone. You're not alone. You're not isolated. There is a whole community of people that are taking a stand. And the idea is courage is contagious. And one of the things I think is a difference, and maybe this is hyperbole, maybe it's not, but people like Asa Miller being willing to take a stand and saying no and not comply is a difference. Other people throughout society that took a stand, restaurant owners, gym owners, doctors, nurses, small businesses, they took these stands.

And the fact that they were unwilling to comply, churches as well, is why we didn't have concentration camps like they had in australia in the united states right because there was not the political will to do that because there was enough people even though it was a small percentage saying no and not complying with this government overreach and so the government didn't have the political ability to carry out as much as they could or would have without that that's what we need to learn from this. We need to have communities of people willing to come together, willing to rally at the local level, using the doctrine of lesser magistrates to take these stands. And if nothing else, I think that's a lot of what is hoped to be taught and talked about through the documentary.

Yes. They're so focused on speech and controlling our communications with each other because they want to do that isolation thing. And, you know, when you look at the military, I think about it, how much they've got to be. It's got to be an especially difficult thing for people in the military because they spend so much time trying to create this cohesiveness. You're part of a unit. You know, you're not just an individual out here. And that was part of what you and others were saying about this. You know, by isolating these people and making them the other, you're really harming that kind of cohesiveness.

But I imagine the people who are being ostracized and isolated over all this stuff, they really feel that to a greater degree than somebody who is just working in a civilian job. Because in a civilian job, you're not trained to have that kind of a team unit idea. And now you are kind of leaving the team and betraying the team is the way they're portraying it to people, wasn't it? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, that was part of the pressure that was put on myself and so many military members. And when you get down to people like Navy SEALs, the team, the cohesiveness of that team that small unit tactics all of that comes together and it absolutely was um there was a lot of pressure put on individuals say well everybody else is doing it just go along go along go along and not everyone else was doing it which was part of this but the other thing is you know again you have to understand these individuals so

many were motivated by the fact that they believed this was wrong. And all they did was start asking questions, right? That's all a lot of us did is just ask some questions. And you weren't even allowed to ask questions. As soon as you started to ask questions, then you were faced with tremendous pressure. And I've seen it over and over and over again, where just the mere fact that you're asking questions has been met with challenges from the military, isolation from the military,

and it went past COVID. I'm still trying to fix people who lost their security clearance, not because the mandate was repealed, so they were in good standing with the military again, but because they had written a detailed memo to their commander explaining why they felt it was unlawful to order military members to receive an experimental medical procedure, a medical product under federal law, why they believe that, then they were being challenged as being disloyal or exercising poor judgment, and they're trying to revoke their security clearances. So most of those cases so far we've won and we've gotten the security clearance back, but that was sort of like the next level. And again, when you

see things like that, you start to say that really does feel like a purge then. If you're not just saying, oh, you survived the COVID mandate, but now we're coming after your security clearance because you dared say that you think this order might be unlawful. You're not allowed to do that. That's the exact opposite of the way our military was built and designed and just the DNA of our military. We used to have a military that really focused on the small unit, the platoon, the platoon sergeant, and individual freedom of action within your area of authority, even on the battlefield. We've won battles historically as a nation because it didn't matter if a small unit was cut off from the chain of command or

communication, they had the freedom and they were expected to exercise good judgment and carry on the mission even without, you know, a general officer telling them what to do, right? And that was the difference between, you know between the Allied military on D-Day and the German military. No one would wake up Hitler to release the tanks on D-Day. The Germans may have pushed us off the beaches, but again, there was this command structure where they had no freedom of action. That's what we've moved to in our military. So on a very practical level, COVID exposed that punishing commanders and anyone who ask hard questions, that's a dangerous thing. That's something we need to be working hard on in our military as well.

We need to go back to a concept that we want free thinkers who, within the structure of the law and the Constitution, feel comfortable doing their job and doing it well. That's what's made us have the best and most powerful military when we've been successful. Oh yeah, and that's what makes our economy work, not having central planning, not having total centralized control. And yet that is the essence of what they want to do. Well, you've got a lot of different things

that you do there. Your website is Yontz Law, that's Y-O-U-N-T-S Law. You've got a lot of military experience. You help people who are Christians who are being persecuted. People can also follow you on X at Davis, Yontz, Y-O-U-N-T-S again. And tell us a little bit about, we've only got about a minute and a half. Give us a little bit of a commercial for what you do at Yontz Law. Yeah, so we are focused primarily on representing military members. So we help military members with all kinds of things,

rising from the level of administrative actions to court-martial cases. We have pushed into, since COVID, a lot more religious freedom issues. So we're able to do that, and we use our experience. I've added another attorney to the firm, Caleb Bird, who is a former senior army prosecutor who's outstanding on these issues as well. So that's our goal is really to support military members. We want to be in a position to encourage military members to do the right thing and to help them navigate the process. So that takes us all over the world. And we hope to be able to continue to do that as long as God allows it. And as you pointed out, I mean, there's just no end to this. They're so tenacious.

Yesterday, I was talking about how Alvin Bragg, Manhattan DA, he's coming after people over COVID stuff still. And so the military is especially, you know, as you pointed out, taking security clearances of other people. They are out to get their revenge against anybody that pushed back against their narrative for centralized control. And it just keeps going. So thank you so much for what you do. Davis Yontz, yontzlaw.com. And you can also find him on Twitter or X at Davis Yontz. Thank you so much for what you do, sir.

Appreciate it. Thank you. God bless you. Thank you. Have a good day. And thank you all for listening. we appreciate that have a good day The David Knight Show is a critical thinking super spreader. If you've been exposed to logic by listening to The David Knight Show, please do your part and try not to spread it.

Financial support or simply telling others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread farther. People have to trust me. I mean, trust the science. Wear your mask. Take your vaccine. Don't ask questions. Using free speech to free minds.

It's the David Knight Show.