The David Knight Show - Own Nothing, Drive Nowhere: Why Globalists Are Killing the Car

Episode Date: September 24, 2025

Eric Peters tears joins the show to discuss Trump’s betrayal on free speech, Ukraine, and Venezuela while exposing how EV mandates, emissions rules, and insurance scams are killing mobility. Follow the show on Kick and watch live every weekday 9:00am EST – 12:00pm EST https://kick.com/davidknightshow Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHTFind out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

Welcome back and joining us now is Eric Peters of Eric Petersotto's.com. Always great to have Eric on. He is focused on liberty and mobility because you can't have one without the other. It's kind of what Jefferson said about life and liberty. He said the hand of force can destroy life or liberty but cannot separate them. Of course, he said disjoined them, but that's a little bit stilted for our language. But it definitely is true. And you cannot disjoin liberty and mobility either.

So I always enjoy Eric's take on things. Eric, I was sad to see that we were just talking about this over the break. You wrote a piece three days ago. You said, Our Charlie. What happened in your family? Well, yeah, it's a tough thing to talk about. I hope I'll be able to do this well enough, but we had about a two-and-a-half-year-old mixed-degree German Shepherd Lab, and, you know, he's been my companion for that whole time

and just a very big presence in our life. Anyway, he got hit by, I guess, a car or truck, I'm not sure exactly which, and it was really jarring because as anybody who's been through having a pet die knows, it's one thing when your pet is elderly and old or sick, and you know, you understand. that it's going to happen and you have time to prepare for it but you know with a with a young pet like that to just be gone instantly just like that is what happened really difficult you know boy for the last several days this happened on Friday I've been having deja vu you know certain times of the of the day like oh I better put put water in Pace's bowl or oh it's time for us to go for

our run I went for a run on Monday and you know one of his things that he would do he would carry around him he was a strong dog a big log in his mouth and he would keep it in his mouth for a mile or more on our run. You know, it was just one of those things. And as I'm running by myself, which was strange, I saw one of the logs that he dropped off on the trail, and it just really, I'm sorry, kind of really, I'm being overly emotional about it, so I apologize.

Oh, no, I understand. Absolutely understand. It's, like you said, it's the suddenness of this. And I think that's one of the things that really magnified what happened to Charlie Kirk. But I think, you know, when we look at it and how they have taken his legacy and they have flipped it completely opposite of what he was known for,

what he ought to be remembered for. They're doing everything they can to make a saint, a celebrity, whatever there. In Oklahoma, they want to put a Charlie Kirk statue on every university campus. I think the right way to honor him is to support free speech. But it seems like the people who agreed with him and who followed him want to do just the opposite of that. They want to attack free speech and they think this gives them an opportunity to do what they know the left was doing to them before. What do you think? Particularly Trump. Did you happen to ask the interview? It was a couple of days after Kirk's assassination and I wish I could

remember who the journalist was. It was a woman. And, you know, she was asking Trump about the calls to suppress what they called hate speech now. It's interesting that Trump, all people in the right is not doing exactly what they excoriated the left for doing during the 2024 campaign season. And it was one of the reasons why people voted for Trump because they were tired of having their differing opinions framed as hate. That's right. I've got a question. Oh, you're hateful.

We can't discuss that because clearly you're a cretan and you're, you know, you're motivated by malicious motives rather than, hey, I just have a question. Anyway, this female reporter asked Trump about that. And Trump had the egregious, vulgar. goal to say something like, well, Charlie Kirk doesn't, he may not think that way anymore. I can't remember the exact. Yeah, that's exactly what he said. We played that clip.

Yeah. She said, Charlie Kirk said there's no such thing as hate speech. Well, he probably wouldn't say that now. You know, that's basically what it's justicable. Because again, everything that, whether you agree with what Kirk had to say or not, I think the one thing that has to be universally acknowledged is that he was willing to debate. He was willing to discuss practically any topic, including even Israel lately. And, you know, the influence of the Israel.

government over the American government. And I think that's ultimately what got him into trouble. You know, Trump demands lockstep adherence and even worship of himself and his policies. And he does it in a manner that's just so abrasive and insulting to the people who support him, this latest business of doing the parking break 180 on Ukraine. You know, again, another example. You know, if people had been aware that he was going to do that in 2024, I doubt many people would have voted for him.

One of the reasons, strong reasons people voted for him was we are sick. of all these wars. We're sick of being forced to finance it through our taxes and thereby be complicit in it. You know, the mass murder in Gaza, we want no part of this stuff. It's got to stop. That's one of the reasons why people voted for him. And now, this brazen guy just says, well, we're going to back Ukraine. And not only that, he's saying that Ukraine has a right to not only seize back every territory that it's lost, but potentially even more than that. Yeah, take some back from Russia, exactly. It's madness. How did they think that this is going to be received by Putin. What do you think Putin's response to this is going to be? I wouldn't be

surprised if he if he amps things up because he believes that he's got a narrow window of opportunity now to finish this situation before boots go on the ground, potentially American boots. That's right. Yeah, he's he's taunting Putin saying he doesn't have much of military. He could have finished this off in a couple of weeks. You know, like we finished off Afghanistan, right, in a couple of weeks. I was having a conversation with a friend of mine who stopped by yesterday about this. And we got to talking about Putin versus Trump. And the difference between a serious person and a clown. Yeah. Now, whatever you may think of Putin, you don't have to say that you like him. You know, that's a childish argument. It's not about whether you think he's a nice

man or a bad man. He's a serious man. He's a serious person with serious credentials who is not an idiot and who understands history. And look at Trump. What do we have? You know, we literally have a clown going up against a serious person, a dangerous cloud. I believe he was installed for that very reason. You know, even had his first Commerce Secretary, William, let's see, Wilbur Ross, who said that, you know, it was the Rothschild bank that he was working for. And he said, you know, when Trump was going bankrupt, he showed up and he saw this big crowd around him.

He said, I contacted the Rothschild people and I said, hey, this is somebody I think we could use. I think that's exactly what they're doing. They're using him as a clown. They're using him to devise. people, they're using him to create chaos. I think that's his role. And also a distraction and maybe the worst kind of distraction imaginable, you know, as everything falls apart internally and, you know, potentially let's say the Epstein thing percolates up again, or we find new

details about what may have been involved in Kirk's murder that could have incredibly damaging repercussions. What would be a perfect thing to get people's mind off of that? Well, perhaps a big war in Eastern Europe would do just that. That's right. And And that's what I have this creepy feeling maybe in the works. And I think he's absolutely capable of it. You know, you look at what he's doing with the, trying to make an excuse that he can blow up ships off of Venezuela without even stopping them or verifying that they're running drugs. And as I pointed out, at the same time that he's saying this is an appropriate response and J.D. Vance is saying it's appropriate. Marco Rubio and Pete Hankseth are all saying, oh, this is what our military is for.

no it's not we had our military was stopping ships inspecting them if they find drugs they'd take the drugs they would arrest the people they didn't line them up on the side of the boat and machine gun them and so this is an extrajudicial killing i told the audience earlier on the program i said dutarte did this in the philippines he said you know if you think it's a drug dealer shoot to kill and he's now in the international criminal court and they're looking at him for those extrajudicial killings It's a crime. It's a war crime that he's doing. So he's perfectly capable. Yeah. It's a psychopathic elaboration of that old, if you see something, say something. Now, if you see something, kill something. Yeah.

These are acts of war. And they're also the acts of a coward bully in that Venezuela. It's just another example of big old Uncle Sam throwing his weight around and extraditionally killing foreign nationals outside of the United States with impunity. Because, you know, we can do it. What's Venezuela? going to do about it. That's right. You know, I think at some point Trump is going to whack the wrong guy. And Putin could be just the guy who's the wrong guy to whack. That's right. That's right.

Yeah, it's very concerning. You know, even escalated saying, yeah, we should shoot down Russian jets if they get anywhere close to the borders and things like that as well. It's a dangerous time that we live in. Of course, it's very much like the Chinese curse, isn't it? May you live in interesting times? There's never a shortage of things to report on. It's like, and now for something completely different from Trump than he said yesterday. You know, it's not. like Monty Python. I'm glad you brought up China. I just, I needed a break the other day,

and so I was just watching some random YouTube videos, and I was watching some videos of depicting scenes in China around, for example, their train stations and their airports, their infrastructure, which is immaculate and modern. I looked at their bullet trains, and I compared it with what's going on in this country. You know, China is actually concerned with China and trying to build up its own internal society

and improve itself where it seems that the U.S. is deindustrializing and rapidly descending from second to third world status. Yes. To the extent we can actually see the change from day to day. Yeah. And it's by design. And it's by the same people that are running Trump, even though he pushes back against the climate mcuffin that I call it.

Still, it's the deliberate deindustrialization of the West. And there's two sides of that. They want to deindustrialize the West while they give China the advantage in terms of manufacturing. And the huge advantage. that they have is in terms of energy cost. But as Gerald Slynti has said many times on this show, he said the

business of China is business. The business of America is war. And that's not serving as well. Yeah, destructiveness. Yeah. I saw something also related to China that talked, it was a person talking about how in China, the oligarchs, the really rich people, kind of do what

American oligarchs did in the late part of the 19th and early 20th century. When they did things like the Carnegie Library, you know, they funded these these vast things that were good for Americans, you know, leaving aside the question of corporate oligarchs, at least they put back into the country, whereas now the oligarch class in this country just flaunts its gratuitous, egregious, theft wealth, you know, with one $120,000 McMansion after the next, and yachts and lavish lifestyles, thumbing their nose and rubbing our

faces in it. Yeah, yeah. And to make it clear, you know, when you look at somebody like Henry Ford who had his issues, he wanted to make sure that his workers could afford to buy the product that he has. Who's going to buy these products when they replace all of us with robots? That's what their goal is. They replace everybody with robots. And I said when Trump did his tax cut in 2017, because it was all targeted towards corporations and he was going to incentivize them to bring to onshore manufacturing.

I said, that's not going to happen until they've got the robots to replace the workers. They, I said, that's why they've got the open border immigration and once they have robots to that point, they'll get tough on immigration and they will pay these oligarchs a lot of money to bring factories back, but it's not going to bring back any jobs. They're just going to be incentivized to build the factories and they'll brag about the fact that they've got manufacturing in the United States, but they won't be using it to raise a standard of living of anybody. And I think that's really what is what is happening and what is going to happen. I think so too. And I'd like to focus on something that you mentioned, which has to do with that word about owning things. You know, they're not concerned about that. It's not that they're, you know, oh, well, how are people going to be able to afford these $50,000 vehicles that they're pushing out right now? They know that the end goal is for you to not own the vehicle. Exactly. The end goal is for you to rent the ride, to rent everything, you know, sort of like the way that you pay for a streaming service so that you can watch TV. That's what they want. Serial debt. They want to completely disconnect us, the typical average American, from owning anything in order to control everything.

It isn't like they didn't tell us. They constantly say, you will own nothing, right? Yes. And I thought about you this way. It's why I wanted to get you back on because I thought, yeah, I haven't talked to Eric for a while. I saw that Portia was having problems. And Portia, of course, owned by VW and the two of them are having to pull back because they, They can't sell their EVs.

And I remember, I said, and I talked to the audience. I said, yeah, Eric's been saying this for the longest time. They should have hired him as CEO of Porsche. They wouldn't have had this issue because you knew. And, of course, common sense would tell us that they have a huge advantage, these companies that have been making internal combustion engines for a long time. They had a huge advantage to China or to other potential competitors. That had to be destroyed by saying, no, now we can't use internal combustion engines.

We're going to have to do the skates of the EVs. And China's got the advantage with the battery technology. They've also got now a manufacturing advantage in terms of cheap, available energy. Energy is so expensive. In the UK, they're shutting down all their manufacturing. And in Germany, it's very expensive. They can't be cost competitive with it. But now they're saying, hey, we're going to have to pull back a little bit.

We've malinvested billions of dollars in the EV industry. Nobody wants these things. Nobody's buying it. So now we're going to have to pull back and try to have a cottage industry of maybe being allowed to sell some internal combustion engines. But it's going to break the back if it's even allowed of these, if they even allow them to sell a few boutique things to the rich, it's still going to break their back. It will. And this is a general problem. Stalantis, which is the parent company of the Dodge, Ram Jeep, and Chrysler brands, announced about a week ago that they were not going to produce the electric version of the Ram.

500 pickup that they had planned to bring out in 2026 because they understand that it would be a disaster, that nobody's going to buy it. And so rather than just build these things and then shipping them to dealers where they're just going to sit and then having to give them away at fire sale prices, which is what Ford's had to do with tightening, they figured this smart thing to do is to cut bait. You know, they've practically destroyed the Dodge brand already by getting rid of the engine in the charger and getting rid of the challenger altogether and replacing it with this electric charger, which has been an epic flop. I mean, it is even worse than the Eds disaster back

in the 50s. It hasn't been marked on, but I mean, it's that bad. They can't sell these things. I have yet to see one in the wild. I have yet to see one on the road. They haven't even sent me one to review yet because, you know, it's not just that they're short range and all the other problems that electric vehicles have. It's not well made. It's a problematic, problem-prone vehicle that suffers endless glitches, such as bricking to the point. or they have to send out a technician to try to figure out why it won't move. Now, the other thing is that you brought up, I find this endlessly fascinating with regard to Porsche and these other manufacturers

that are no longer run by car people because any car guy would tell you that a Porsche, there are intangibles when it comes to a car like that. It's not just about how quickly it goes to zero to 60. That's right. You know, it's fatal error in thinking, well, we'll just basically produce a Tesla that looks like a Porsche, essentially. You know, and somehow we'll sell that feeling to, understand that one of the big reasons that people buy Porsche's is because they love that six-cylinder boxer engine and they love the sound that it makes and the emotional, visceral

feeling that you get that is lost entirely. Electric vehicles are fundamentally homogenous. Say what you will about, you know, oh, well, they're quiet and this and that, but they're fundamentally when you drive one, you've driven them all. Yeah. You know, some quicker than others. And don't they, does Porsche and some of these other sports car companies, when they make their EVs, do they take the Tesla approach in terms of instruments? because that's one of the things that is also a part of the feel. You know, how do the controls feel? Does it feel solid or tensey?

I hate the idea that I've got to use a touchscreen while I'm driving. How is that safe? You know, you're supposed to use hands off of your phone or we'll give you a ticket. But, hey, it's a wonderful thing. If we take all the controls, even on Tesla, you can't even adjust the direction of the air vents without using the touchpad that is attached to the dashboard. Yep, and they're all doing it now. Right now in the driveway, I have a brand new 2026 Kia Sportage, which is a nothing special little crossover that stickers for about $28,000. And it's got a full-width

single-sheet LCD screen for everything, you know, the main instrument cluster. And then off to its right is the thing that you have to tap and swipe through in order to operate functions such as, you know, changing the station that you're listening to. And you're right. And it's just an illustration of how disingenuous the government is, because on the one hand, hand they say to people, oh, you can't use your cell phone while you're driving because it's dangerous to be looking at your phone and swiping and tapping a screen while you're trying to drive. You can't keep your eyes on the road. But it's no problem if you build the thing into the car. Yeah. You know, it's okay. We need to have some controls that I have to take my seatbelt off

in order to use, right? Yeah. So one of the, you know, to get back to circle back to what we were talking about, the great disaster, in my opinion, and it's another one, is that this homogeneity of appearance in the interior of cars that has been that has been bequeathed to us by this obsession with reproducing the smartphone in your car, the look of a smartphone. So now you've lost that individuality too. Instead of having this kind of neat array of gauges, a really good example of this. A couple of weeks ago, I had the latest Mini Cooper. And it used to be that one of the cool things about the Mini Cooper, which is owned by the Germans,

it's owned by BMW, but nonetheless, was that they replicated the feel, the look and the function of the 60s minis, you know, if you've ever been in one of the old models, they had the cool little chrome toggle switches, you know, and it had that vibe to it, that feel, and it was like no other car. Well, they did what everybody else is doing, and they got rid of essentially all of the physical tactile controls, the switches and knobs, and in lieu of that, they put one gigantic pie plate touchscreen, you know, in the middle, in the center of the, and it looks cheap, it looks homogenous, and it's also in a way, in my opinion, it's anti-human, it's antiseptic, It's cold.

And I think they shut down the last U.K. factory for the mini BMW did. Am I correct? I think they just shut it down. I'm not sure not to look, but I wouldn't be surprised. I saw something because, again, you can't do manufacturing in the U.S. because Harris Starmer, the Nazi, doesn't want you to have any energy. So they shut it down. I don't think, you know, and it was an article out of the UK.

And they were saying, you know, this is something that was fundamentally British, as you point about very idiosyncratic and now it's not going to be made anymore in Britain because of the cost of energy that's there yeah if nothing survives any longer except the brand you know that's what you get you get the label but well you know inside it's all the same when you talk about the design of these cars and how we've lost so much of this uh around this area you know we're not too far away from pigeon forge and last week they just had a big classic car show and uh That's when it really hits home. You know, when you see one of these cars, which, you know, it never really valued.

I mean, it might have just been like a family sedan or something, you know, 50 years ago. But you look at it, it's like, wow, that's really quirky. That's kind of interesting looking. Look at those colors, you know, and all the rest of the stuff. Look at the colors. Look at the chrome. It really is entertaining to see cars that were just ordinary cars or ordinary trucks a half a century ago to see them and to see how different they were and how unique they all were.

And so it really kind of drives at home here in the Pigeon Forge area. They have these car shows that happen frequently. The big one was last weekend. They had that. But you got some articles at Eric Petersotos.com about some of the difficulties of keeping these older cars running. Talk about ethanol blues. What's that about? Yeah, I have to, as the saying goes in the hood, cop to something, which is embarrassing for me.

because, you know, I shouldn't, of all people, this should not have happened to me. But I was lazy one day, and this was several months back, probably about eight months ago, when I was out driving my old muscle car, I have a 76 Trans Am, and rather than go all the way into town where they have a station that sells unadulterated, pure gasoline, which is normally what I use to fill the car up with, because it sits sometimes for, you know, I get preoccupied with work and other things. Sometimes the car, unfortunately, will sit for several months before I have time to drive it. Anyway, I filled it up with E10, which is only 90% gas and 10% ethanol, and I left it to sit.

And it sat for about three months. God help me. I, you know, I deserve to be beaten for that. Anyway, I went to start it, and boy, I barely got it to run, and it was going, you know, smoke pouring out of it. And long story short, I ended up having to take the carburetor off the engine and completely disassemble it and clean out the ethanol gunk inside. the carbure because the fuel had gone bad over the time that I kept it in storage, basically. And, you know, this is a problem with these older vehicles because, you know, my car was made in 1976. And in 1976, when you bought gas, you actually got gas for your money, 100% gasoline.

Most people don't understand that most pump gas is 10% ethanol alcohol. And if you own a vehicle that was made before that came into being, that vehicle was not designed for alcohol. Alcohol is a different fuel than gasoline. It has different properties. It attracts water, among other things. It's corrosive. Does it degrade faster than pure gasoline then, I guess? It does. That's what you're saying? Because pure gasoline will degrade as well, right? But much longer period of time. Yeah, anybody who has outdoor power equipment knows the real problem is if you put ethanol in a gas jug, let's say, and you put it in your shed and leave it, you know, it'll tend to accumulate water much more rapidly than regular gasoline. And you can also look at the color, the change in the color, you know,

It starts to go from almost translucent to sort of a yellow and then a darker yellow color. And that's a clue not to use it, by the way. Well, that's interesting. You also talk about oil and additives in the oil that are different now for the older cars. Oh, yeah, it's not just the additives. Again, to get circling back to the Trans Am. After I cleaned out the gunk from the carburetor and got it running well again, I recognized, oh, boy, it's time to change the oil. So I went down to the auto parts store, and I looked at the ratch.

of oil and the rack of oil is you know it's it's it's the whole width of the store they have all kinds of different oil but they didn't have any 1040 anymore you know and and my car when it was made was designed to have 1040 oil so that's what specified and that's what i use there's a reason why there's a specification you know and generally speaking it's sound policy to follow what the specification is the manual yeah yeah but you know if you've been to it if you've been to a car part store lately and looked at the oil rack you'll see all these exotic formulations you know zero w 50 this and that, because they've thinned out the oil because it helps with compliance. You know, this is, again, it offers the manufacturers this incremental friction reduction,

which translates into slightly higher gas miles, not anything you would notice as a vehicle owner, but when you factor it out over, say, half a million vehicles that you build, then it helps corporate average fuel economy with the compliance with that federal requirement. And it also helps with emissions. And, you know, this is the obsession now that the manufacturers have. It's compliance. Their primary customer now is the government, not you. You know, you're sort of an incidental person.

That's right to buy what the government says you're allowed to have. That's right. That's right. Because the government will put them out of business if they don't please the government. And so that is their primary customer. In so many cases, the only customer that they care about is the government. That's really what's going on with social media and with YouTube, I think, isn't it? It is.

And so long story short, I ended up having to go online to find a good high quality 1040 for my old muscle car. Now previously I'd also had to go online to get there's an additive. It's it generally is it goes by the acronym ZDDP and it's essentially a zinc manganese additive and it used to be present in all the store bought motor oils but they began to take it out and now there's a much less of that additive in store bought motor oil. If you have a new or late model vehicle it doesn't matter, the engine was designed for that. But if you have an older vehicle, particularly an older American vehicle with what's called a flat tap at camshaft.

So essentially, an American car made before the early 80s with a V8 engine, typically. It's important that you use that additive. If you're going to be somebody to go, if you're going to go out and buy one of those classic cars from that era, it's something to be aware of. Because if you don't use that additive, you risk valve train failure. The camshaft and lifters in those engines were designed to have that anti-friction additive in it. And if you use regular oil, you're very likely to have a problem that you don't want to have.

What about the aftermarket? Let's say that you have some problems because you didn't have the right oil and fuel and things like that. How difficult is it to get parts for these things? I'm sure it varies depending on how rare your car is. But just something is kind of in the middle or something, maybe like a 50s Chevy or something like that. Do they have much of an aftermarket for parts with that? Yeah, particularly with mechanical. things. One of the great pluses of owning, say, a General Motors product or a forward product

from that era is that they shared mechanical things, engines. You know, an engine, like a small block Chevy was used in practically every model vehicle that Chevrolet made, you know, from the 50s through the 60s, 70s, and 80s. And so there is a robust and abundant aftermarket as well as used market for those kinds of parts. You'll have sometimes difficulty finding trim pieces, you know, for an oddball make, you know, say it was a one-year vehicle. They only had that grill for that one year. I have that issue because my 70 clicks has a unique front end for that year. So, yeah, sometimes, you know, these cosmetic parts will be more difficult to find.

But generally, if you pick a popular vehicle that was made in large numbers from that era, you're not going to have any difficulty finding the necessary parts that you have to have in order to keep the vehicle serviceable and running. That's interesting, yeah. Because like I said, certainly do see a lot of classic cars right here. Yeah, I guess if you had an Edsel and you got your horse collar grill, But even though the V8 in the end, you can keep that going. One of the great examples of Volkswagen Beetle, you know, to this day, you can easily find any part that you need to keep a beetle running.

So, you know, that's a great choice if you just want a very basic simple, completely analog, non-digital, non-data mining, non-connected car that anybody can service. If they're, you know, willing to turn a screwdriver or a wrench and have basic hand tools, that's a great choice. Yeah, yeah. I know there's a huge aftermarket for the Mazas, especially. especially the first generation of Mazda that's out there. They're even doing full restorations in, or at least were, for a short period of time. I don't know if they are still doing it now. It was a couple of years ago.

They were doing full factory spec restorations in Japan. They would do it in Japan. And the factory itself was doing it. Mazda was doing it. I don't know if they're still doing that or not. Now, you got an article, and I'm reaching back now the beginning of August, Pontiacs were cool. I thought they were as well. I was just so amazed that when they decided they're going to get rid of an entire make that they kept Buick and got rid of Pontiac.

I thought that was really strange because Buick was always perceived as kind of an older person's car or it was a family car, something like that, where as Pontiacs had kind of a sporty panache to them, right? Yep. Well, there's a reason for that. For whatever reason, Buick's are immensely popular in China, and that's where they're built. Believe it or not, GM sells a ton of Buick's in China, where it's considered kind of a status vehicle to have, and all of the Buicks they sell here are made in China. Is that right? Yeah, we used to use Buick.

We used that as an euphemism for throwing up. Someone says in the bathroom selling Buick's. Now, what's really sad, though, with regard to Pontiac, and Pontiac's just one example of many, is that you had a once distinctive brand. In effect, Pontiac actually was literally a car company at one time. It wasn't a marketing company. It actually had an engineering staff, and they engineered their engines, which were different than Chevy engines. So when you bought a Pontiac, you weren't just buying a rebadged Chevy.

There may have been commonality of the underlying platform, but it was a fundamentally different car. I'll again refer to my own car. A 76 Pontiac Trans Am is a very different car than a 76 Camero. Even though they share a common under thing, the drive trains are different, and that makes it worth buying the Pontiac. You know, it's not that one's better or worse. It's simply that it is different. And GM actually allowed Pontiac for a great deal of time to be sort of the raucous, you know, go get them brand, you know, that had performance and style and attitude. Yeah.

Kind of like what Dodge was before Stalantus ruined everything. Yeah. You know, they just had this great reputation for, you know, not just crude muscle cars, but cool muscle cars. It had some panache to them, you know, like Catalinas and. and Grand Prix and, of course, the GTOs and everything, which were a little bit more refined than, say, something like a Chival S, which is a great car, but it's not the same thing as a GTO. Right, right, yeah, yeah.

And they just hollowed all of this out, and this was, by the way, I think, the first wave of casualties from compliance. The reason that Pontiac ended up dying was because General Motors was under enormous pressure to try to figure out how to get these different brands, Pontiac, Buick, Oldsmobile, all their different divisions that had different, different engines. Each one of those engines had to be certified independently by the federal government as being in compliance with the stuff. That costs a lot of money. So General

Motors made the decision, well, what we're going to do is corporatize. We're going to just put Chevrolet-built engines in pretty much everything that we sell. They did this beginning in the 80s. And that way, they only had to certify the Chevrolet engine, which they could put in a Pontiac and a Buick and an Oldsmobile, which is what they did. But by doing that, they just gutted any reason for having a Pontiac or an Oldsmobile or even a Buick. All you're getting is a re-skinned Chevy with the identical drive train. Over and over again, I tell people, you know, the real problem with industry and manufacturing and innovation in the United States is the government. They are the biggest obstacle. They are far more destructive of jobs and manufacturing than any company

abroad or any country abroad. All this stuff about tariffs is a misdirection away from from the true source of the problem, which is government regulation. And even when they're talking about the housing crisis, some people are talking about how expensive houses have become because of government regulation. But the government's not talking about doing anything of that. They're talking about playing some financialization games in terms of interest rates or subsidies or this or that,

but they're not going to do anything about the over-regulation and all the green mandates that are there. Trump will go to the UN and he'll say, You're destroying your country with all this green stuff and everything. But he won't take those regulations off of cars or homes so he can't have nice things anymore. That's correct. We have become, as a culture, so habituated to the government being involved in these things. And really, I think that's the bone of the matter.

Why is the government involved in car design? Yeah. You know, a good example of this is, you know, the whole, I wrote an article about Ralph Nader a couple of weeks ago and the Corps of Air and his allocations about the core. very being unsafe. This is a matter for the courts. If the car is unsafe, it's effective in some way, that can be handled in tort claims. That's the way these things ought to be handled. Instead of this broad brush, one size fits all of the federal government decreeing, you know, you will have this particular safety standard. And it doesn't matter what, you know, what side effects that safety standard has, even if it ends up being less safe. Good example of that being in the mid-70s,

they imposed a roof-crush standard on the industry. You know, the vehicle had to be able to support the weight of the vehicle if it got turned upside down. So as a result of that, you've got these gigantic A, B, and C pillars. Those are the things that support the roof, the A pillars at the base of the shield, B in the middle, and C in the back. Instead of being, you know, these thin and graceful things that you could easily look around and you had this expansive view of the outside world around you, now you're essentially in a tank. You know, I drive new cars all the time. It feels like you're in a tank.

You have essentially no visibility often to the right and to the right. the left because of this enormous B pillar that's there to support the weight of the vehicle if you roll it over. The problem is now when you pull out from a side street, you're likely to get T-boned because that thing is, it creates a bad blind spot. You didn't see the car that was coming at you from the side. That's right. Yeah, I agree. You know, how did we wind up still being able to keep convertibles with that? I know I've got all my convertibles. I've got some really huge A pillars on them, but. Very cleverly. Like, you know, with regard to some of them, you know, with Mazda, the Miata, as you know, they built a roll bar into the backs of the seats, basically. That was one way

that they did it. And some of the manufacturers took that a step farther with pop-up roll bars. You know, Mercedes did that with some of their high-end convertibles. And they also managed to reinforce the structure of the windshield in a way that made it supportive of the vehicle if it were to roll over. But, you know, it's just the point is the government's involvement in this stuff is just so insufferably obnoxious. And to put a finer point, and to put a finer point, point on it, you know, we talk about the government as if it's sort of this entity out there. And I like to, I like to point out to be, what you're really talking about is a relative handful of micromanaging bureaucrats who are the weevils within these regulatory bodies.

You know, go to the DOT or NHTSA, how many people work there, a few thousand? So you've got a few thousand people in these regulatory bodies who are dictating to 330 million people, you know, the design of the cars that they're allowed to have. Yeah, exactly right. I just, you know, and we have spineless politicians who let the bureaucrats rule over us and never do anything to push back against them. And that's by design. You know, they've offloaded this. They'll say, Congress in particular, they'll say, well, I can't do anything about it because the, you know, the bureaucracy is responsible for this.

That's right. But they're the ones that offloaded their responsibility under the Constitution to legislate. You know, there's legislation and there's regulation. And regulation has the force and effect of law, and yet it's not voted for, which means there's all counterfeit. you know, you can't out, you can't vote out of office an EPA apparatchet, you know. And they claim that they're not responsible for it, even though, as you point out, they delegate this to them. Yes.

Then, you know, if something gets really bad and there's a huge outroar, uh, uproar about that, then they can come in and say, uh, okay, we're going to save you from these bad guys, the regulators. So it's a very calculated political ploy, isn't it? And I think we got, do we have a couple of comments or questions for him? Hi, Eric, good to talk to you. Travis, sir. here. We've got citizen group Bacaca says, Eric, he'd like you to speak on the fact they're

trying to pass legislation so you'd be able to insure a car that's over 25 years old, which is just utterly ridiculous, because of course we know that 25 years ago, all cars were death traps. People were dying left and right. It's only within the past few years that the cars have become safe at all, and people can drive them without living in constant fear. Yeah. And along that same line, Eric, California, just, you know, they wanted to, uh, it's a, it's missions, I think, that they had there. And it was like a 35-year moving average. And they were trying to adjust that a little bit. And they shut it down. It was a huge blow. It was Jay Leno's law. Maybe you heard about that. Purely punitive and vindictive. Yeah. Leno, I think,

learned a valuable lesson. You know, I think he in his innocence might have believed that rational considerations and reasonable considerations might cause the California legislature and regulatory apparatus to agree that, yeah, you know, vehicles that are 35 years old, uh are a constitute a very small minority of the vehicles that are in use as as daily transportation uh and so yeah we'll exempt them as most states do from having to go in from emissions testing this is purely punitive because they want to push these cars out off the road and it's particularly egregious in california because it's not even a matter of whether you pass the tailpipe sniffer test you know when you bring your car into the inspection station and they put the

probe in the tailpipe and in most states if it passes that you pass and you get your sticker. In California, it doesn't matter whether you pass the tailpipe sniffer test if any of the factory original emissions equipment has been tampered with, altered, or removed. Now, what that means, you're talking about the 35-year-old car or how about a 50-year-old car and maybe the original smog pump or EGR system had to be replaced because it's a 35-year-old vehicle. Well, what if there is no aftermarket replacement?

And more finally, in California, every aftermarket replacement has to have a California Air Resources Board number, certification that it's been approved by CARB. So if it doesn't have that, even if everything works, and even if the emissions are within spec, they will still fail the vehicle on the basis of failing the visual and not having the CARB approved replacement part. So this is purely, purely punitive and vindictive. And I do see this sort of thing expanding.

You know, they're going to start targeting cars and they're going to say, we can't permit vehicles that don't have the latest advanced driver assistance technology to be on the road, you know, because of the, threat that they present and the people are going to die. That's the sort of thing that I foresee that they're going to start doing in the next few years. Oh, yeah. Yeah. And it's kind of interesting, too, because when I was doing modifications to Ma'amata about seven years ago, the companies, I was getting the aftermarket parts on, which were taking those parts that you just mentioned and pitching them completely. But they were based in California. And I thought,

you know, this is kind of interesting. They can't sell their own product. Even at that time, many of their things were not carb compliant. And they couldn't sell. all them and the two people who lived in California, only to people who lived outside of California. But it's getting much, much worse. You know, the common thread that runs through all of this is that there's no requirement that tangible harm be produced, in other words, a victim. A really fine example of this is the crucification of Volkswagen, and I revisited that issue recently in a column. It's been about 10 years now since Volkswagen got raked over the coals for cheating on federal emission certification

tests. And, you know, at the time, and even to this day, I continue to ask, well, who was hurt by any of this? The only thing that happened was that the government was affronted. You know, Volkswagen, like every other vehicle manufacturer, programmed its vehicles to pass the test. That's the whole point. They mean it so they would pass it. And not only the, this is an important point, not just the federal emissions certification test. Nobody ever disputed these vehicles when they were bought and put into service. And in states where people had to go to get emissions testing, you know, at the state level and get the tailpipe probe put in, they all passed. The only kerfuffle happened after this independent lab subjected the cars to an entirely

different test that found that under certain operating conditions, oh my gosh, the vehicle will emit slightly higher, fractionally higher amounts of oxides of nitrogen, which is a regulated emission for EPA. And the amount was minuscule. It was literally a fraction of a fraction. In other words, something that was meaningless in terms of whether it was hurting anybody. Didn't matter. It was so draconian. You and I talked about this many times. It was so draconian that it was clear that it wasn't about what they said it was about.

It was really about, as we said, getting rid of diesel. I mean, they had criminal charges against executives. There was something like $4 billion, if I remember correctly. It was outrageous what they were doing. We talked about that, how you didn't see anything at all like that with the Takata airbags that were blowing up spontaneously and killing people. or with the Pinto, you know, and the deliberate exclusion of some devices that we'd keep that explosion from happening. So it was something that we'd never seen before, even when human lives were at stake,

and there was nobody that was harmed by any of this stuff. Well, the reason why they did it, though, it wasn't just that it was diesel. It was that Volkswagen, uniquely, was selling a lineup of very affordable diesels as recently as 2015. You know, it's 10 years ago, not even. You could have bought a brand new Volkswagen Jetta with a TDI engine for about $22,000. Now, that whole car had a 700-mile driving range and would get 50-plus miles per gallon on the highway and could probably be counted on to go for 300,000 miles or more. Now, it's a curious coincidence, isn't it, that around the same time,

the Volkswagen started getting raked over the coals over this emissions cheating thing, that's when the big push for EVs began, right around that time. That's right. In 2015, and I think the reason that they went after Volkswagen was because they could not abide the comparison. You know, on the one hand, $22,000 jet a TDI, 700 mile range, refill it in three minutes, keep it for 20 years, drive it for 300,000 miles. On the other hand, Tesla model 3, $50,000 car that goes maybe 270 miles and is going to need a new $15,000 battery after eight years. It just would have been a harder sell, so they had to go after Volkswagen. And I think if Volkswagen had continued making engines like that, other manufacturers would have started to do the same.

In fact, Chevy did. Chevrolet, you could get a Malibu diesel for a little while there. And other manufacturers would have done it because it's appealing. I mean, I like the idea of a brand new $22,000 car that gets 50-something miles per gallon, 700 miles. You know, diesel is great. You know, it's a wonderful option for people who want a durable, long-legged, long-lived vehicle. So naturally, they had to take that away from us. Yeah, it checked all the boxes in terms of competition with the electric vehicles. As you point out, it's like durability, reliability, affordability, range.

It was all there. So it had to go. It really had to go. They've got an agenda. And they don't want you to have something that you can afford. They don't want you to have a long range because they want to keep you on a short rope with their smart city and their probably geo-fencing to make sure that you can't buy anything outside of your approved city and that type of thing. It's just amazing. It's a really important thing for people to understand.

And it's a difficult thing to understand because the undercurrent of malevolence that's there is difficult for most people to come to grips with. But it's almost axiomatic that you cannot have an authoritarian system in which people are still free to move about as they like on their own initiative in their own vehicle, unsupervised, unmonitored, and uncontrolled. In order for them to impose a truly authoritarian system on Americans, they have got to get. control over transportation and particularly personal transportation. And when you filter everything that's going on through that, everything becomes comprehensible. That's right. I tell people all the time, the TSA is a transportation security agency, right? It's not the airport security agency.

And they want to do that they want to eliminate the private vehicles so that everything becomes like the airport. If you like that, certainly you'll be able to keep the authoritarian government. If you like your authoritarian government, you can keep it, or they'll keep it for you. But something like geo-fencing and the Teslas, they can just simply section you off, say, oh, no, your car just simply will not go there. You try turning that way. No, we're going to autopilot you back into your safe zone.

That's right. You're not allowed over here. You're not allowed to go this far. And you won't have enough range, really, to get out of there anyway. You know, it's a 15-minute city. That's about how creepy it is. And it's incredible how blasé so many Americans are. They think, even if they're aware of it, they will.

will say, oh, well, that would never happen. They would never do that to us. Yeah, you know, Eric, about 10 years ago, I went to an auto show in Texas. Long Star Roundup. Yeah, Long Star Roundup. It's a real big classic show. And I think it's got to be an American-made car. And it's got to be, they don't include the, it's got to be older than the Mustangs,

older than 64, 65 is a cutoff, right? so they didn't want to take it at that point. But there's a lot of modification to them and a lot of rat rods that are out there, you know, really grungy cars that people kept going and modified. I went around and I talked to all these people, and they were all different ages, you know, people had cars there,

they were 17 or 18 years old that they had fixed up to people who retirees. And I asked them all, do you think the government is going to make private cars go away and gasoline cars go away? Oh, yeah, they all said. And to a man, they pretty much all said, including like 17 and 8-year-olds, it'll never happen in my lifetime. It's like, man, the disconnect that was there at that time was just, that was the most, you know, the cars are interesting, but the most interesting thing was how these people had lied to themselves about the government's intentions and its abilities to rob them of their mobility. It truly is amazing.

The intentions were always there. I think the technology has made it much more feasible. to fast track things. Yeah. They would not have been able to do what they had wanted to do for 50 years, you know, back in the 80s, 90s, or even the early 2000s. But now, particularly within the last 10 years, they have now got the ability to utterly and completely control vehicles

to a degree that most people would not believe until they have to deal with it. You know, I give various examples. One is the illusion that you have in a modern car that you're controlling how fast you drive, you're not. When you push down on the accelerator pedal, all you're doing is feeding data to the computer. You're not connected to the engine to a cable system and a throttle any longer. You're sending data to a computer. And the computer then is telling the engine, okay, increase the RPMs or to a certain amount to give you the illusion that you're the one who's controlling the car. I had a Ford expedition a couple of weeks ago, and this is a big

vehicle, big SUV, and I'm trying to back the thing up in my driveway. Now, I've lived where I lived for 20 years. I know my driveway. There's a, there's a big bush at the one side of my driveway. And I know because, again, I've been doing it for 20 years exactly how far I can back up before I hit that bush. But the Ford slams on the brakes a couple of feet before I get anywhere near the bush because, again, safety. But, you know, dig down and to think about what that means. The vehicle can decide that it's going to stop. Yeah. You know, it's going to exercise control. And bit by bit, they're doing this. I had an article up the other day about this speed limit assistance technology. I love how they call it assistance technology. Like, you didn't

know you were driving faster than the speed limit. And now the car is full, oh, thank you so much car for telling me that I'm driving faster than the speed limit. And, you know, first they try to shame you. There's a little icon that pops up in the dashboard that shows a speed limit sign and it goes red. You know, you're driving faster than the speed limit. And sometimes there's a chime that accompanies it. And this is weirdly standard now on all the vehicles. Why is that? You know, it's not optional for people who need assistance. If I need assistance, oh, I love that. I'll buy some assistance.

No, they're making it standard because what they're doing is in classic Fabian socialist style, slowly bit by bit, you know, getting people used to this stuff. And the next step will be not just assisting you to know that you're driving faster than the speed limit. It will be preventing you from driving any faster than the speed limit by using the drive-by-wire throttle, by using the electrically controlled braking system to prevent you from doing. it and and what they're doing with that is is making driving such a it's no longer fun you feel like you're granted you feel like you're a kindergartner again and that's the literally they want you to just say you know the heck with it why am i why am i signing up for a seven hundred dollar a month loan

for the next six years i don't even control the car the car nags me and pesters me all the time it tells me what to do the heck with it i'm just going to get my app on my phone and i'll you know tap it and i'll get my ride that's right yeah the comedian uh british comedian roan atkinson plays Mr. Bean. He was an engineer before he became a comedian. And he's got a lot, he loves cars, and he's got a lot of very expensive hypercars. And he said, well, you don't really drive these so much as you manage them, because there's so much drive-by-wire stuff in it. And I remember when Michael Hastings was killed, and I think he was killed, I don't think it was an accident. And he was he had rented a late model Mercedes when that happened and he was he thought the people

were after him with the government because of what he was reporting on he had a lot of death threats from the government and so he went out to his car his landlady said he would go out to the car and he'd look underneath it and all this other kind of stuff to see if there was some kind of a bomb on it but they you know when you have the when the computer is able to control your acceleration you're braking, your steering, and all these other things, it's very, very easy to assassinate somebody that way. And they have illustrated over and over again at the Black Hack Conference in Vegas how easy it is to hack one of these cars as well, because they're also online. So everything is under computer control, and it's also online. So any bad actor, especially the

government, can jump into this thing and do whatever they wish. They can shut you down. Or if they want to, they can try to make it look like it was an accident. This is the type of thing we've been seeing for a long time. Yeah, you had your article when you're talking about the insurance, when will people decide to stop paying? And you talk about the fact that you've got an antique car. You drive it 300 miles a year and you stay within about a 10-mile radius of your home in rural Virginia. And why should you have to pay insurance for that? That should be your decision for that.

But, of course, it is this corporate government fascism that we see over and over again where they force you to buy their product, isn't it? It is. And now they are using, using insurance to price people out of vehicle ownership. Yeah. Everybody, you probably have had this happen to you as well, has had their premium increase by, on average, 25 to 30 percent, and in some cases, 50 percent or more for absolutely no reason having to do with anything they did in terms of having an accident, filing a claim, anything, or even a speeding ticket. You get the notice in the mail and all of a sudden your premium is, you know, double what it was the year prior. Why? Because they can't. can, you know, because you don't have the option to say, no.

Imagine what a cup of coffee would cost if the government said, you have to go to Starbucks. You can't buy a cup of Starbucks coffee at least once a week. You know, we'd be paying $10 for a cup of coffee at Starbucks. That's exactly where we are, isn't it? That's essentially where we are with this. And I think, you know, we are getting to a point, you know, I have my ear to the ground about things like this. And it's also my own personal opinion that everybody's feeling pinched because of the cost of everything. Everything is going up and they don't include it in the value.

of inflation either, do they? No. And so, you know, when it comes down to a choice between, you know, obeying the law and handing a check over to these insurance mobsters for a large sum of money that could be used to pay your electric bill or, you know, phone for your family, what's the choice? Well, you know, probably a lot of people are going to say, you know what, I'm going to buy food for my family instead of sending this check to all state or GEICO. Yeah, yeah. And so what?

You know, I mean, the illegal aliens can, with impunity, because, you know, they can't get blood out of a stone, can they? They don't have any assets to seize. So, and I'm not, I'm really, I'm not, I'm not disparaging people who are in that category because I understand people are trying to improve their lives and all of that. I'm just trying to make the point that there are no consequences for those people. You know, if, if they want to go out and drive without insurance and hit you and wreck you, they'll walk away from it and the state will do nothing about it, but you and I, we don't hit anybody. You know, we haven't caused any problems for anybody, but we didn't hand over the money to the mobsters. They'll cancel your driver's license. They'll

I'll cancel your registration, and if they catch you driving, they'll impound your vehicle and potentially arrest you for it. Yes, absolutely right. Yeah, you're absolutely right. That's the way it works. It's a two-tier standard already in many different areas that we've got in this country. Well, we're at a time. It's always great having you on, Eric.

Anything you want to tell us about what's happening with your website? Oh, well, nothing more than what's on there. You know, I posted an article this morning that's more of a thought piece about how we're all kind of in this bad marriage situation in this country. Yeah, Trump is the guy who has bad marriages. He specializes in that, doesn't he? Well, isn't it interesting that for the most part, most people will say, okay, you know, if you have a situation where a couple just can't work it out, they're at odds, you know, nobody would say, well, they have to stay married and be miserable for the rest of their lives. People accept that sometimes marriages don't work and, you know, there's a divorce.

It's not a happy thing, but it's better than forcing people who can't live together to live together. Well, politically somehow that seems to be off the table. why is that? You know, we're at a point in this country with the left, right, and just people who want to be left alone, chiefly, versus those who won't leave people alone. Why can't we just figure out a way to peacefully separate ourselves? And that way, and this fractiousness, you know, and just instead of going to blows with each other, and that includes blows at the ballot box and, you know, trying to constantly figure out a way to elect our guy, to impose our will on the other side, how about we just figure out a way to go our own way and live and let live? The problem is that

probably half the country doesn't want to live and let live. Yeah, I've talked about that. You know, if you look at the Scandinavian countries, they have split apart and joined together in various combinations many times. And, you know, they would peacefully join together, peacefully break apart. And there was never a war over it. We don't have a government like that. You know, when Marjorie Taylor Green started talking about having a national divorce,

I said, yeah, the problem is, is that we're married to an abusive spouse who, once he finds out that we want to divorce him, he's going to come kill us. you know. Yep. I've got a picture that I were currently used because I think it's very pithy and it says it all. And it's a picture of Abraham Lincoln. And the caption reads, if you try to leave me, I'll kill you. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, the ultimate abusive head of the household. That's exactly the case. And especially in a country that was formed over the right of secession and self-government. That was the basis of America's existence from the very beginning. How could you deny that to somebody? I'm always, uh, all about secession. And I would say, if at first you don't secede, try, try again. That would be my motto for a body. It's a safety valve. And everybody should be on board with that. And of course, there is one other thing we can do. And people at 10th Amendment have taught, the center have talked about this a lot. There is another avenue of this. And that is nullification. That is kind of the middle point. You know, we say, well, we're just going to ignore what you have to say.

So there is nullification and non-commandeering. And short, And that effectively can allow you to secede issue by issue if you've got people at the state level who have the backbone to do that type of thing. And that's the big if we don't because they're all on the take. I don't think that we're going to get this country back until we have a catastrophic economic system that's going to destroy the ability of our government with U.S. dollars or reserve currency to just print money out of thin air. Until that disappears, we're going to have this same type of situation. We do have one power under our control, and it is to simply not participate, to opt out on our own. You know, with regard to new cars, if you don't want to be data-mined and controlled, well, don't buy a new car. You know, keep the older car that you have, get an older car, fix it up.

You know, during the pandemic, don't wear a mask. Don't go along. Don't comply. If enough of us as individuals, you don't have to join an organization. Just abide by your own moral compass. And, you know, if this is wrong, I don't like this. I'm not going along with it. That's it.

I'm just taking my stand. I'm not going to be a cattle and go along moving with the herd just because that's what the herd does. Yeah, I've been thrown out of so many different places and restaurants and Texas. I had to move to Tennessee because I promised these people I would never be back because of the way that they insisted that I wear a mask. And so I left then, I said, and I won't be back. And I kept my word by moving to another state. That's the only way I could do it. It's always great to have you on Eric.

Eric peters autos.com, folks, a great site for liberty and mobility and a little bit of nostalgia now as well because that's how the only way we're going to be able to keep our mobility is with classic cars. Thank you, Eric. Always great talking. Thank you, Travis. Thank you, Eric. Always a pleasure speaking to you. And before we go, AC, S, A, B, thank you so much for that. We really do appreciate it. It says, so awesome, D-K and family. Thanks for everything. I wish I could do so much more. But you're already doing so much, A-C-S-A-B. Thank you. It really is because of your support that we're able to continue to do this,

and we really cannot thank you enough. Thank you very much, folks. Thank you all very much. God bless you all. Have a wonderful rest of your day. Yes. The common man. They created common core to dumb down our children.

They created common passion. to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future. They see the common man is simple, unsophisticated, ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away.

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

com.