The David Knight Show - INTERVIEW: Status of Pentagon's War Against Religious Liberty

Episode Date: November 30, 2022

Davis Younts, TheMilitaryCounsel.com, Christian, husband, homeschool dad, former prosecutor, JAG, and #1 rated defense counsel in the Air Force. Mr. Younts on the legal fight against Biden & Pentagon's relentless pursuit of mandatory jabs. The issues and the current status in each branch as well as precedents in the anthrax vaccine.If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughZelle: @[e-mail] App at:  $davidknightshowBTC to:  bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Mail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar and the chance to reward you. That's why every day of the festival, we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to €10 if your horse loses on a selected race. That's how we celebrate the biggest week in racing. Cheltenham with LiveScoreBet. This is total betting. Sign up by 2pm 14th of March. Bet within 48 hours of race. Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply. is total betting. Sign up by 2 p.m. 14th of March. Bet within 48 hours of race.

Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply. Bet responsibly. 18plusgamblingcare.ie Our guest is Davis Yance. And he is, as I said before, a Christian father, homeschooler, dad. He has provided legal guidance and expert criminal defense to military, to federal law enforcement, other patriots. He's a former prosecutor, a JAG, and number one rated defense counsel in the Air Force. He runs a focused legal practice to help people preserve their religious liberty.

So I want to talk to him eventually in the interview about some other things that he's looking at right now. But we wanted to focus on what is happening in the military. And Davis is focused on the Coast Guard. Thank you for joining us. Hey, thank you for the opportunity to come on the show. This is a really important topic. It is. It is. And we have been talking about this now for over a year.

And it is absolutely astounding. And I think it's even more astounding that even as Biden says the pandemic is over, he's still pushing this. Tell us a little bit about what the Coast Guard has done in terms of honoring religious exemptions. Tell us a little bit how they've treated that. Yeah. So honoring religious exemptions is not, uh, not how I would describe what the Coast Guard has done. You know, my background is active duty Air Force. I still serve as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force Reserves. So I'm fighting this mandate personally. But one of the things that's happened in that fight is, you know, I became very interested in what the Coast Guard was doing early on, because one of the first things that we saw was not just that the Coast Guard was hostile to anyone seeking a religious accommodation for these mandates, but they actually created a template,

a checklist for chaplains in the Coast Guard to use to try to manipulate conversations so that it would appear that a Coast Guard member didn't have a sincere religious belief. So as soon as we found out about that and got a copy of that very early on in this process, a lot of us started paying much more attention to what the Coast Guard was doing and were very concerned about that. Is that checklist the types of things that we've seen where they say, well, do you use bare aspirin? Do you know that bare aspirin was used, that they did testing on fetal tissue with bare aspirin? Was it that type of thing, that checklist?

It was, only it was worse. What it did is it gave the chaplains guidance. They said, hey, when someone comes in to talk to you about their religious faith, you should ask them about their political positions first. And then when you write up your memo describing what happened in the interview, make sure you mention the fact that they wanted to talk about, that the military member wanted to talk about politics first. And that will give you a basis to deny or to say that their religious beliefs were not sincere or that this decision was politically motivated. So far worse. I mean, some of the other trick questions were there. We've seen that in all the services, but the Coast Guard went farther than that to start. Yeah. To say that this is all about politics. You just don't like Biden or something. That's why you don't want to

do this. So where is this right now? I mean, what is – and the Coast Guard is a little bit different than some of the others. It's not under the – is it not under the direct command right now of the Pentagon because they've not been activated or not at war or something like that? That's right. The Coast Guard is unique because they sort of move in between Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security. So under different circumstances, depending on their activation status, the mission set, and all of that, they

sort of move back and forth between the two. What are they doing to the people when they deny this? Have they discharged Coast Guard members already? What kind of a discharge are they getting? So they have started to discharge a few Coast Guard members. They are getting a general discharge. So administratively, there's three types of discharge. There's other than honorable conditions, there's the mid-level, a general discharge, which does take away the GI bill, takes away some veterans' preference points for most state, federal, even county jobs. Anybody that gives veterans preference points, you don't get those with a general discharge. So it's a

significant hit to these military members, but they're also discharging people who have 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 years of service without due process. So they're using a paper administrative discharge process. You can respond in writing to a letter, hey, we're going to discharge you. And if you don't get to 20 years, you lose your pension. The military has a sort of an all or nothing-nothing pension system that these guys fall under. So you either get to 20 years or you get nothing in retirement. That is just so cynically wrong.

And that's the thing. All the military branches that we've seen, that type of thing is just horrific. They take away the benefits right when they get right up to the cusp of retirement. Or even if they're not right at 19-plus years, putting in a decade or something, then kicking them out for something like this. What type of argument are you making for religious liberty when you're pushing this? Are you saying that they're just not going through the legitimate process? They're just rubber stamping this and throwing people out? Is that where we are right now?

What type of things? Have we seen anybody? Let me just ask this. Have we seen anybody successful in this, or is it all just a rubber stamp, you're out of here? So we have, and there's a distinction between the Coast Guard process and the other services. So in all of the other services, if you have six years or more of service, you're at least entitled to what they call an administrative separation board, which is a panel of three senior military officers that review the case, decide whether or not you've engaged in misconduct, and then make a determination whether you should continue to serve, if you should be separated,

what the service characterization should be. What the Coast Guard has done is they have a unique provision in their regulations that say, under unique circumstances, if it's convenient, and it's called a convenience of the government discharge, if it's convenient, and it's called a convenience of the government discharge, believe it, then they can deny that right to a board and they can just paper you out. So for the Coast Guard, there has been no bright spots. In all the other services, we have seen cases where individuals have gone to that administrative separation board, the evidence has been presented, and the board has found that the order to receive these mRNA products was an unlawful order. And there's a couple of different reasons why that we talk about, but they've done

that. So the other services, absolutely, have been involved in some of those cases. We have won those cases when we get that due process. That's not happening for the Coast Guard. I recall one case where it was the board that you're talking about, if you've been in for six years or so, that you get the review, and it was three officers. And this particular officer said he was going to try it not on the basis of religious liberty, but on the basis that Korminati was legally distinct and not available in the United States. And I'm sure you're familiar with that argument. And he won. All three officers said, that's right, you don't have to get it.

It's not been legitimately. They played this game for whatever their reasons. They said that it is technically the same, but it is legally distinct. Well, if it's legally distinct, then you can't kick me out for not taking it, was what he argued, and he won with that. Have you used any of that, or has it strictly been focused on religious liberty? No, I have been involved in several boards where we have made that argument. So one of the first in the Navy was Lieutenant Billy

Mosley's board, so I represented him, and that's the precise argument that we made. That federal law requires that, you know, prohibits Congress made it clear in 1998, the military cannot mandate an experimental or emergency use medical product for any reason without a very specific exception by the president of the United States here. Um, there's no such, such exception that's been made and what's available in the United States is not the FDA approved product and I'll miss that it seems crazy it seems nuanced but but the bottom line is Pfizer and Moderna have not produced yet the FDA approved formula yeah and the military can't make it available yeah there's a legal distinction. I mean, you know, they talk about using something that's off-label.

They have always in the past been very specific about what they approve. They even play these legal games about the difference between approval and authorization and all these kind of, you know, technical issues that most people, like, what are you talking about? But they are very specific about when they approve something they approve it for a specific use and you know the tests and all the rest of stuff so they just waved all that aside and said it's legally distinct it was just amazing to see that so that's great you were involved on one of those uh how are things breaking down before we get into the current status of what's going on the coast guard um again we've seen that in the navy

and some of the other places. How is this breaking down across the different branches of service? Is there, other than the Coast Guard, what about the regular ones, Army, Navy, Air Force, that type of thing? How is it looking? So things are looking good on the religious freedom front when we talk about the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps. So there are federal courts that have issued injunctions that prevent those branches of the service from taking any adverse action against a military member who has submitted a religious accommodation, chaplain has found their beliefs sincere. All of those folks are protected. And actually, just

yesterday, the Sixth Circuit came out and affirmed the injunction for the Air Force because the DOD, DOJ appealed the inj Force is prohibited from discharging or taking adverse action against anyone based on that submitted this religious accommodation. And this is huge. Like, I can't emphasize enough how groundbreaking that is. I apologize if there's background noise here. I'm at the airport. Oh, that's okay. But this is such groundbreaking that a federal court is going to go so far as to say what the military is doing is an absolute clear violation of the Constitution in federal law. That's just very, very rare for federal courts to do that because they're hesitant to get involved in what are seen as internal military matters. That's right.

It's huge. The Sixth Circuit opinion from yesterday is just very, very well done, groundbreaking in its analysis. And it just shows the Air Force from the beginning, as did all branches of service, but specifically that case addresses the Air Force. The Air Force had a plan to do blanket denials of religious accommodation requests. And that's just a direct violation of the religiousigious Freedom Restoration Act. Wow. And noticeably missing when you were talking about this was the Army. What is the situation in the Army?

So the Army has moved slower than the other branches in the rollout and enforcement of this mandate. So the issue with the Army is the... At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar, and the chance to reward you. That's why every day of the festival, we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to €10 if your horse loses on a selected race. That's how we celebrate the biggest week in racing.

Cheltenham with LiveScoreBet. This is total betting. Sign up by 2 p.m. 14th of March. Bet within 48 hours of race. Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply. Bet responsibly. 18plusgamblingcare.ie The army has not moved as quickly,

so it's taking longer to get a case in the proper stage to get an emergency injunction. That is in the works. There is a law firm that's working hard on that. And I think once that case is presented, they'll be in the same, I think the Army will be in the same situation as the other branches of the service because the law is the same and the violations by the Army are the same. That's good to know. What is your sense? I mean, it's amazing as we see Biden saying, hey, the emergency is over, but you're

still going to get kicked out of your career if you don't take this. Is there any sense that they're going to back off of this relentless pursuit of this? There's not yet. And it's one of the things that we talk about a lot. I talk about this a lot with clients that I speak with, other individuals that I speak with. What is the off-ramp for the Department of Defense? Why do they continue to do this, especially in light of other things that are going on? We have a huge deficit in the number of pilots we need. We have a huge pilot shortage in the Air Force.

The Army can't meet their recruiting calls. And we're here and practically, medically, scientifically, the mandate does not make sense anymore. And yet we're continuing to push it down. So I always ask the question, what is the off ramp for the Department of Defense? Because the problem is because of this policy, you've already had thousands of military members who have left or have been kicked out. And so there's going to be a whole process. It's going to take years to make some of those people whole once this is resolved. So I don't see a good offering for them yet. The politics are not good as far as that goes. That is just amazing for us to look at how relentless and persistent they are on all this

stuff. Before we run out of time, you are involved in a lot of religious liberty issues, not just the military. I mean, that's your specialty, and it's a special area of law, and you're in the military, but you're also focused on business and on Christians in general undergoing religious liberty attacks. So talk to us a little bit about some of the things that you're looking at that you've been involved with your practice in terms of, it says you're a former pastor, and so you've taken on a lot of cases that involve religious liberty. Tell us a little bit about the other things that you've been looking at

and the types of attacks that have been coming. Yeah, you know, one are the things we have to be wise about as Christians, and I advise several different non-profit organizations and other things, is how will the federal government use tax-exempt status and other things to limit what folks say. So, you know, during the COVID pandemic, we had this issue. To me, as a pastor, it became very clear, you know, the state trying to tell people to wear a mask in a worship service, for example, is getting involved in the regulation of worship, right? To think that the government can tell us what we can or can't wear when we're worshiping our God is a difficult thing. So we've seen a lot of the fallout from that has been what will the government do in the future. So I see a lot of critical issues. I think a lot of businesses are

moving towards very clear statements of faith, very clear things they're doing as churches have had to do in the past. And I think we really need to monitor just, I mean, just this week, we're dealing with the Respect for Marriage Act. And I have grave concerns. You know, it passed the Senate yesterday without clear amendments that will protect religious liberty. So I think there is a lot, and I think there's a continued battle. Churches, Christian businesses are going to see disagreements over what you can do. One of the things I'm concerned about is that I practice

law in Pennsylvania. I'm licensed by the State Bar of Pennsylvania, and our State Bar has tried to implement an ethics rule which would make it an offense, an ethics violation for an attorney to say something that could be construed as critical of those that are non-binary or critical of those that are transitioning or otherwise to seem, you know, if it can be interpreted as harassment or not accepting their rights and privileges, us being fought out in the courts, we'll see. But all of those things are out there. So I think this is a time where COVID woke a lot of folks up, but we need to be aware and focusing on these issues because if we don't, we'll be in a situation where we don, but we need to be aware and focusing on these issues, because if we don't, we'll be in a situation where we don't have a space to speak out without serious repercussions

and persecution. That's right. Yeah, I think there's a reason why the First Amendment contains freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, because they're all connected together. And we're going to see that ramping up. You know, you're not going to have—Christians are not going to be the ones who are going to be able to speak freely. We will have to conform to their speech rules and to their religion, I think, is what we see coming. You know, we talked about the Respect for Marriage Act and the fact that it passed. I thought it was very telling how many Republicans moved in on that. And the fact that they had two amendments, one of them could have been passed with just a simple majority.

They really didn't focus on that. Instead, they focused more on the one that needed more than 60 votes. And so it was guaranteed that that was not going to pass. It just seemed to me like there was a lot of virtue signaling that was happening there. They weren't really serious about protecting those concerns. And let me ask you, your concerns, they did say, well, you're not going to, for now, have any say-so with a nonprofit or churches in terms of telling them what they can and cannot do. But they left the door wide open for private businesses. Is that correct? And individuals. That's my reading of it.

As I look at the current language, I don't see protections there for private businesses and individuals. That's right. Yeah. So that's going to have to be fought out in the court in terms of First Amendment versus the types of things that are going to come. And we've seen this for the longest time. It's just amazing to me to see that the baker in Colorado, Masterpiece Bakery, he won at the Supreme Court and he comes back and they hit him again with another one of the alphabets from the LGBT. At first it was like L or G, and then comes back, and they hit him again with another one of the alphabets from the LGBT. At first, it was like L or G, and then they came back and said, all right, now you've got to fight us over the same issue with a T. So it's just they're relentless. They really will not stop.

And so we have to be relentless in the same way in terms of constantly defending things. Do you have, Davis, do you have a website that people can get in touch with you? Because I have a lot of listeners who are in the military. I do. It's themilitarycouncil.com, themilitarycouncil.com. And you can follow, folks can follow me on Twitter at Davis Yance. But that militarycouncil.com is a great place to get ahold of me. Okay, great. That's good to know. I know a lot of people are going to have questions about that. Other than the Respect for Marriage Act and other issues that are on the way, what else do you see happening?

I know certainly it's brought these issues to the forefront. For the longest time, we've looked at what is the interplay for Christians between respect for government authority and then drawing the line when they encroach on our freedom of religion. And let me know if you need to go. I know that you're doing this from the airport, so I don't know what time you're going to. No, I still have time. We're okay.

Okay, good. But, you know, when we look at this, I've talked many times to Matt Trujillo about interposition and what is legitimate authority. It's a very difficult thing for Christians to understand that. And for the longest time, you know, we would hear, well, you know, whatever the government tells you to do, even if they tell you to put a propeller on your head and spin it, you got to do it unless they tell you something that impinges on your religious worship. And yet we saw throughout 2020 that people folded on that in many different ways. We had a lot of pastors who didn't, some who went to jail in Canada, that type of thing. A lot of fines that were out there that got rolled back. Were you involved in representing any churches that got hit with fines and other things like that?

Fortunately, I wasn't um in pennsylvania the guidance was always sort of um it was very detailed and very precise and prevented a lot of things and then whenever we pushed back the the governor folded very quickly and he said oh that was just a suggestion that was just a suggestion so it was just a probe in pennsylvania he was just probing to see what he could get away with. Exactly. We felt that. So, man, there's so much I could say about those issues that you brought up.

I think first and foremost what we need to be doing as Christians is recognizing the spiritual battle that's here. I just firmly believe in everything we do, we're either worshiping God or we're worshiping man. And I think part of the zeal with which some are coming off church, we see this just ramping up of this ideology. It's a spiritual ideology. It's the spirit of the age. It's worship of man. And we know, look, atheism, secular humanism, those are religions that always lead to tyranny. Just look at history,

that's what you see. So what we have to do as Christians is we have to read the entire Bible, and we have to understand how there is a system of government, there are principles of government that the Bible teaches us that we can see, and we need to look at our own history as a nation. The Black Robe Regiment, the Presbyterian ministers taught, you know, the doctrine of the lesser magistrate. They taught how to speak truth to government, and when it was biblical, when it was appropriate to resist tyranny. And it wasn't just about religious freedom or religious worship. It was about other areas of life where they believe strongly that there's spheres of authority

and the state was invading the spheres of authority of the individual, of the family. And so I just think those principles are really important, but we have to wake up to the spiritual battle that's going on. And we can't, you know, we can't buy into the myth of neutrality. We can't be meek and we shouldn't, we shouldn't take we shouldn't take Romans 13 out of the context of the rest of Scripture. I agree. Absolutely. I've talked many times to Matt Trujillo about his book, The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate,

and I know James Coates, one of the pastors who went to jail up in Canada, said, I wish I'd studied more history, and I wish I'd especially studied more church history to really understand what this is. But he became history in terms of living it out, and he had a very quick learning experience, and he got himself up to speed to understand exactly what was involved in it. And you're right. It is a spiritual battle, and we need to understand where this is coming from. But we also need to understand, as you pointed out, that if we're going to go into a secular, humanistic, pagan society,

it's going to be tyranny. It's going to be survival of the strongest against the weak. We see that in the abortion issue, don't we? At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar, and the chance to reward you. That's why every day of the festival, we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to €10 if your horse loses on a selected race.

That's how we celebrate the biggest week in racing. Cheltenham with LiveScore Bet. This is total betting. Sign up by 2pm 14th of March. Bet within 48 hours of race. Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply. Bet responsibly.

18plusgamblingcare.ie We absolutely do. We absolutely do. And you can just draw a line, you know. Darwin gave popular society an excuse to organize things without God, right? Without a creator. That's right. And then we see, you know, the rise of communism and and just an unprecedented level of tyranny that comes right from that idea of atheism, secular humanism, trying to separate religion from the state.

But we do. We need to be very aware of that history. And I think, as you said, you're a former pastor. Is that correct? Former pastor or you're still doing some? Yeah, I served as a pastor elder for a local church. I was called to do that, and yeah. That's good.

Yeah, that gives you the perspective to do this. And I think that the church has gotten so weak. I just talked yesterday about how in the UK they had some wacko that was talking about how Jesus was a transgender and he was both male and female and all the rest of this kind of stuff. They don't have any foundation. They don't have any reference that they can base their church on. And now you see that it's not even half of the people in the UK say that they're Christian. Most people will say, make a profession or a faith or something like that, even if they don't really have an involvement in it, but they're not even talking about it anymore. It's probably a tiny fraction of maybe 5% of people actually practice

that. That is why it's collapsing. And I think that is really the key thing that is going to have to be there for us to reclaim the foundations of our country, especially thinking back to this last week and Thanksgiving. We have people who are telling us that America was not founded for religious liberty. I mean, nothing could be further from the truth, right? That's right. Yeah, that rewriting of history is so dangerous. And we do, we have to look internally to the church, we have to look internally to the church, we have to look at our churches and we have to ask the question, you know, what are we doing? You know, I see, again, I don't want to be offensive here, but I see many churches use

the excuse of being quote-unquote gospel-centered as a way to avoid controversy, right? So being gospel-centered is great. That's the point. But when you're using that terminology to buy into the myth of neutrality, to try to not be offensive, right? To say, oh, we're just going to talk about the Bible. We're not going to talk about these social issues. I don't know what Bible you're reading then, first of all, but one of my biggest concerns is we as Christians, you know, when we're addressing issues, you know, I've seen this in churches where we're addressing abortion and we spend minutes talking about apologizing for our stance and talking about, you know, helping people and exceptions and things like that, we understand that without talking about the principle. And we do the same thing when we talk about marriage, when we talk about human sexuality. We're apologizing to the world for what the Bible says rather than recognizing, no, God has given us his word to bless us. This is how we have blessing and human flourishing, even in a fallen world, is following biblical principles. And we're not sharing that message. So, you know, if the church isn't sharing biblical truth and sharing how it's a blessing,

and it's what leads to true joy in this earth, what would we expect society's reaction to be? I agree. Yeah, I agree. And we have to be careful that we don't fall off on the other side. We don't want to become totally political. We've seen the left do that, you know, where they become simply about feeding the hungry and the poor and clothing them, and then pushing the gospel completely away. So there has to be a balance there. But for the people who just want to retreat into a kind of pietism, a kind of monastic life,

we're not called to that either. You know, we're not told to say, well, you know, I see the problem, you know, they've thrown you in prison, but I hope you have a nice day. That's not what we're called to do. We're also called to meet people's real physical needs, and that was one of the strengths of the early church, just living life as Christ would in terms of helping people to the extent that we can. I think that's a key thing that is missing in the churches, And I think even the insular pietism can be just having like a, you know, a supper club type of thing. You know, I mean, it can be just that simple thing where you have this little insular club and you're not involved in what's going on around you.

I've seen that type of approach in my life and some churches that I've been involved in as well, where they just focus on the pietism. They don't even want to acknowledge that there's anything out there in the real world that they could help somebody with, where they could stand in the gap. I think this last couple of years has really kind of brought that to the forefront. I think God has prepared this kind of test for us to wake us up. What do you think? I think that's absolutely true. I think, and I hope, and I pray that it does, because we just, we see clear examples of government overreach. We see so many just clear examples of what happens if the church isn't sharing the whole truth of God's word and isn't, you know, isn't doing that well. And if we are retreating into pietism, I mean, I love that you use that word. That's a

word that I've used in a warning I've given to churches I've spoken to, is what are we doing? Where is the application outside of the four walls of this building? Because we can have good theology, but if we're not applying it for all of life, if it's not all of Scripture for all of life, then we tend to fall into that pietism. I agree. You mentioned down here you also get involved in some homeschooling cases, you're a homeschooling father.

When we look at education, I think that is so fundamental. And that was one of the places where the church did have a very active role once upon a time, and then it became so much about the education itself and they pushed the Christianity off. They said, well, you know, education, the government could do a better job of this than we could, because they didn't understand what was unique that they had to offer people. What type of homeschool challenges are you seeing now?

You know, I think that this battle is coming on the future. There are a lot of states with very good laws. One of the first things I did after I left active duty, came back to Pennsylvania. I was homeschooled in Pennsylvania. My parents did it when it wasn't really a thing. They were involved with the Homeschool Legal Defense Association early on, suing Pennsylvania school districts. My parents were pioneers in that regard, along with the HSLBA. So one of the things I came back in and did when I got back is I helped get legislation passed in Pennsylvania, which created some additional protections and some additional good rules in place. But I think that we have to

continue to do is we have to understand that education is so critical. If we just give it and turn that over to the state, we're allowing a state that is not embracing any Christian principles anymore, any biblical principles anymore, that is atheist, secular humanist. We're allowing that indoctrination to occur. So we need to be very, very wary because there are constantly, you know, the spirit of the age, those that are part of the religion of secular humanism, they recognize very, very clearly the power of education. This has been a decades-long effort to say things like, we hear politicians say this, we hear so-called experts say this, you know. Well, you know, you wouldn't tell your doctor how to do a heart surgery. Why are you telling your teacher how to educate your kid?

You know, that church and families have ceded so much of what we should be primarily concerned with to the state because it just seems simpler. It seemed easier. It seemed benign. And so we have to have to be ready for that. But every time we hear political leader or anyone else say, well, you know, the teachers are the expert, the school district's the expert. You know, why are parents involved in this? That's just, I mean, that's shocking. We should be, that should be something that chills us to the bone as parents, as families, as churches, that is absurd. These are our children. That's right. And I think it gets back to the idea of what is education. Education is not just a technical education, you know, just getting kids out who can read and write proficiently and do math. That is a technical education, essentially. But real education has to involve values, and it is fundamentally religious,

and that's why it is so dangerous to turn over. Because it's somebody's worldview, somebody's religion is going to be taught. The question is who is going to be teaching these fundamental issues to your children. I think that's the key issue that we need to wake up to. And I think that has been, you know, as I said, we've gone through some difficult things in this last couple of years, but God has used that, I think, to open our eyes to what is happening. People who saw what their schools were actually doing,

because I've had this conversation with many people over the years about homeschooling versus government schooling, and you could point to them and you could say, well, this is what is being coming out of Washington. This is what the state curriculum is. As a matter of fact, we got this situation. Look what happened in your school. Oh, well, that's different.

And my teacher that I, the ones teaching my, they don't do that kind of stuff. Well, during the lockdown, people could see, yeah, it was actually happening in their kids' classroom. And I think that was a real blessing, you know as a silver lining around that cloud for people to be able to see that and I think that's why you're seeing the pushback and all these different school boards people are looking at that but I think they're still going in the wrong direction I think Christians need to understand that religion is fundamental to education it's not a side thing and somebody's religion is going to be taught.

I think that's the key thing. As you point out, people have turned over and ceded religious authority, parental authority to the government in so many different ways, haven't they? Absolutely right. The idea that the myth of neutrality is so dangerous in the American church and the church worldwide, the, that education can be done without a religious perspective, you know, again, that goes back to the basic principle in everything we do. We're either, we're either following and worshiping God or we're following and worshiping man. There's no, there's no

dividing line there. Um, and so we're either acknowledging our creator God or we're not, and we're elevating the creation and that's what we see that's what our education system does when we take God when we take prayer when we take religious faith we try to take it out of school what we're doing is we're teaching kids to be anti-religious we're teaching kids there's something wrong with that there's something bad about it just in general and then we're replacing it with another set of moral values, moral values that we see parents now see we're replacing it with it are a woke agenda or a, you know, a transgender identity agenda, but all, all of it elevates man right. As the ultimate, as the ultimate being and ignores our creator God.

That's right. Yeah. Lo lovers of self focused on themselves so much of the poster child for that would be sam britain who is so focused on his wardrobe and all the rest of the stuff is like how can he look after any nuclear waste i just don't understand that at all but you know that's all political and it's about pushing a political agenda you know his the way he looks is exactly the point as to why the Biden administration picked him for that. But just to recap what is happening with the military. Again, the Army is kind of lagging in terms of some of the others, so it hasn't got to the point with that. But in the other branches of directly in the military, there has kind of been put on pause.

Coast Guard is a completely different thing in terms of just running this script through. Is that an accurate summary of where they're on the branches of the military? It is. It's absolutely where we're at. So for the Navy, for the Marines, for the Air Force, if you file the religious accommodation, you're protected. For now, it's on pause. It will take two or three years to get through federal litigation on that. So folks have, have some protection. It's still destroying careers. It's still pushing people into retirement.

I'm hoping to retire in December myself because of all this, there's just, there's no, no place for me to serve anymore. And, and hurting recruitment as well. I mean, not only are they pushing people out, but they're hurting recruitment. It's just crippling the services. It's just a horrific thing that is happening. Let me ask you one other thing.

When it comes to the religious exemptions, are they just not really paying any attention to them? I know it's very deliberate in the Coast Guard to say, hey, these are the talking points, now we can trap them. Are any of them seriously considering the arguments? And if so, are there some arguments that seem to be prevailing better than others? You know, some people said we got objections because they're tested on aborted babies, or, you know, we have objections about perhaps modifying our body in ways that we don't know,

or, you know, different things like that. Have you seen any consideration of the arguments? And are there any arguments that are better or worse than others? I think those two are the primary ones. Those are the most common ones, and I think those are the important ones to make. I think it's easy to see how they're consistent with biblical teaching and why a person of faith could have that, But the reality is the military has chosen to ignore them. The military's position on this from the beginning was, you know, we're going to do this and we don't care.

We don't care about federal law. We don't care about the constitution. We don't care about the religious freedom restoration act. And it didn't get a lot of publicity and a lot of people missed it. But when the federal government was arguing in the sixth circuit case, the air force case, the attorney for the department of Justice who admitted on the record as he's making an argument. Well, you know, we didn't we don't think we have to comply with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act unless we're sued.

And then we have to worry about it. I mean, he literally said, well, there's not it's that act isn't really designed to do that. It's designed to give people a way to sue the government, but it doesn't prevent us from doing anything, which is absolutely not true. That's absolutely not the point of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It's why Congress passed it, but it was just astonishing to have an attorney admit, well, we don't think we have to follow it unless we're sued. That's one of the things, when we look at Freedom of Information Act requests, that's one of the things that always surprised me is that, for the most part, they will deny anything, giving you any of that, deny complying with it. You have to sue them for it.

I mean, it's just the strangest thing that they just feel compelled to disobey these laws unless you get a court to compel them to do that. I mean, I've seen that over and over again. Let me ask you before you go, if you still have time, are you familiar at all with the kind of precedents that were set in terms of the anthrax vaccines? Because I know that was a big fight, you know, what, 15 years ago, 20 years ago? Yeah, absolutely. I'm very aware of that precedent and we've used it. The Lieutenant Mosley's case where we showed that this was an unlawful order, we presented that information to these military officers and it really does have an impact. So what happened with the Anthrax case in 1998, Congress passes a law, this is military, you cannot experiment on military members. You

cannot force military members to receive an experimental or emergency use product. That was passed in 1998. It took all the way until 2001 for the federal government to mandate an emergency use authorization experimental anthrax vaccine on the military. And two things fell out of that. One, about 35,000 military members died or suffered from neurological diseases, essentially akin to Luget's disease in their 20s. I mean, we had 22-year-olds that died. I didn't realize it was that many people. That's amazing.

Did we just lose him? Okay. Oh, we just lost our connection to him. So it's a time to reestablish. Go ahead and pull that off. We just lost our establishment to him. I just heard it go beep, and we lost the connection there. It might be.

We're going to try to establish that. Do you need me to stop and go to? Are we back? Can you hear me, Davis? I'm back. Okay, good. Good. Okay, good. Okay, good.

Yeah, we got disconnected there. I was amazed at how many people died. I didn't realize it was that large. I knew a lot of people had health issues with it. I didn't realize it was that big. But go ahead and tell us a little bit more about that particular case. Yeah, so what happened is then lawsuits were filed based on this federal law, based on issues with the FDA approval

of the anthrax vaccine. And what happened in 2004 is federal courts universally said, military, you have to stop. What you're doing is illegal. You can't do this. And once the federal courts did that, the military backed down. I know there was a lawyer who was involved in that who came back to fight with us. Have you been involved? I can't remember his name.

Have you? Dale Saron. Dale Saron. Yes. Been very involved. He was working on bringing a big case that has not had success in that case yet using similar issues here. But actually some of my clients were involved in that litigation as well so he's working hard there are several others that are doing

good work attacking similar issues it's just you know just like it was back in 2004 it remains difficult to get federal courts to be willing to intervene in any sort of military decision-making so it's been a challenge yeah it's just astounding to me to see the utter contempt from politicians for the military. You know, they have all the lip service about, oh, yeah, we thank you for your service and all the rest of the stuff, and then they pull this kind of stuff,

using them as guinea pigs and, you know, relentless in terms of pushing this stuff. It truly is amazing to see this, but I really do thank you for what you're doing. Thank you for your service, your service to the country and supporting the Constitution and your service for supporting those who are in the military in this very important time. We're talking to Davis Yance. And again, Davis, give us your Twitter account and how people can find you.

My Twitter account is at Davis Yance on Twitter. My website is themilitarycouncil.com, themilitarycouncil.com. Thank you very much. It's so great to talk to you. And I'm so happy that you're doing this and standing in the gap. It's exactly what this country needs for everybody. I mean, so many people in so many different walks of life and other federal employees have had this pushed on them, but it's been ruthless, even worse for the military that has for many of the others who have pushed back against this. And in some areas, they've already pushed this back, but the military just continues to do this. Thank you very much, Davis. Great talking to you. Thank you so much for covering this and being on this and

just appreciate prayers as we continue to fight. That is the most important thing. They cannot chain our prayers. Thank you so much, Davis. Appreciate it. The common man. They created common core to dumb down our children. They created common past to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future. They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception,

intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find at thedavidknightshow.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially please keep us in your prayers Thank you.