The David Knight Show - The David Knight Show - 08/01/2023 - Archer Speaks, 1Paul Refers Fauci to DOJ, Guest James Bovard

Episode Date: August 1, 2023

Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here:SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

Blood clots can happen to anyone, at any age. Be particularly vigilant if you are going into hospital, have active cancer or undergoing cancer treatment, are pregnant or just had a baby, are in a leg cast or had a lower limb injury, are taking the combined oral contraceptive pill or oral HRT. Ask your doctor for a blood clot risk assessment. Visit thrombosis.ie Using free speech to free minds.

You're listening to The David Knight Show. As the clock strikes 13 here on Airstrip One, we gather once more for the David Knight Show. I'm Gardner Goldsmith, sitting in for this final opportunity for me, while David has been away, to sit in with you the audience of the great david knight show for the great david knight thanks for joining me one and all we'll have a busy day today 11 o'clock our guest will be james bovard what a remarkable man

we're looking at your rockfin and rumumble chats and of course digging into the latest from Washington DC and around the world that could have a bearing on your life and your liberty. Sous-titrage ST' 501 Well, boy, what a week it has been. And thank you for your companionship and your positive thoughts. And I can't tell you how much of a pleasure it's been to fill in for David while he and the family took some time off, enjoyed the start of what is clearly going to be a wonderful, wonderful marriage for his daughter. And I got the chance to talk to you about things that I feel are important and to hear from you, to hear about things that you think are important as well. I'm Gardner Goldsmith. And if you're finding me because of my work from MRCTV, thank you.

My hat is off. My proverbial hat is off and I greatly appreciate it. I also want to thank Marty Gottesfeld for speaking to us yesterday. You can find that audio. All you have to do is go to the David Knight show.com. The David Knight show.com is where you find everything, all the links. And of course you can hop from there or you can do it just by going to

David Knight dot gold to wise Wolf gold and silver exchange. I'm trying to make sure that I bring that up right at the start of the show because I couldn't be here right now. If it weren't for the great kindness of David Knight letting me fill in for him. And also Tony Arterburn, who is the man behind Wise Wolf Gold and Silver Exchange. And he is such a fantastic guy. You can, of course, find him at Tony Arterburn on Twitter. And you can also find him at wise wolf,

gold and silver exchange. And it was at wise wolf, gold and silver on Twitter. And just wonderful people get connected through David night dot gold and find out what you can do with the wolf pack, which allows you to maximize your investment each month to be able to get gold or silver. Or you can just buy whenever you want.

You can buy what the time permits for you, what your budget permits for you. So wanted to mention that right at the start. Thank you. Thank Tony. Thank David. And thank everybody who has been so kind to me while I've been here. We got lots to discuss today, everybody. You can find me, of course, on Twitter, if you are so inclined, Kevin Kline.

And that is at Guard Goldsmith. What's in store today on the David Knight Show for August 1st, 2023, the Dog Days of Summer. Or what was it Neil Diamond said? Hot August Nights. That was the name of one of his albums, I believe. Yep. Well, we are going to be digging into, of course, the big story out of Washington, D.C. and some stories from around the world. We'll be talking about the Devin Archer testimony in front of Congress and finding out what we can find out. Because, yes, he offered a lot of information that we're getting secondhand right

now. So we're going to sift through this with hopefully some pretty trustworthy people. And I'm going to ask your opinions in the Rockfin chat and the Rumble chat. And please remember everybody that I believe today is the final day that if you want to donate to the David Knight show, you can do so at Rockfin and Rumble, and you will be matched with your donations up to $200. So that is very, very, very nice. And I want to thank for the love of the road. I hope I'm not misspeaking today. So just want to make sure that, but please donate. Of course, this show doesn't have advertisers. It is strictly you who help. David Knight and Tony Artevern have been able to arrange something that you can head over there and check out DavidKnight.Gold. But really, that's because of the friendship and the kinship of those two gentlemen. And it's not strictly an advertising arrangement. So yeah, become part of the group, become part of this circle of friends

who support freedom and support the David Knight Show. I got a nice message from David this morning about their gas gauge. And I'd like to keep that in mind as I enter the program, because of course the show is in my hands until noontime, and it's partially in your hands. Love to hear what you have to say. So what are we going to be looking at? Well, today's agenda is pretty straightforward. We're going to be talking Archer, Fauci, climate, a couple other items, and a big thank you. And of course, if you want to find my work at Substack, it's the Gardner Goldsmith Substack,

G-A-R-D-N-E-R, Goldsmith Substack. You can also find my work at mrack. It's the Gardner Goldsmith Substack, G-A-R-D-N-E-R, Goldsmith Substack. You can also find my work at mrctv.org. That's mrctv.org. And I should mention it. I don't want to forget. I really haven't mentioned it enough, really, but I do want to bring it up. If you want to listen to or watch my show, I have a Rumble Rockfin-based show each weeknight at six o'clock Monday through Friday called Liberty Conspiracy because freedom is out of fashion nowadays. That is for darn sure. Well, everybody, I think to start things off, we get to entertain ourselves with a little musical theme. How about this, one and all? Yes, indeed.

Very spy-like. We're going international. They should have like a silhouette shot of Hunter Biden in his living room with the phone out saying, I got the big guy right next to me. They could have Hunter and Joe with their aviator shades and stuff. That would be great, huh? They could have the Christmas stockings all laid out for their six grandchildren, except they actually had seven, and their dog because they're so classy. That's awesome, huh?

I reported yesterday. It's sort of sad news, obviously, but hopefully everything will work out for this little girl. Four-year-old granddaughter of Joe Biden finally recognized. And it seemed to me that she was not being acknowledged as the granddaughter because of love, familial love or anything like that. It was because they had come to a legal arrangement. I don't know. I just don't know. It's just.

But, hey, remember, it's your government, right? Oink, oink. Yeah, it represents you in all of its wonderful glory. Yeah. You know, oftentimes on my program on Liberty Conspiracy, when I get started on the show, I like to do something about the newsflash. And so people have asked me about this. And on my show last night, I promised that I would play this little bit today on David's show. This is one of my alternate themes for the newsflash. And of course, the Archer story is going to dominate the newsflash. That's me in white face paint in the film Skippy Biderman. But I wanted to acknowledge my friend Spike. And I think he actually might be listening or watching right now. His name is Tom Foley. He's down in New York and he's a great, great guy.

And he plays Alan Granny Liquorspindle. And I play Frank Harker. And we are masters of disguise, as you can see. And we appear after we have escaped from the state penitentiary. And we buzz on a house that, of course, we are going to invade and in which we are going to cause a great ruckus. Here is our newsflash. Wait a minute. I know you guys. You're from the newsflash. All right. All right. We get it. That's it. So our newsflash is about Archer and it is about the testimony of Devin Archer. And as we go into this, I'd like to pose some questions to you and offer some thoughts.

So my first series of thoughts, I actually jotted some notes down because I wanted to make sure I presented this to you right off the bat as cogently and succinctly as possible. So here's a question for you. I'm hearing a lot on talk radio coming out of Boston this morning, you know, six o'clock and the shows are starting off and people are saying that very clearly, and Jonathan Turley has talked about this. He's sort of intimated or almost overtly said this is possibly, I think Turley uses possibly. I have the video. We'll double check on this. I don't want to misquote Jonathan Turley. That's for darn sure. But the implication on talk radio is that the Biden administration, that Joe Biden is the most corrupt president in American history. I think that's debatable, but I think he's definitely up there. I think if you put him

alongside people like Lyndon Johnson, just to be pretty recent in history, Donald Trump with the jabs. We look at things like FDR. We look at Teddy Roosevelt. We look at Abraham Lincoln. I think Joe Biden, I don't really know if you can place a numerical ascendancy on any of these people. But very clearly, Biden is definitely up there. And there are various reasons why you can say these people are corrupt, whether it's the fact that they, oh, I don't know, waged war and caused massive destruction for hundreds of thousands of people in the mid-1800s. Or it's that, oh, you know, most of his staff adored Stalin. He basically goaded the Japanese to kill thousands of people in Hawaii, had secret conversations with Churchill about how he would get the United States into the war, Second World War. hey look at Woodrow Wilson right look at Herbert Hoover everybody can make their conversations about various very make their points about various presidents but definitely Joe Biden is up there as far as financial corruption legal corruption and things like that but it's all really part and parcel if you're looking at the constitution that's supposed to be the law book right so I thought about that and it definitely offers us some perspective because I'm hearing people calling in to talk radio programs,

and one woman called into a Boston talk show, and she said to the host, why are you talking about Joe Biden like this? All you do is talk about Joe Biden like this. What about Donald Trump? Okay. His answer was, Donald Trump isn't president right now. Yes, so you have two people making valid points. However, this guy doesn't really focus on the wrongdoings of Donald Trump, and those way for what he did to breach the Constitution, to push these immoral, unscientific, terrible jabs onto people, to see the so-called emergency that should never have been an emergency, and to promote utter falsehoods and the lockdowns and massive breaches of the constitution but he continued to puff himself up about it and we're seeing still today and we're going to go through some of this information that the jabs are causing terrible harm to people and it's it's truly sad so there

are a lot of different reasons why people can be holding these folks in contempt at the same time. It's not as if we can't juggle multiple bowling pins, okay, in this political circus that we've got. Would that mean we're the clowns? I don't know, but we have to do it, right? As I often say on my Liberty Conspiracy Show, we're going to take those political frowns and turn them upside down as best we can. So we're going to go through some of the news here. And I just want to mention that Jonathan Turley, I think at a certain point on one of the shows, I might've been on Fox, but it's not the segment I'm going to show you. He actually wrote about how Joe Biden seems to have been very interested in talking about the weather because all the Democrats keep pushing this idea that all Joe Biden did, if he was on the phone with his son, with some of these foreigners making these arrangements while he was vice president, you know, providing no power of president of the United States governmental authority in any way whatsoever. It's just a civilian.

Wink, wink. Not at that time. But Jonathan Turley said, gee, they kept saying he talked about the weather. Have you really seen, I'm paraphrasing, have you really seen Joe Biden so interested in the weather? No, unless it's going to make his ice cream melt. And then there are other questions that pop up. For example, Tulsi Gabbard has a number of politicians or former politicians have come out and said,

it's time, you got to impeach Joe Biden, right? Many Democrats are now quietly discussing, hey, maybe Joe ought to go retire and play with that new grandchild he's gotten. She's four years old. He might have missed her for a while. You know, that sort of thing. Maybe he shouldn't run again, which poses a lot of questions,

a lot of speculation on the horse race front, whether it's going to be Kamala Harris or Gavin Newsom's going to enter the, you know, because who wouldn't want Gavin Newsom? You could have, you know, dinner with him at the French Laundry to contribute. It'd be great. Was that the name of the restaurant? You know? He ate there when everybody else was closed down, took off his mask. Was that the French Laundry, French Lick, Indiana? I don't know. That's Larry Bird's town. So you've got all these people talking about impeachment on talk radio and so

on, but who's not talking about impeachment? Yes, Kevin McCarthy. It's like he's afraid. No, no, no, we can't. We can't do that. So let's discuss this right off the bat. I'd like to give you some video footage that I think is useful of Jonathan Turley in conversation on Fox. So let's check it out right now. He sort of spells things out. Actually, before I even do that, let's give you a quick reminder of one thing. Okay. Everybody, let's go back in time a little bit to the campaign, okay? And let's look at this famous one. This is just glorious. Don't forget this one. And in fact, let's play a couple other ones before we go into Jonathan Turley.

Let's just do this real quick stream of consciousness fun, okay? Here we go. This, of course, is Joe Biden. This is a brief one. I have the longer one prepared too. Check it out. OK, here we go. This, of course, is Joe Biden. This is a brief one. I have the longer one prepared to check it out. Joe Biden asked a sort of pertinent question. And then he tells, of course, this Fox News reporter, hey, ask the right question. Here's what I know. I know Trump deserves to be investigated. He is violating every basic norm of a president.

You should be asking him the question, why is he on the phone with a foreign leader trying to intimidate a foreign leader? If that's what happened, that's appears what happened. You should be looking at Trump. Trump's doing this because he knows I'll beat him like a drum. And he's using the abuse of power and every element of the presidency to try to do something to smear me. Everybody's looked at this and everybody's looked at it and said, there's nothing there. Ask the right question. Okay. Okay. Well, very clearly, we know that when now we know that the first we knew all the time, but it's becoming exposed to more people. I think that the first impeachment of Donald Trump, they picked something clearly that was not a crime. When Donald Trump was on the phone with Zelensky,

he was asking about the removal of the investigator Shokin, who was supposed to be investigating Burisma and got removed. And the Democrats didn't want that information out there. Sort of like when the Hillary Clinton emails got exposed, they didn't want you to actually look at the content of the emails. They did everything they could. So they, of course, they created the Russian hack theory, the Russian hack narrative, which was utterly bogus. They didn't want you to look at the DNC internal emails.

So they created the Russian hack narrative on that, which Bill Binney exposed as an utter fraud because the data couldn't have been downloaded through phone lines that quickly. It had to have been done internally with probably a thumb drive and probably by Seth Rich before, of course, he was murdered on the streets of Washington, D.C., a few hours before he was going to be meeting with the FBI. I know. Shocker. So let's go back in time just a little bit and find out what happened at the IMF that, you know, I mean, the Council of Foreign Relations, what happened when Joe Biden got that plum position to, you know, hold a billion dollars over the government of Ukraine to make sure Shokin got fired? Here it is. Others to convincing us that we should be

providing for me. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over convincing our team or others to convincing us that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor and they didn't. So they said they had, they were walking out to the press conference and I said, I'm not going to, we're not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You're not the president. The president said, I said, call him.

I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting a billion dollars. I said, you're not getting a billion. I'm going to be leaving here. I think it was, what, six hours. I look, I said, we're leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor's not fired, you're not getting the money. Oh, son of a bitch. Got fired.

And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. I love the look on this guy. Like, should I be smiling about that? I don't know. I think he just revealed some pressure and possible criminality on this because I'm aware. And clearly these guys had to have been aware at the time, that Hunter Biden is on the board of the thing that Shokin was investigating. I don't know. I think I, can I just go to the bathroom for a little while? I need to leave

for a little bit. Well, there's still, so they... Now let's go over to the longer segment. This one, of course, Joe Biden talking about how you should focus on that guy, Donald Trump. Ask the right question there, young man. Here we go. Here it is. Mr. Vice President, how many times have you ever spoken to your son about his overseas business dealings? I've never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings. Wow, that's interesting. And remember, that changed over the past couple of months.

It was, I never spoken to my son about his foreign business dealings. Then it was, I never was on the phone with my son on his foreign business dealings. Then it was, I never was on the phone with my son on his foreign business dealings. Then it was, I never was involved with my son's foreign business dealings because as more and more information came out, for example, I got the big guy right next to me. He wants to know where that money is. They had to continually, of course, adjust the operative language. Here's what I know. I know Trump deserves to be investigated. He is violating every basic norm of a president. You should be asking him the question, why is he on the phone with a foreign leader trying to intimidate a foreign leader if that's what happened? That's appears what happened. You should be looking at Trump Trump's doing this because knows I'll beat him like a drum and he's using the abuse of power and every element of the

Presidency to try to do something to smear me Everybody looked at this and everybody's looked at it, said there's nothing there. Ask the right question. Has he ever spoken to your son? Has he been impeached for this? Depending on what the House finds, he could be impeached, but I'm not making that judgment now. He could be impeached, but I'm not making that judgment now. So, Joe, do you think the same argument could be made for you? Evidently,

Kevin McCarthy doesn't think so. Just amazing. All right. Well, let's check out the Rockin' Chat and say hello. As everyone rolls out the morning on the David Knight Show, I'm your fill-in host today, Gardner Goldsmith. And again, I want to thank you all for being there. Audi, thank you for being there. Jason Barker, Knights of the Storm. Check out that website, everybody. If you're new to the show, check out Knights of the Storm. Jason Barker, of course, in the foxhole doing great, great work. Awesome stuff. And Chris, thank you so much. And we already have some very nice contributions to the show. Mary Ellen Moore. Oh, thank you so much, Mary Ellen. Emmy, you are great. Great, great, great stuff. We got to get you back on my show. She was going to be on my show last week and couldn't do it just timing wise. So yeah, that's right. We didn't have power. Um, so then we've also got John Henry. Uh, we've got, uh, Harps from Australia and yes, Harps, we're going to talk about that story out of

Victoria on the climate cult and what's going on in Victoria. Folks, just to give you a heads up, I don't want to tease you. Uh, the government of Victoria, Australia, starting in 2024, a ban on any new homes with natural gas. They're insane. They're out of their minds. And just to say this, if you had a band of marauders who were coming up with all sorts of pie in the sky reasons that they could come and tell you how to live in your own house, that they could come onto your property and mess around with the way that you live and you're not harming anybody, what would you do? What would you do? Well, of course, in Australia, perhaps they would defend themselves.

They're tough folks, but they have now had two gun grabs, starting after the Port Arthur gun grab, after the Port Arthur massacre. They had a so-called gun buyback and really was a gun grab because you forcibly were going to be made to give them your gun and they would give you a pittance for the firearm. And there were very few firearms that they would allow. You know, if you wanted maybe a small caliber rifle to shoot a rabbit, you know, near the rabbit proof fence, maybe you could do that. And violent crime did not go down in Australia, as people often claim. No, it did not go down in Australia until 10 years later when the black market for guns had risen so substantially that guess what the Australian government did? Yeah, they had another gun buyback just over the past, what, 18 months or so, 12 months. Just unbelievable. Just ridiculous. And so, hey, if you want to defend your property in Australia from the people who want to attack your natural gas line, enjoy. Have a great time. Man, Harps, you are one, one solid guy in Australia. And the idea that you're listening to a program, the David Knight program, and you are in Australia shows how dedicated you are to freedom. I just, you know, I've thought about that a number of times, that you found David's show and you're listening over there. Just awesome. Over there. Thank you so much.

And thanks for checking out the Liberty Conspiracy Show, too, and being part of that show, even though it's, you know, on the other side of the clock for you sometimes. I appreciate that, too. So let's turn now to some of the material that I prepared for you this morning, everybody. Let's turn to Jonathan Turley and find out just what kind of hot water this wonderful, fantastic Joe Biden might be in. All right. He's on Fox. And here we go. We've got a couple of segments of this, and one of them actually brings to light something else

we're going to discuss, and it doesn't have to do with Joe Biden necessarily. Scandals in our history. People on the Starwood, Jonathan, what did you make of this? What did we learn from this hearing? Well, from the accounts that we have gotten out of that meeting, they are breathtaking. You're talking about at least roughly two dozen calls in which then Vice President Joe Biden engaged with the business associates of Hunter Biden. You're talking about meetings and dinners with some of those corrupt figures in Europe. And Joe Biden calls in to say hi. They were talking about subjects like getting rid of the prosecutor in Ukraine.

And then up pops a call from the vice president. You can no longer ignore this despite the denials of many Democrats. What was really incredible was after hearing these statements, Representative Goldman came out and basically said, oh, he was just being a dad talking about niceties. Well, at some point, it insults the intelligence of voters. You know, we're looking at one of the most significant corruption scandals in our history. And I've been a critic of influence peddling for decades. I've never seen anything like the scope of this scandal. And yet, you know, we'll have to see which members choose

the public over their party. And so far, we haven't had a lot of them coming from the democratic party jonathan uh this thing terminology comes up so you're saying two dozen phone calls um i guess this chap archer said that hunter put joe on the phone to quote sell the brand well what's the brand the brand is vice president or the brand is influence peddling. I mean, it's not like soap suds. That's not the brand. And they're not they're not talking about, you know, they're not talking about do you like vanilla versus chocolate chip ice cream? I mean, why else would they do this? These are business thugs from places like China and Ukraine and Kazakhstan and Romania and Lord knows where. I mean, what does that mean, the brand? Well, you know, the thing that many people don't realize

is that the Biden family has been accused of influence peddling for years. This is their family business. The president's brother has been rather open in selling access to Joe Biden. So has Hunter. We saw that in some of these shocking messages where he was actually saying, I'm sitting next to my father. Send me the money or we'll effectively ruin you. It was also evident in messages where Hunter Biden told his business associates, this is what we do. This is what the Bidens are good at. Well, it is what they're good at.

They've made millions. But it's now falling apart because the Democrats lost control of the House and they have started to investigate these matters. And every day we reach a new shocking level of corruption. Now, there was a point at which I could have jumped in there to make a larger point, a larger thematic point. If we go back a few sentences in there, we see Larry Kudlow, who had been with the Trump administration, ask about influence peddling. And this seems like this is essentially what the Biden family does and so on and so forth. And Turley sort of confirms that and amplifies on that. But seeing Larry Kudlow there reminds many people, I'm sure,

definitely me. And I don't want to be too presumptive or assumptive, but I would suspect that it reminds many people that Larry Kudlow was part of the Trump administration. And Larry Kudlow, and you can see this when you look at, you know, accounts of what was going on in the White House when they started to move on the so-called pandemic response, utterly fraudulent. Lawrence Kudlow could have spoken up about things like influence peddling per se in the United States. Because if we look at the operational system of the United States, essentially moving from the time of Alexander Hamilton and the favorites that he had, usurping the Articles of Confederation, inserting the U.S. Constitution with its new taxing authority to be able to pay off all of the war bonds that Alexander Hamilton's friends purchased for pennies on the dollar to be able to pay off all of the war bonds that Alexander Hamilton's friends purchased for pennies on the dollar to pay them off at 100%. We have that nugget of corruption right there, and it cannot be avoided. It cannot be overlooked. Personality-wise, historically, none of that can be overlooked. I would do myself a disservice. I don't want to speak for you, but I would do myself a disservice,

and I'd like to broadcast that to you and radiate it to you, that these are thoughts that go through my mind. As I hear statements like this, I say, wait, can I or can I not apply this beyond just their accepted terminology and apply it in a more thorough way to the immoral, unconstitutional, unethical ways in which most of the U.S. government operates on a daily basis? And so that gets me asking, why didn't Lawrence Kudlow speak up when Donald Trump was pushing the PPP, right? Why, when they came out with the CARES Act, the supposed rescue plan, which of course has been revealed to be one of the most corruptive, non-paying back, and of course at the outset it was anti-constitutional and immoral programs in the history of the United States. Of course, many people might look at the

military-industrial complex or social welfare programs or the educational institutions that they've created since the Carter administration with that ladder as easy rivals, right? The highway administration, whatever it might be, right? Take your pick. Every one of those things, except possibly for portions of the United States government operation is that on a domestic level. Whether it be handouts to governors to keep them in line. Amity Shlaes, because she lays out a fantastic, succinct, but incredibly detailed argument about how FDR was really the absolute perfectionist when it came to gaming the system and handing things out to people, carrot and sticks, holding the carrot until he got political support

and then throwing federal money at local and state politicians. And of course, getting great support for that, all through deficit spending, through money printing, thanks to the central bank. So if we look at this corruption now, I would implore people to say, we hear this, we hear you, Larry Kudlow, But Larry, where were you? Where were you when they were funding unconstitutional viral research? Where were you when they were handing out this money? Where were you in the CARES Act when they gave the Federal Reserve, as I mentioned to Gerald Salente last week? Great conversation. What a great guy Gerald is. When I mentioned to Gerald Salente, the

publisher of Trends Journal, by the way, you can get 10% off if you go to, again, it's not even like an advertisement. I'm just mentioning it. If you go to Trends Journal and you want to subscribe, you get 10% off your subscription if you put in the code Knight, Knight, K-N-I-G-H-T. So where was Larry Kudlow when they, through the CARES Act, they allow the Federal Reserve, which itself is not really constitutional, they allow the Federal Reserve to buy the bonds of any corporate entity that the Federal Reserve wants to. It can be domestic, it can be foreign, doesn't matter, right? And they don't have to reveal it. And they also don't have to tell what the bottom line is for that corporation, whether it's in financial distress or not. They don't have to do anything about it.

So they can completely circumvent the original circuit that they had created, which was to give the federal government the money through buying the debt instruments of the federal government, money through buying the debt instruments of the federal government, which by the way, we're up to $750 billion as of now, just to finance the interest on the federal debt of $30 trillion. We're only a little bit more than halfway through Halfway through the year. So. I just would hope to implore people who maybe, you know, they know Larry Kudlow or something like that. And, you know, I know Larry Kudlow. He he led quite a raucous life in his in his younger days and he found God. He became a Christian and cleaned up his act. But I have not seen the type of behavior I would have expected from a guy who believed in truth and sworn oath to uphold the Constitution under the Trump administration.

Just wanted to bring that up. And we'll go back to Jonathan Turley because I think Turley's comments are very valuable. I have a couple of segments that I've recorded. And so I wanted to break them up for you. but that was one of the break points there for me, because I really had to bring that up. Again, this isn't your guy versus the other guy, or my guy versus the other guy. I don't have a guy. I'm a libertarian Christian anarchist. I'm a voluntarist. I don't believe that any human being should claim rulership over you. I think that's utterly immoral. There's only one ruler over us. That's God. And all the rest of it has to be voluntary because the imposition of someone trying to control you is immoral, unethical and unchristian. So I would like to. Oh, by the way, I also want to thank someone in the Rumble chat.

That was Narrow Way Narrow Gate, who offered terrific comments. And I see that we have a very nice contribution here over on Rumble. Harps, thank you. Guard, you are too kind, mate. And my firearms aren't for sale. Harps from Australia. Or buyback theft. Can't buy what they never owned. Right. Good job. Top job, by the way, filling in for David. Hey, thank you. Thank you, man. Thank you so much. I'll be playing a little Radio Birdman for you or maybe some Saints down the line or maybe something a little harder, something more intense. And also, I want to thank Anne for being in the chat at Rockfin. So many wonderful people. Aaron Moss is there and Brian Deb McCartney, they're there as well. So, yes, let's get back to Jonathan Turley, hear a little more of his perspective and then get your thoughts about this. The question, I think, for many people is what is going to happen from McCarthy's side? We'll see. Jonathan Turley seems to think that this argument for impeachment is pretty strong. I mean, this is the first, I think, absolute ratification of these phone calls because Joe Biden has been denying all of it and Hunter Biden doesn't talk much about it or tries not to talk much about it. And, you know, we've talked about the restaurant Cafe Milano in Washington and so forth.

But I think this is the first authenticate. I mean, this guy, Devin Archer, was in the middle of everything. He was Hunter's pal. He helped set up a lot of these funds. And he helped direct the money in the funds. And he was a liaison to Joe. And as we know, they all played golf together. So I'm just saying the significance jonathan is that this

insider this dear family friend best friend forever as i call it bff comes out and says this uh and i i assume he's under oath you tell me but i that's this is uh i read this is a bit of a key moment here so kudlow says i assume he's under oath. I want to, in fact, you'll see popping up here. I want to destroyed by a particular person, along with many, many other people involved with his cabal. But we'll continue. Kudlow says, I assume he's under oath. Significance of this. Yeah, he wasn't under oath, but it's still a crime to lie to congressional investigators. You don't need to put him under oath. There we go. It's still a crime to lie

to congressional investigators. That man was under oath, and he was reminded of it by Rand Paul. And so as a quick aside, let's just head on over into one other portion of the newsflash, and that is this. Rand Paul files criminal referral to DOJ over Dr. Fauci's gain-of-function claims. Now, again, I have some disagreements with Rand Paul over the fact that he has not universally excoriated the federal government for doing any viral research. It's unconstitutional. He himself swears an oath to the Constitution. I'd like to find out more about his wife's investments in pharmaceutical stocks. But here is the story. Senator Rand Paul, they have him down as an independent here. This comes from the Washington Examiner. Maybe the editor might want to go through that and put an R in there. Announced Saturday that he has referred Dr. Anthony Fauci

to the Justice Department, the Department of Justice. Now, of course, the legislative branch can't prosecute, so it's up to the executive branch. So we know nothing's going to happen. However, along with a report regarding a February 2020 email exchanged by Fauci confirming that he knew scientists in Wuhan University are known to have been working on gain-of-function experiments, Paul also shared a screenshot posted by the first journalist to obtain the correspondence onto Twitter, X. And in the email to then Inspector General of the Health and Human Services Department, Garrett Grisby, Fauci refers to a phone call with, quote, highly credible scientists, end quote, who, quote, were concerned about the fact that upon viewing the sequences

of several isolates of the N-cove, there were mutations in the virus that would be most unusual to have evolved naturally in the bats, and that there was a suspicion that this mutation was intentionally inserted. Yeah, sort of like the way they intentionally used, misused the term pandemic, which didn't apply to this. As I've mentioned, it was March 2009. You can check it out when the World Health Organization itself funded unconstitutionally by the United States, when the World Health Organization changed the definition of the word pandemic. They just changed it. They lowered the lethality threshold of a spreading particular viral outbreak. And so it doesn't have to be as deadly now to get that terribly scary word applied to it. Pandemic. This is what they do. They want to use so-called crises, just like Rahm Emanuel said. And as I mentioned, Rahm Emanuel's brother, Ezekiel Emanuel, is the guy who wrote, it's not technically termed the death panel, it's called the best practices panel. And it is the one where the central authority will decide where the

resources should be spent for extending life for people who are terminally ill. That would be Ezekiel Emanuel, so-called medical ethicist, who in addition to doing that, also is a big proponent of people dying by the time they're 75, not living past 75 years. So here's a little bit more about Fauci. Upon considerable discussion, some of the scientists felt more strongly about this possibility,

but two others felt differently. They felt that it was entirely conceivable that this could have evolved naturally, even though these mutations have never been seen in a bat virus before. And even though, of course, Anthony Fauci clearly had to have known that the research had been moved from Chapel Hill during the period when the United States was not going to do gain-of-function research, but they were still funding viral research, contrary to their wonderful constitution, which, strangely, hasn't really stopped them. It's acted as a speed bump sometimes, but the progress of that steamroller keeps rolling over our liberties.

So Fauci was quite aware that EcoHealth Alliance got the money from NIAID and NIH and sent it over to Wuhan. Now, if people want to just draw out the Wuhan aspect of it, feel free to do so. But there's a lot more to that that doesn't just gin up anger at China, because it's the United States government that funded it. It's people like Anthony Fauci, who, as I noted, very early, the first week of February, when I first heard that people were using hydroxychloroquine to respond to SARS-CoV-2, I thought that was strange because I had taken hydroxychloroquine in the 90s. And I thought, well, that's an immunosuppressant. Why would someone want to suppress the immune system

when they have something like the flu. Well, it was shortly thereafter that I heard that again on the radio. So I decided to look it up. They were talking about how people in Korea were using this very early, first week of February. So I looked it up and sure enough, within a 10th of a second, I found the report and you can find it on PubMed. And I've mentioned this a few times, probably not filling in for David, but on my show, I've mentioned it a few times. It's on PubMed and it says chloroquine as potent mediator for SARS. That was SARS-CoV-1. And that was a study that was funded by NIAID and the NIH in 2005. So if one was aware of that, or if one had already been aware of Anthony Fauci's

terrible actions during the HIV, the blossoming of the HIV controversy in the 1980s, or if they had watched the way that he behaved in the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Texas, they would not have trusted Fauci from the start. If they had any concept about the U.S. Texas, they would not have trusted Fauci from the start. If they had any concept about the U.S. Constitution, they would have known that that man's office itself was not sanctioned by the Constitution. And again, you know, I didn't sign up for the Constitution. I'm just reminding people of these are the things that maybe people might want to consider if they're going to vote. If they're considering that the offices of the Senate, the offices of the House are legitimate, then they ought to check out what the Senate and the House are supposed to do or not do. Because otherwise, why claim that you can have two senators? Why not

have a hundred senators? If you're going to disregard this portion of the Constitution, why not disregard the other portion of the Constitution? Have a thousand senators from every state, whatever you want. It's the inconsistency for opportunism that is so clear throughout the history of politics. It's the swearing of the oath and the utter disregarding of the oath. So it was. Chloroquine was proven back in 2005. So every time Anthony Fauci appeared on screen and didn't mention that, and then as he further got into it and made it worse for himself by stating that the people ought to be aware of hydroxychloroquine, oh, we got to watch out for this ivermectin stuff, because of course he wanted to make sure that therapeutics were not available because he had an interest ideologically and commercially to make sure that the pharmaceuticals, the patents of which some of which the NIH shared with Moderna, that they got promoted by Donald Trump's Operation Warp Speed, a military operation, as Sasha Latapova has pointed out from the start. It was called a countermeasure. And as we know,

in November of 2020, actually late October of 2020, a member of the army was on 60 minutes they already had millions of doses of the mRNA gene serum before the FDA had even given it emergency use authorization I mean it's just the the the continual stream of just not even based on their own immoral impositions onto you the promises that they make to you, they break. They create things like the FDA. They create these things like the viruses. They create these things like the so-called gene therapy serums. They fund these giant corporations either directly or indirectly with EcoHealth Alliance

getting the money from the NIH. They move their seed in the shells all over the place. So you can't keep track of it. Like you're down in Washington Square or something in New York, watching one of these tricksters out there laying down your buck. And people continually become acclimated to it. And what upsets them? Not the original problem, which is the imposition on people from the start saying, you are going to pay for your own protection. We are the state and we're protecting you. Now, give us your money. Not that problem. That should be the outset. The first question that pops up brings that the first thing that brings questions to people's minds is, I don't know about this deal.

I don't know if it's automatic. Can I buy out of this? No, you can't. That should have been the first sign. Bad idea. So Rand Paul is referring Fauci to the DOJ because it's up to the DOJ to do something. Very clearly, Fauci lied under oath and Rand Paul pressed him on it, obviously, many times. You have here, Paul and May pressed Fauci on gain-of-function research in Wuhan

during a Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing, to which Fauci responded, I've never lied before. I've never lied before Congress, which, as I mentioned last night on Liberty Conspiracy, is another lie. Oh, Anthony. Anthony, here's a shovel. You might dig a little more quickly. So now let's go back because we've got that wonderful shot of Anthony Fauci now part of the conversation because, of course, he lied in front of Congress and he should go to jail for that and a

lot more but oh and there's his t-shirt from the Washington Nationals yeah you know you remember you remember that wonderful moment when he was you know uh you know after he had told us all to wear 8,000 masks. Yeah, and yet he suddenly was without his mask after he threw the first pitch at the Washington Nationals game. Wear your mask unless you're at a Nationals game and then you don't want to wear your mask. I'm going to be getting on a plane with John Kerry and I'll be coming up with my own excuses about why it's okay for me to not wear my mask after I told people publicly to wear their

masks, after I told them not to wear their masks, but then I told them to wear their masks, but then I admitted that telling you to wear your mask was really a lie for your own good because we needed that personal protection, which I secretly have told people is actually not protection. All right, let's move on. Oh man. And don't forget everybody. Here's this. This is a good one. I don't even remember. At times Fauci almost admitted that he was essentially making up health advice to manipulate the public into doing what he decided was best. For instance, when it came to herd immunity, Fauci said, quote, When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought I could nudge this up a bit.

So I went to 80, 85. Yeah, we know what you were nudging. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, squire. Oh, man. And there's this one. Finally, just a quick reminder from Fox News. In fact, I'll blow this up a little bit for you. I'll blow this up kind of like the cases in the PCR tests.

We're going to blow it up. We're going to have it at 40 quadrillion trillion zillion cycles. It's a 100% false positive. You better watch out. Don't worry about that symbology behind me. It's not Illuminatus in any way. Fauci absolves himself of responsibility. Fox News from over a year ago.

A responsibility for lockdowns in testy interview. Show me a school that I shut down. Yes, he did call for shutdowns. He said if he could shut everything down, he would. And then he said, I never called for shutdowns. Unbelievable. But let's get back to the immediate controversy from the current set of criminals who are in office. And Lawrence Kudlow, formerly with

a different criminal, and Jonathan Turley sort of sitting here going, wow, I get to comment on this all the time. This is great, mom. Here we go. What we now know, I think very clearly, is the president has been lying. He's been saying for years that he hasn't discussed the business dealings of his son. He said no involvement or knowledge. That was previously contradicted. People forget about people like Tony Bubulinski, who said that he actually sat down with the vice president to discuss business dealings. They forget the audio tapes of the president discussing business dealings appearing in the press. And so this just further demolishes those denials.

But the question now is, why was the president lying? And it's fairly clear now that he was part of the brand and the brand was influence peddling. He was the object of the Influence Peddling. It was influence and access to him. And the way that you sell it is to have him pop into meetings and dinners showing, I'm a phone call away so you can ink that deal with my son. The son wasn't good enough. These, you know, criminals from these other countries, business people, pardon my phrase. They needed to see the old man. The son wasn't good enough. I mean, the Burisma CEO said the son was no smarter than his dog.

So now you've got Devin Archer basically saying, OK, we upped it. We took it up a notch. We went right to the man on demand. You said a couple dozen phone calls i mean i think that's very important next question is um johnson charlie will we see a transcript of this hearing this morning how's this going to work because i was surprised jamie comer wasn't there i know jim jordan covered it and he's the head of judiciary and he's on oversight but will we get our can we get our pause on this entire transcript and see exactly what was, well, transcribed, but what was said? Yeah, these sessions are usually handled in terms of questioning by the staff and by counsel.

I expect they'll turn around transcript fairly quickly, so we should be able to see one within a couple of days. And then we're left with the question that Speaker McCarthy left us with. What do you want to do about it? And that is a very important question. I think it is a very important question. And I want to pose that question to you over in the Rockfin chat. Let me know. And I would love to hear your opinions. You're going to check that out. And if you've posted an opinion before and you want me to see it, if I missed it, please hop in there at Rockfin.

And thank you to the Rockfin folks for being so nice. I really appreciate that. Yeah, let me know what you think. What should be done? And is it just this? How about sending $125 billion to Ukraine? You've got more to discuss about that. How about opening up that new base in Poland? That was great. And as I mentioned, Joe Biden was on the ground for a surprise visit to the soldiers there. And he openly admitted,

well, you know those Ukrainians, some of you have been there. And he openly admitted, well, you know, those Ukrainians, some of you have been there. And of course, yesterday we discussed that they actually have paperwork now that has come out that indicates, yes, U.S. soldiers are actually making their financial claims for their extra duty on the ground in Ukraine. There's so many opportunities for impeachment, right? So many opportunities. And Rumble Chat, thank you very much for being there as well. Viking Cat, thank you so much.

Christian Constitutionalist, yes, wake up. Absolutely. Wake up to the fact that Trump is no different than Biden, says, but he was the promoter. That's for sure. And, you know, he should have known better. That is also for sure. And to be pumping himself up for this is is obviously a big mistake. something that I think contributes to a long line of disappointments for many people who believe in the Constitution and hoped that Donald Trump might get a little bit closer to it, to have such a sizable, massive, historically significant breach of the Constitution that not only was such a breach, but such a clear fraud and has harmed so many people. It's just it's tough to think about Donald Trump and not not imagine the pain,

not feel the pain of all those other folks out there who are suffering strokes, heart attacks, things like that. I have a friend whose father's had multiple strokes. I won't even go into it. I mean, we know so many people who've had problems. Just incredible. Just incredible. Prison is a good start, writes Aaron Moss. Yeah, prison is a good start for Donald Trump, perhaps, for Joe Biden, for Hunter Biden, for Anthony Fauci, for Deborah Birx. And morally, anyone who was involved in pushing out the jabs, in coercing people to get them, they have different levels of moral darkness to deal with. And I hope they do. You know, I hope they ask God for forgiveness. And because this is, you know, this is, we can't forget this. And we can't, you know, as history goes along, we, you know, the term never forget obviously pops up with so many different periods in history. And this particular period was done in such a surreptitious and strange propagandized for the good of your neighbor way that was so illogical and I think illustrative of the way that propaganda can be used when there is a boogeyman, a MacGuffin out there

that I hope that people will continue to tell others about it. And it's easy to get confrontational about it, I think, you know, I mean, I have, and it's easy to get very angry about it, but perhaps at times it's going to require that sort of soft approach, you know, and, you know, then not just for the, for the, for the outcome of it, you it, to try to convince somebody, but on an ethical level for oneself to exercise oneself to step back a little bit, feel that righteous indignation, but try to find some way to offer somebody who has made a mistake that opportunity to clean up his act or something like that. It's a weird thing to wrestle with. It's very, very difficult. I want to just do something very, very quickly here and play you a little bit of James Comer as he talks about this himself. He is the chairman of the House Oversight Committee. So check this out as we wrap this up and think about what is to come

with this investigation, with this devin archer information unbelievable stuff incredible suspected well uh here we go okay 20 times that that they put joe biden on the phone was to talk to make pleasantries with Hunter's friends and not assert or or assure people that that the father was going to be helpful to these companies. What other reason would they pay an admitted addict all that money? James Comer, can you explain how does an admitted addict make all that money? What services then was he offering if Joe was not the brand? Well, Devin Archer testified that they were influence peddling. We wondered what the business was. I suspected it was influence peddling, but we heard today from someone

on the inside, it was influence peddling. They sold Joe Biden. That's what the business was. And Joe Biden himself talked to every single person that has wired money to the Bidens. You've got a situation here where you look at those people who were wiring the money. A lot of those people aren't the most credible people in their countries. There are a lot of people who are in a lot of trouble in many of these countries who were sending wires to the Biden family. They needed help. They needed help from the government.

That's why they paid the Biden family. They were influenced by them. And what Jim... So again, I just need to bring this up. If somebody could ask Mr. Comer what the moral difference is between that and the federal government and various state governors or city politicians doing precisely the same thing. We need your help. Influence peddling. Help me out with this. I'm going to have an appearance here. Appear with me. You know, I wish that people would keep that in mind. That's all I'm going to say.

You know, you've heard me say it and, you know, hopefully, you know, these sorts, we get acclimated or I could get acclimated myself. I remind myself, look, look at the larger thing, look at the panoply here, look at the systematic operation of government largesse. And remember, just because there might be a statute against this particular thing, or just because it happens to overseas interests or whatever, the person-to-person corruption, the graft, the taking away of your money, of your children's opportunities, the inflating of the money supply to pay off people so that the government people can perpetuate their power, it's all part of the same thing, clearly.

I just mentioned the Farah violation, that Foreign Agents Registration Act. We know that Hunter Biden has violated that. Even the judge in Delaware last week cited that as one reason why she rejected the sweetheart plea deal. But what this did today, in my opinion, is open the door. Did Joe Biden violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act? Because he was an active participant in at least one deal we know of with the Burisma deal. He was actively participating in doing a benefit to this foreign agent for this foreign country, and he was withholding American tax dollars in the form of foreign aid for that. This is very serious.

Today took a huge step towards implicating Joe Biden in many of these crimes. We're going to continue to press forward in our investigation. Well, there you go, everybody. I think that that one pushes everything to the surface. We get it all out there. We interact and we have the opportunity to look at what we know right now with this Devin Archer thing and say to ourselves, might not really help us out too much right now, but we are getting some information about it. And it's an amazing way to start the program. So boy, I'd love to get your thoughts on it. Drop your opinions again in Rumble or Rockman chat, and let's enjoy the interaction and enjoy even more stories on The David Knight Show. Great stuff.

Good music from David Knight. Great visuals. Makes me think of those great westerns from when I was a kid. Oh, man. Those are so much fun to watch. And, you know, those were the days when, you know, you thought about the frontier and it actually reminds me a lot about Australia. And, you know, I was out in Australia in 1992 and they flew us from Brisbane out to Charleville, which is sort of in the middle of the bush up in Queensland.

And amazing, you know, the stretches of land that people owned out there. They would ranch with helicopters. They would rustle their cattle with helicopters. I mean, you know, some of these guys owned parcels that were like a quarter the size of Rhode Island. It was absolutely wild. And they had the school of the air. They didn't have the kids were so sparse and separated from each other that they had the school of the air. They did it by radio. It was before the Internet was really coming around. And it was absolutely fascinating meeting some of the folks out there.

And it was very, very interesting. Makes me makes me think, you know, the Western frontier makes me think of what the United States must have been like back in the late 1800s, that sort of thing. And of course, they had many of the same experiences that the Aboriginals had or similar to the experiences that the American Indians had, you know, taking of land, a lot of alcohol problems, welfarism that decimated people, the attempt to try to get back some of the ancestral lands and things like that. Very interesting, very interesting parallels between the United States government operations and the Australian government operations. As I mentioned, I have a novella, it hasn't been published yet, called Gorge. It's about a place called Carnarvon Gorge in Australia. And, you know, you can see 4,000, 5,000 year old cave paintings there from the Aboriginals. And it's weird, the handprints of these people who long since, you know, uh, tried to live out their dreams and, and, you know, find a mate, have children, they pass away,

but their handprints are still up there on the, on the, on the, you know, just blown with pigment on the rock. It's a strange thing, very strange thing. And I have this novella, and in visiting Australia, I found that it was legal to kill Aboriginals up until about 1950. And in fact, for quite a while, the Australian government actually paid people to bring in Australian scalps. That, according to, and Harps might be able to correct me on this, but that, according to a number of the people I met who recited the same thing to me when I was in Australia. Very, very strange stuff. And so, you know, with that in mind, I want to turn to this Australian story and then hit a big deal coming out of the international world. But it's time for us to go from the

Devin Archer story, a huge story, a huge story, the Hunter Biden story, the Joe Biden story, with also the thoughts that we don't want to forget what Donald Trump did, what Anthony Fauci did, what so many other people do, and what happens on a daily basis with the graft and corruption of the various politicians and things like that. But to also talk about not just Anthony Fauci and the pandemic MacGuffin, but also discuss the MacGuffin of climate change. And we're going to talk about what's been going on in Australia. So let's play a little Buster Poindexter. So here it is, everybody. This coming from Australia, Australian state bans natural gas in new homes starting in 2024 in a push to cut emissions. Just unbelievable. Here it is.

Sydney, Australia from Reuters. The Australian state of Victoria will ban natural gas connections to new homes from next year as part of a plan to cut emissions and lower energy bills because it's for your own good, like the light bulb ban that's starting today. They can decide for you what is important in your life and what you value, what you determine to be part of your bill or what you value for paying more. Maybe you want to pay more for something because there's something else you value in it. The state climate action minister said on Friday, yes, they have a climate action minister in Victoria. Australia's second most populous state is the country's largest consumer of natural gas with around 80% of homes connected, but also has ambitious plans to reach

net zero by 2045, five years ahead of the federal government. Isn't that wonderful? Minister for Climate Action, Lily D'Ambrosio, and of course, whether you like her policies or not, you will have to continue paying for her in Victoria, said on Friday that new homes requiring planning permits must connect to all electric networks from January 2024. The gas sector contributes 17% of the state's emissions. Emissions of what? You see how they do this. Just unbelievable. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It's 37 parts per million in the atmosphere, and it is not proven to be driving anthropogenic climate apocalypse on Earth. Just amazing. So let's turn again to this story about the Nobel Prize winning physicist who was going to be speaking to the IMF, but when they found out what he was going to say, sorry about that. When they found out what he was going to

say, they discovered, where is it? Hold on a second. Well, anyway, okay. They discovered that they were going to pull his invitation. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. This is John F. Clauser, 2022 recipient of the Nobel Prize. He said, There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world's largest population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science. Those who deny global warming often face extreme ridicule and are subject to censorship and cancellation. In 2022, a peer-reviewed study from Climate Experts was published showing several unsubstantiated claims about apocalyptic climate change appearing in the mainstream media. After speaking out against the manufactured crisis, Dr. Clauser was denied his previously approved speaking engagement

at the International Monetary Fund. What a shock. Yes, in a statement, the CO2 Coalition said Nobel Laureate for Physics Dr. John Clauser was to present a seminar on climate models to the IMF on Thursday, and now his talk has been summarily canceled. According to an email he received last evening, the director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the IMF, Pablo Moreno, had read the flyer for John's July 25th Zoom talk and summarily and immediately canceled the talk. I know it's so completely out of pattern, out of what we typically see from the left, which is to present their side and not allow the other side to debate. Yes, I know it's shocking. You know, I have something I want to show you that you might enjoy that has to do a little bit with this.

You're probably familiar with Mark Marano. That's M-A-R-C, Mark Marano. This is his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change. And it's put out by Regnery, I believe. Yeah, by Regnery. And I thought you might get a kick out of this because they'll have it any way they can, the pushes of climate change. This book, a couple of years old now, but he has some great little items. You know how in the Politically Incorrect Guides, they put in these little blocks here and there. So here's one. Wither the Humble Armadillo. The armadillo holds the distinction of being used as a mascot for both the global cooling scare in the 1970s and the global warming scare today. ABC News has cited the expansion of the animal's range in two different directions as evidence of both scares. Quote, Go back to 1977, and the same ABC News was touting the Little Armadillo as proof of, yes, you guessed it, global cooling.

Quote, the signs of cooling have already begun. They began about 1945. Homely things like the flight of the heat-loving armadillos from Nebraska to Mexico, Howard K. Smith intoned ominously during a segment on how the evidence was piling up for a coming ice age. And it isn't just ABC News. The Newcastle News reported in 1973 that, quote, warmth-loving armadillos were, quote, retreating southward to escape global cooling. It was, quote, seen as a sign of a cooling climactic trend, end quote. But a 2011 Scientific American article reported the armadillo is moving north thanks to climate change. Armadillos have settled north into Southern Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, and Missouri, all areas that

were totally unexpected. They'll do anything they want. They're utterly desperate. And it's a constant bait and switch. Unbelievable. And they will not allow for debate. It's just their narrative, constantly their narrative, which brings us over to the latest over at MRCTV. If you get a chance to check it out, you probably saw that today is the day for, you know what? Yes, the elimination of the incandescent light bulb. So go back over there just to celebrate. I know we're very excited. Here it is. August 1st, Fed ban on incandescent light bulbs begins.

Yes. Now, I gave a little preview of this yesterday. And as I mentioned, and I played a little bit from my report on April 2nd that goes into the origins of the incandescent light bulb, which actually was invented by Canadians. And then they sold it to Thomas Edison. He bought the, what do you call that, the license for it. Yeah. Anyway. Yeah. So it says here, not the license for it. Yeah. Anyway.

Yeah. So it says here, not the license. What is it when you, when you file with the government and you've got the, the patent, he bought the patent. So anyway,

it says it wasn't a late April fool's joke. When we reported on April 2nd, that the long dreaded already market damaging ban on the sale of incandescent light bulbs was mere months away. Perhaps the idea of constitutionality has for some time now seemingly been banned in America and the incandescent ban takes effect on August 1st. That's today. So celebrate everybody. Got to get the black market for light bulbs going. Though Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm's Cheshire Cat grin will continue

beaming even as the lights go out. So there it is. It's the ban on incandescent light bulbs. It starts today. And I really wonder whether people will pay attention to what's going on. One of the greatest inventions in the history of man destroyed by one of the worst inventions in the history of man. Government destroying the light bulb. I don't know. You try to figure it out. I can't. That's for darn sure.

Hey, let's head over to another area of news. Now, everybody, it's time for us to do able to buy light bulbs, it's supplying plenty of light bulbs and a lot more to, yes, foreign nations in the forms of real light bulbs inside, who knows, heavy equipment, tanks, jets, and, yes, even things that will go heavily into the field of exploding and burning things. It's time for us to talk about Ukraine, everybody. Absolutely nothing. War. Yeah. What is good for? Yeah, we get the opportunity to keep tabs on what's going on with Ukraine, and I think it's very worthwhile. So let me give you this information, everybody. Antiwar.com has some very good stuff. But first, I want to talk right now about something that was posted at the Daily Signal. Virginia Allen writes this. Ukraine drones bring war to Moscow.

Russia threatens use of nukes. We've heard that before, but here it is. Russian officials say three Ukrainian drones targeted Moscow over the weekend. And one of those drones struck a skyscraper in the city. Well, first we have to mention they're not Ukrainian drones. They came from someplace else. They're likely United States drones or British drones. But needless to say, Ukraine is, of course, the 59th state and it's just, you know, it's a quietly accepted

part of NATO, you know, sort of an appendage to that giant octopus that they don't officially acknowledge, but it's the proxy by which the United States is trying to overthrow the government of Russia and, of course, playing favorites in Ukraine because it's so not corrupt at all. And let's see. Yes, Russian officials say three Ukrainian drones targeted Moscow over the weekend, and one of those drones struck a skyscraper in the city. Man, Ukraine has now taken responsibility for the attack. Gradually, the war is returning to the territory of Russia, to its symbolic centers and military bases. And this is an inevitable, natural, and absolutely fair process, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said. It's totally fair. Yeah, you know,

hit civilians, totally fair. The strike is part of Ukraine's ongoing counteroffensive against Russia. Now, look, as I've mentioned, as most people who are out there, you probably feel the same way. Again, I don't want to assume anything, but we know how this is going to end. It's not going to end with Ukrainian victory. It's not going to end with Vladimir Putin being overthrown. It's going to end with Ukrainian defeat. It's going to end with the partitioning of Ukraine. It's going to end with a new Iron Curtain as Russia takes two-thirds of Ukraine and one-third is left. And NATO either officially brings them in or makes it a line in the sand, as we hear. And again, perpetuates the idea that the Russians were always the aggressors here, despite the fact that it was NATO that kept expanding after the fall of the Soviet Union, despite the promises of Jim Baker,

that NATO would not do that into the Iron Curtain nations. It's very clear what's been going on. Vladimir Putin has spoken about it numerous times. And what he said is spot on. He goes through the history of it. He did that the morning of the invasion. Now, that doesn't mean that I support the invasion of Ukraine, right? Many of you probably know this reality as well, and you don't support the invasion of Ukraine. But to think, A, that the United States has clean hands on this, whereas instead it's like Lady Macbeth, is important. We should remember that we have bloody hands and we are paying for this stuff. And this is extending the bloodshed. It's continuing the meat grinder of innocent lives and people now being pulled into the Ukrainian army off the

streets as journalists are arrested, as despite the fact that former Vice President Pence doesn't seem to get it, churches are shut down, as after almost 10 years of bloodthirsty Azov battalion, neo-Nazi excursions and death patrols in the Donbass region, after all that, all these lives destroyed, people now being pulled off the streets and put into the military, the United States government continues to perpetuate this losing inevitable loss. It's just it's really it's really sad. And there are various groups of people who push this. You know, they could have had peace, but the Brits and the Americans, they told Zelensky, don't. Now, I don't know what Zelensky is going to get out of this, but it makes no sense. And of course, the Russians now, in response to the drone strike, Russia's former president and prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, said, quote, just imagine that the offensive in tandem with NATO succeeded and

ended up with part of our land being taken away. Then we would have to use nuclear weapons by virtue of the stipulations of the Russian presidential decree, according to a Telegram post reported by CNN. Well, I don't, I doubt that Vladimir Putin appreciated that in any way whatsoever. But it's kind of a big deal. And obviously, you know, it's a big deal. And then, of course, we've got this. Now, this one I reported on my show. I didn't get to discuss this yesterday on David's program here on The David Knight Show. But I wanted to make sure that I brought this up to you.

Antiwar.com's Dave DeCamp reports about the NDAA. That's the National Defense Authorization Act. Now, the House passed its version a couple weeks ago. The Senate just passed its version, all right? And inside it is $886 billion, almost a trillion dollars for, as I mentioned, essentially a standing army and for forcing us to pay for the quartering of not only U.S. troops all around the world in a time that is not a time of declared war, but also other soldiers everywhere, whether it be in Ukraine or the Philippines or Poland or wherever, were paying for theirs. It's just amazing. And Rand Paul tried to introduce a couple amendments, and of course, they didn't pass.

So here's the story from Dave DeKim. The Senate on Thursday night passed its version of the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act. Now, they are going to have to be reconciled. The House and the Senate version will have to be reconciled, but here's a little more. The debt ceiling deal, oh, the bill authorizes a record $886 billion in military spending. The debt ceiling deal reached between House Republicans and the White House set the NDAA at $886 billion, which is the amount President Biden requested. Hawks in Congress are planning to increase that figure even more by passing emergency supplemental funding, which is not limited by the debt ceiling deal.

The Senate rejected amendments to the NDAA that would have increased oversight of the tens of billions in weapons and to what he is trying to do. I'm an anarchist. He's more of a limited government, libertarian style conservative. But if you were there and you voted against the NDAA, would you then also, knowing that it was going to pass, try to get an amendment in saying let's have an accounting here? Well, here's what Rand did. He said he tried to get a vote for an audit and investigations of Ukraine and that failed of the Ukraine aid. It failed on a vote of 20 to 78 with only Republicans supporting the measure. Every Democrat voted against an audit of the money, you know, the peace and love Democrats, right? Isn't that part of their heritage? You know, the Woodstock generation, weren't they all Democrats? The Senate also rejected an amendment to establish a lead inspector general

for Ukraine aid in a vote of 51 to 48. The effort required a three-fifths majority. The House passed its version of the spending bill earlier this month, so the next step is for the two chambers to negotiate the finalized version that will head to President Biden's desk. The House version is also worth $886 billion, but the chambers may clash over the spending bill as House Republicans included amendments relating to social policies in the military. And that, of course, has to do with whether your money will be used to give military members money to go get abortions and move beyond the states where they might be stationed. And also to pay for sex so-called change, gender so-called reassignment, gender whatever, bodily mutilation. Because, you know, it's all part of the defense of the country. I don't know.

Just bizarre. So great stuff from antiwar.com. And of course, those are going to be items that they're going to have to debate. And they're items that some people have brought up recently on Friday's Liberty Conspiracy program. I mentioned that they were having some hearings about so-called gender affirming care. And it took me hours to find out what exactly, why they were having these hearings, because the reporters weren't actually discussing the hearings. They were discussing the hearings and what was being said in the hearings. It's a very hot button issue, this gender affirming care and the various statutes that various states have come up with to stop underage kids from doing this. Other statutes in California that would allow, as Scott Wiener has proposed, would not only

one of which has passed, allows kids from out of state to come in and stay there and not be brought back to their home states where their parents are asking for them. But now there's a proposal to allow any kids who are in families that are on Medicare or Medicaid or any government welfare program to just leave and to become independent of their parents as long as they get the approval of a state-sanctioned psychologist. And then they can start their so-called gender-affirming care. So you'll see here, here's an example of some of the stuff that I found when I was trying to do my research on Friday. And I spent hours because I thought, you know, they've got these hearings going on. What are the, what exactly are they debating? You know, I've been there in Washington. Typically, if you

have a hearing, it's one side or another side that's calling up this hearing. It's just pretend. It's a play act where they're calling up so-called witnesses that they've pre-planned that they want to push out there for the media to accept a certain narrative, which will then get put into the media channels and put out to the American public, which will help that bill pass. That's what the so-called hearings are. Testimony is really not testimony in Congress most of the time. Most of the time, it's these people they've preselected to get their message out there, right? So in this case, I thought, what are they pushing? What's the bill?

Why is it that every time I click on one of these pieces, I can't find out what the bill is? I don't understand. It just doesn't make any sense. Here's a great example. This woman, Kayla Jimenez, with gender affirming care bans, prepping American map, Congress enters the conversation. And there's some that are way off the map. They're talking about gender affirming care is not something to fear. USA Today has this one. It looks like a news report, but it's not a news report. She says gender affirming care, that's already an assumption, for transgender kids, already an assumption, transgender kids. You see the baseline from which they're approaching this

story. It's just crazy. The debate over its safety and merits drew Capitol Hill attention to Thursday at a hearing by the House Judiciary Committee on the Constitution and limited government. So I thought, wait a minute. OK, if that's the case, then I would have a problem constitutionally with them just holding hearings over whether or not this is good or bad? What place is it for the federal government? There has to be something in the constitution that I would look at if I were going to say, hey, you're operating according to your oath, to say, is it justified to have these hearings? Then I would think, well, maybe they're looking at it through the 14th Amendment. Maybe some of the Democrats are upset. I have video footage of people like Jerry Nadler and others saying that you're going to stop this gender affirming care for kids across the country? Is that what's going on? Or literally, I'm going through this. I'm like, well, I heard what Jerry Nadler said. He said the Republicans are going to stop this. And I've got the footage I can show you. If you

want to check it out, just put the drop it in there. Say, yeah, play Nadler. I know a lot of people don't want to see Nadler, but, you know I could play it. Um, and then, uh, there are others who are saying things and we heard testimony from this woman, uh, Chloe, something or other who had been, um, uh, mutilated as a girl. They tried to give her all these hormones to make her look like a boy. She, and she says, no, my body is now she, she D transitioned that they said, she goes, my body is now scarred for life. She and she goes, you know, she doesn't know whether she's going to have children. Terrible, just sad stuff. She looks in the mirror and she thinks she she sees a monster. It just breaks your heart. Right. It's really sad.

And so I watch this. I said, what exactly is going on? Well, we'll cut to the quick. All right. It's not that the Republicans are trying to ban this nationwide. There's not some proposal on that, that Jerry Nadler is getting on his soapbox as unsteady as he might be up on the soapbox saying you're trying to ban this. That's not what the Republicans are trying to do. And also on the Republican side, the Republicans are not investigating this on 14th Amendment grounds, saying we have a federal place in this because the states have statutes about parental abuse, and we would consider this to be parental abuse. Maybe they're trying to get in that way. That's also not what they're doing. It took me hours, and I will be short for you, so I'll be brief for you, until I found this.

This is actually the story from Axios, and it was out on July 17th before all that debate. Maya Goldman reports. Here's the story, everybody. It's actually part of it. This. So what the Republicans are doing here is they call for these hearings in the House to run parallel to in order to create buzz about the so-called gender affirming care stuff that is within the budget of the HHS spending bill that's going through the House. That's what's going on. They're creating a debate about this. They're adding more oxygen to that fire over there and getting more people

to talk about this, more attention paid to this. And I think appropriately so in some cases to what is this HHS spending bill. So they are specifically targeting whether or not that sort of stuff will be provided funding. And that is what is upsetting Nadler and getting Nadler to depict it as a ban, which it's not. You know, if I don't steal money from my neighbor to give it to my other neighbor to buy a barbecue grill, it doesn't mean that I'm banning barbecue grills, right? It doesn't mean that. And to get on their soapboxes or their high horses to make that claim is utterly fatuous. But that's what Nadler was doing last week.

That's what we were hearing from the Democrats. You're going to be banning this. No Democrats. You're going to be banning this. No, they're not going to be banning this. But there's a larger point here. Here's the story from Maya Goldman. She writes, and some of this is good coverage. Some of it is bad coverage. And you'll see the bold typeface here is sort of like their bullet point formatting for Axios.

July 17th, this piece came out and she says the congressional appropriations process is shaping up to be the next battleground on gender affirming care. That is why they had those hearings last week. Nobody, nobody discussed it. Not one reporter that I saw actually mentioned what the real reason why those guys were doing that down in Washington on Thursday and Friday. And it was all over the news. You probably heard talk radio playing the segments of that young girl, Chloe. You probably heard various pieces like that guy, Steve Cohen, the representative talking about how they could have, maybe they could have some sort of a partition in the girls' locker room, you know, so that men who identify as women

could be separated. In other words, you mean a girls' locker room? Duh. I mean, just amazing. Just ridiculously dumb stuff, right? Well, it got a lot of attention, but the reason now is right here. So here it is. Driving the news, they have in boldface. Taxpayer funding of hormone therapies and gender affirming surgeries would be barred under the House Republicans fiscal 2024 spending bill covering the federal health department of HHS, which is moving through Congress. If the policy is retained, many people might not have known this, Medicare and TRICARE could not cover gender-affirming care. So does that mean that they can now? And states choosing to cover services through Medicaid could not use federal funds to do so. Medicare, there you go, currently covers gender-affirming surgery on a case-by-case basis. Gender-affirming. No, body mutilation. TRICARE, the insurance for military personnel and their families, NDAA, covers hormone therapy for gender so-called dysphoria, because it's therapy. It's not anything other than therapy, right? Choose your words carefully, right? Here's their zoom out at Axios. The proposed funding ban,

which is tucked into the end of a 198-page spending bill, follows other efforts in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to limit care for transgender so-called individuals. The sweeping defense policy bill that the House passed on Friday also prohibits, that's Friday from back, that was, I think, the 15th of July, also prohibits TRICARE from paying for gender-affirming surgeries and hormone therapies. So that was the House version of the NDAA. And again, that's very much in debate. The GOP has also advanced legislation

to keep children's hospitals that offer gender-affirming surgery and hormones to minors from receiving federal funds to train pediatric residents and fellows. Some states have enacted their own bans on gender-affirming care, though most have been blocked by courts. Seven expressly banned Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care, according to a 2022 UCLA report. So I thought I would do a service, and I, you know, maybe, hopefully you think it was a service for you there, because, you know, I had to go through that because it was just nagging my mind. I said, this doesn't make any sense. What is going on? Why are they having these hearings? What is happening? And it

was part of this, this, this tussle within the HHS spending that's going through Congress right now. And Axios was the only one that actually gave us a hint as to what we were seeing happening last week. That's what was going on. So when you remember that young woman, Chloe, when you remember this guy, Steve Cohen, this so-called representative, when we remember New York's Jerry Nadler, any of those things from the summer of 2023, I hope people will remember that it was a parallelism to what was going on with this HHS debate. And the larger point that I hope some of these folks might make if they run into these representatives,

why are you so upset and focusing on that when all of the HHS budget is unconstitutional? Right? You could just as easily have a debate rather than about gender affirming surgery. You could have a debate about giving teddy bears to old people in nursing homes through the HHS. One is very inflammatory. The other seems to be much more accepted by people, but both of them are predicated on theft and of course, their breaches of the Constitution. So I don't think the founders would have sat by idly. I don't think Davy Crockett would have sat by idly on, let's say that all this transgender stuff is removed.

They would have been up in arms as well about all this other stuff. They would have said, no, this is illegitimate. You can't do this. So these are the ways, unfortunately, that people have become so acclimated to HHS spending. You're going to have that out there. You're going to hand money out. And again, it goes back to the point we were talking about, this sort of rounded things off about the Archer testimony and the Hunter Biden corruption, the Joe Biden corruption. That corruption is rife and it's right there in the HHS spending bill. There should be no such thing as an HHS spending bill. That itself is as corrupt as what Joe Biden and Hunter Biden evidently were doing with Ukraine and Burisma, and perhaps with Chinese corporations, and 12 bank accounts, and all those different types of things. If folks are willing to look

at, appropriately so, the Biden corruption, hopefully they'll look at the corruption that is endemic and accepted by so many people as loving care, and in some areas debated by other people. If people really care about these things, they can use their own money. They don't have to force others to do it. And then people actually show that they care. As I mentioned, you know, there's nothing that government does that shows that anybody cares because it's all done through force. So we can't say that Americans care about cancer victims. We can't say that Americans care about cancer victims. We can't say that Americans care about Alzheimer's disease and finding a cure when the government is the facilitator of the funding and the research. When the government decides that this malady is going

to take precedence over that malady to show where we care. You have to let people express their values. That's the moral way to do it, right? I don't want to be moralizing too much here, but anyway, I just thought I better bring that up because I thought it was an important point. I want to hop over to the Rockfin chat. Don't forget everybody, David will be back tomorrow and I am so glad that I got to fill in for David. And thank you so much for being in the audience. And I want to go back to the tips. Johnny Vips, thank you, followed up Mary Ellen Emmy Moore's tip over on Rockfin. And he said, he says, unprecedented mass murdering NWO super quacks and super, you know, prostitutes. Anthony Stephen Fauci.

Little Phony Baloney. Yep. Deborah Birx. So, yeah, there are lots of people. So many people. Oh, Mandy. Mandy Cohen. Yep, the new director of the CDC.

Absolutely. Peter Hotez. Absolutely. So right. And over on Rumble. Thanks for watching. Almost 500 people watching now on Rumble. Thanks.

Spread the word. Give it the thumbs up. And keep coming back to The David Knight Show. Remember, TheDavidKnightShow.com. It's TheDavidKnightShow.com. And, of course, I want to remind everybody that if you go to David Knight dot gold, you can hook up with Tony Arterburn and Wise Wolf Gold and Silver Exchange. A couple of other major stories that I want to make sure that I cover at 11 o'clock. We're

going to be joined by none other than the great James Bovard. And I want to give you a quick preview of James Bovard's most recent piece brought to you by the Libertarian Institute, Sheldon Richman, all the great people over there at the Libertarian Institute. Let's check this out and see what we can see. This is another, they do these great coverage items of pieces that are out. In Jim's last week was the 70th anniversary of the armistice that ended the fighting between North and South Korea. And our junior fellow at the Libertarian Institute, Jim Bovard, wrote this incredible article reminding us to remember the atrocities of the Korean War and not the propaganda that surrounds it. In Jim's criticism of America's involvement in the Korean

War, he correctly argues that this was a futile and misguided intervention that of course resulted in mass casualties for U.S. soldiers. He highlights how the war actually began with South Korean attacks backed by the U.S. military and challenges the common narrative of a surprise North Korean invasion. He also points out that General Douglas MacArthur's aggressive approach escalated the conflict, leading to Chinese intervention and to a long retreat for American forces. He laments how the Korean War was later portrayed as an American victory, despite it being incredibly unpopular at the time. This portrayal of the Korean War as a victory influenced future military decisions, including the escalation of the Vietnam War.

He also delves into the war crimes and atrocities that occurred during the Korean War, including the Nogunri Massacre, excuse my pronunciation, which saw U.S. soldiers killing Korean civilians. In fact, one million civilians could have been killed during the war. Korean government truth and reconciliation committee revealed that there's many unreported atrocities and concluded that, quote, American troops killed groups of South Korean civilians on 138 separate occasions during the Korean War. Well, I'll just pause there because we're going to be able to speak with Jim very soon. And I highly recommend, well, of course, we'll go through, you know, James's work and his website and things like that. And, you know, this is a topic that we're going to be discussing the 70th anniversary of the end of the Korean War. And, you know, I know a lot of people who are very patriotic or they know people who were fighting in military

conflicts, whether it's World War II or I met a guy from World War I, you know, and sometimes it gets people to exclude debate or conversation over these sorts of things. People get very, very angry and upset if they hear criticism about these sorts of things. But, you know, I think it's worth discussing these. I think it's valuable. And I appreciate the fact that James Bovard has done such a very, very good job. And so, yeah, I just want to bring this up to you real quick, everybody, another quick video item and something we won't be able to discuss in depth, but I know it's really shocking. They're finding a surprising uptick in heart attack deaths, up nearly 30% in people ages 25 to 44. And NBC is claiming that it's the virus. Yeah, NBC is claiming it's the virus. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. The only problem with that is that the heart attacks, the heart problems didn't come up with the rise of the virus. They came up with the rise of the jabs. In fact, there you go. Yeah, I know. Crazy, isn't it? Absolutely crazy. And look at the way they open this. This is quite interesting. They're on the road and NBC is reporting,

but they're not really getting it. For emergency crews like this one, responding to heart problems is a matter of life and death. We've just been called out to report of a cardiac arrest at a convalescent hospital. Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, L.A. County paramedics say they've been busier than ever with calls like this one, transporting a cardiac arrest patient. County health officials have tracked notable increases in cardiac arrests and heart attacks since the pandemic began. No, no. We're talking about cardiac arrests really increasing beyond the typical flu season,

breathing problems, things like that, with the introduction of the jabs. Very clear, especially in younger people who typically aren't exhibiting those types of problems during flu season. That's clear. Just ridiculous. And finally, I want to give you this one from the very, very valuable, of course, often frequent guest of The David Knight Show, Eric Peters. Eric Peters Autos.

This is a great one. And I can't wait to get Eric back on the program. And by the way, Eric is going to be the featured guest. I think I can say this, I hope. All I'm going to say is check out the Tom Woods Show. I'm looking forward to that. And of course, David has Eric on often. He's a regular guest here on the program. But here's Eric's piece for August 1st. The way it makes sense.

Yeah, the MacGuffins. They'll pull the wool over your eyes and, of course, tell you that everything is fine. Here is the climate MacGuffin. Ford has been losing billions not selling EVs, which are stacking up at dealerships all over the country. Well, maybe they can get involved with making LED light bulbs now, you know, because that's all we'll be able to buy, essentially. It's not just Ford either. The only EV maker putatively selling EVs is Tesla. Emphasis on putative because Tesla is probably selling them at cost or a loss, having cut prices to get people to buy them again. Tesla makes its money via the stock market on speculative value based upon the belief that people will have to buy EVs, government having mandated them, and via the selling of carbon credits, a blasé term for legal extortion. It works like this. The government decrees that companies reduce their so-called carbon footprint, by which is meant the quantity of the inert and necessary to life gas carbon dioxide,

which has been slandered as a, quote, pollutant, end quote, in order to trick the populace into regarding it as harmful by equating it with substances that foul the air and contaminate the environment and injure living things. One way for the companies whose carbon footprint, as they call it, is larger than government allows to avoid being strong-armed by the government is to hand over money to companies like Tesla that use the government to get other companies to hand over money to them as payment for these carbon credits. The purchase of these is regarded by the government as an offset. Tesla, builder of COF zero emissions EVs, sells credits to companies that don't make them. These companies then get

credit for having made their carbon footprint smaller and Elon Musk's bank balance larger. Anyhow, the point is that no one is actually room for more EVs that will take their place. As I mentioned in a previous program, what might be kind of interesting would be to have a new tour called the Waste and Corruption Tour. And you could go on it. It could be something where we tour giant parking lots like that. You know, that'd be great. The government graft tour. That'd be awesome. At least it's a way for some of us to make some money.

Disney could get involved. As I mentioned, my sister and my niece went on one of those wonderful Disney tours that they used to have, or I guess they still have them in like the Southwest out in the desert. They loved it. It was years ago.

They had a great time. And it was, you know, way before Disney really revealed itself to be so ridiculously and dangerously diseased with its wokeness. But I think it's rather interesting

that, you know, Disney rather interesting that, you know, Disney now could actually, you know, hold on a second. I think we're getting a call. And you know what? It's time. It's James Bovard time. Hey, James Bovard, is that you? I'm doing very well, James Bovard, and welcome. I'm actually, we're on the air right now. Would you like to talk to the audience of the David Knight program, my friend? I would be honored. I would be honored as well.

Folks, we're going to switch out from Eric's awesome piece, and we're going to now join the man himself. He is the man named James Bovard. James, welcome to the program, and thanks for joining us. How are you? Doing good, Gardner. Thanks for having me on. Hey, I appreciate you being here, James.

And, you know, I played a little bit of the preview of the Libertarian Institute piece, and it's been published elsewhere. You wrote about the anniversary regarding the Korean War, and it was a terrific little two-minute, I didn't play the whole thing, little two-minute overview of the armistice on the 70th anniversary armistice of the Korean War. And I thought it was a terrific thing to hear. And I knew that we would be talking to you about it because, you know, this is the sort of subject that can get many people upset. And you have you've weathered many storms, Jim, whether it's talking to people about the dangers and the inefficiency and the immorality of tariffs, the way that politicians play those things, or criticizing the Clinton administration, I feel your pain, or criticizing the George W.

Bush administration, its warmongering and invasion of civil liberties, or the Obama administration, or the Trump administration, whatever it is, you have a very good way to be able to say look I'm presenting information so let's just talk about this and this in particular the Korean War is one you know we know a lot of American guys went through a lot of terrible stuff there and people can get very very upset if they hear people criticizing anything that had might have had to do with the Korean War tell us a little bit about what you thought. This was first published on the 27th. People can go to thelibertarianinstitute.org,

and we'll tell people how to follow you on Twitter and so on. Tell us what inspired you to do this. Obviously, the anniversary of the armistice came up, and you did a terrific job. And then let's talk about some of the big points you brought up in your article, Jim. Well, the thing that focused my mind on this was about 20 some years ago, 1999 or so, there was a Associated Press report on the on how the U.S. military had massacred a bunch of South Korean civilians who were fleeing the North Korean

army. And there was a lot of acrimony about that report. A lot of people viciously attacked the Associated Press reporters. I think that they might have gotten a full surprise for that, but I'm not sure. But what happened was that after that report, after that controversy, there was a whole lot more focus on what was the actual record as far as killing of civilians during the Korean War. And it turned out that there were many other cases of the U.S. troops firing on civilians. And the Clinton administration, at the time their report came out, tried to say there was no U.S. policy with that. It was only a fluke, but it turned out that there was numerous U.S. policy guidelines

to treat civilians basically as hostile forces and therefore open fire on them. And this is something that was, you know, this is something that was ordered from the top. This is not something, simply some bad soldiers or U.S. soldiers under pressure or whatever that opened fire when they shouldn't have. This was systemic. And so there were a lot of cover-ups and eventually the story came out more. The South Korean government, I believe, Truth Commission, that pulled out some further atrocity stories. And at the same time, the U.S. government had a policy of basically carpet-bombing North Korean cities. Massive destruction up there, even though that did not win the war on the battlefront. But the other wrinkle is I'd always heard that the war had started on June 25, 1950,

when the North Koreans launched a surprise unprovoked attack on the South. But it turned out that the U.S. and South Korea had been doing a lot of attacks and provocations in the north prior to that. I noted in your piece, Jim, we're speaking with James Bovard here on The David Knight Show. And, Jim, it's great to talk to you. And thanks. You know, it's great to have you on the phone. It's wild. You know, sometimes you'll be in a phone conversation on the road with people and so on.

And it's nice to hear your voice and think that, you know, I know David Knight admires your work greatly. I know many people in the audience do. Yeah, and it's a nice bridge. And you have in your piece, the war began with what Harry Truman claimed was a surprise invasion on the 25th of June, 1950, by the North Korean army crossing the dividing line. But the U.S. government had ample warnings of the pending invasion. According to the late Justin Raimondo, co-founder of Antiwar.com, the conflict actually started with a series of attacks by South Korean forces aided by the U.S. military. Quote, from 1945 to 1948, American forces aided

South Korean President Syngman Rhee in a killing spree that claimed tens of thousands of victims. The counterinsurgency campaign took a high toll in Gwangju and on the island of Jeju-do, where as many as 60,000 people were murdered by Rhee's U.S.-backed forces. And you say the North Korean army quickly routed both South Korean and U.S. forces. A complete debacle. Yeah, you know, it was a rout in part because the U.S. military was not expecting to be attacked. They had to bring in General MacArthur in a surprise landing at Incheon to basically turn the tide in the war for a while. But then General MacArthur kept getting closer and closer to the Chinese border, and the

Chinese military intervened, and the U.S. fell back, and then they was back and forth for another year or two. And, you know, the final end of the war was close to where the borderline was before the war started. That might be similar to what happens with the war in Ukraine. I don't know. And so you have almost 40,000 American soldiers killed in what Truman falsely claimed was a police action. No, it was a war. It was, you know, part of what was fascinating here was that the military experts and the politicians in D.C.

basically swept the lessons from the Korean War under the rug, which is part of the reason why the U.S. blundered so badly in Vietnam. And it's interesting to see the preface to the Gulf of Tonkin incidents because the U.S. and the South Vietnam was doing the same kind of attacks in North Vietnam that the U.S. and South Korea had done before North Korea

invaded South Korea. Yeah, I was going to say, Jim, that's a very good point. If proper attention had been given to what the United States had done, and the parallel, this is the second time I've mentioned parallelisms today, I think it's very appropriate to draw parallelisms between what the United States did for a few years here prior to the actual official, so-called official explosion of military conflict, what they did here in Korea 70 years ago versus, more than 70 years ago, and similar to what the NATO forces were doing with their expansion after the fall of the Soviet Union, expansion into the Iron Curtain countries, influencing Ukraine, toppling the government there in late 2013,

booting out Yatsenyuk and putting in Yanukovych. All those types of things are very similar. And especially if we look at the ways that people didn't, they don't seem to learn their lessons. And that's a very good point. Perhaps it's possible that if more attention had been given to the United States involvement in what had what preceded the now known as Korean War a lot of the atrocities in Vietnam or perhaps a lot of what had happened Vietnam might have been avoided Georgetown University professor, Derek Liebart, did some excellent writing on this. And the thing he said was that the images of victory in Korea shaped the decision in 1964 to escalate for America to pursue a war of attrition in Vietnam.

And even worse, the whole idea that America had never lost a war, basically encouraged Washington to go big in Vietnam, because it's fascinating how the best and the brightest policymakers, I mean, the folks who had the highest SATs and all that, were so arrogant and oblivious to the lessons of history. And one of the lessons of history is it doesn't matter how much power the U.S. has or how many troops it can send. It's not going to be able to completely crush the opposition in foreign nations that are hell-bent on fighting. And that was the case in North Vietnam, in Korea, and it's happened in a number of other places as well. Jim, do you think, we're speaking with James Bovard, folks,

and I want to show the, just briefly, Jim, I want to show folks your Twitter feed. They can find you at Jim Bovard, B-O-V-A-R-D, at Jim Bovard. And, of course, it's jimbovard.com. People can check you out over there on your website. Great website. Lots of resources. Always updated with all of your pieces. It's just incredible. But in your piece at the Libertarian Institute, you bring up part of this this framing debate or this framing that happened of this Korean conflict then turned into the title Korean War. And do you think it's a function, perhaps both or one more than the other,

of people want to make those folks or want to support those folks who were put through hell by going into the military and thrown there and experiencing these terrible things, maybe not questioning that they shouldn't have been there in the first place, that they still had their own agency to not participate in this. But many of them got rooked. They went there. They experienced these terrible things. So there's a psychological and emotional facet to it where people want to try to say,

no, what you did was valuable. It was very good. It was a success. And then that darkness there is, I think, utilized by politicians who want to gin up either frame the debate as if, well, we made the right decision. We were successful. So there's that incentive for them, but also other incentives for the military industrial complex to perpetuate this sort of type of endless warfare all around the world. And so they will portray it as, no, this was a noble endeavor. This was very good and was a success. Do you think all of those are factors? Do you think I might be off there?

What's your take on that, Jim? Yeah, there's certainly some factors. I mean, as far as the soldiers who fought in Korea, many of them, if not most of them, were conscripts. So because President Truman, once he decided to massively increase the U.S. military presence there in Korea, I mean, the conscription was brought back and, you know, and folks didn't have a choice. So, and folks sent to the battlefront, they're going to follow orders more by and large, and folks didn't have a choice. And folks sent to the battlefront, they're going to follow orders by and large, and bad things are going to happen if bad orders come through.

So it's interesting that it took 10 presidencies for the details of atrocities committed by U.S. forces in South Korea during the Korean War to come out. Ten presidencies. And so folks say, well, truth will out. Yeah, well, if the truth doesn't come out until 50 years later, it's kind of hard to learn from that, especially when you've made so many of the same mistakes. I mean, if you look at how easy it was for the government to basically sway much of the media with propaganda, it's the same thing which you saw after 9-11 attacking Iraq to a slightly lesser degree. The same thing happened in 1999 when President Clinton decided to bomb Serbia. And, you know, there are so much gullibility.

I mean, part of the problem is that journalists don't tend to know much history and don't tend to have a lot of intellectual curiosity. So that makes it more gullible. But the other factor is, I mean, if you look at some of the icons of the establishment, like the Washington Post, it's interesting to see. And, for instance, right now, if you look at how the Washington Post is covering the war in Ukraine, it's interesting to ask, well, would it be any different if it was written directly by the CIA? Because the Post has had a number of stories that I was just like, well, science sources tell us, yeah, don't give me this crap. I mean, this was, you know, you had some leak from the intelligence agency, and we have

no idea what's actually happening on the ground in that war. And the Washington Post is cool with it. I mean, if you think about the Washington Post, as far as I can tell, has made zero effort to investigate the Nord Stream bombing. And that's, you know, that's the biggest environmental terrorist attack in history. But it's like, well, you know, the government would prefer we don't ask too many questions. Well, then how are you any different than a government front? Yeah, it is amazing. You know, I remember growing up being very skeptical of The Washington Post, The New York Times, because I was a young libertarian.

And I just found I thought, you know, I get the sense that these people, they claim that they're opposed to war. They're certainly not opposed to government aggression against domestic people to push them around in their businesses and play favorites and send out graft and corruptive money to various politicians in various states and to work with corporations here to game certain systems. Their occasional clarion calls against the United States hegemony were few and far between. And they seemed to be politically motivated depending upon which party was in office. And so when Reagan got in office, all of a sudden they were paying some attention to some of the things that were happening in Central America and the United States throwing weapons around. But they didn't do a lot when Democrats were in office. And that struck me as odd. And there is something to be said there. I think that, you know, talking about the ways that various politicians and you bring up, you mentioned President Harry Truman condemned reckless and irresponsible Republican extremists and the false version of history that has been copyrighted by the extremists in the Republican Party. Well, nowadays it's people, Republicans and Democrats,

when we look at Ukraine, this is the sort of broad brush attack that we get against reporters like Aaron Mate, like people who are actually giving on-the-ground reports. And we have the federal government explicitly working to try to silence people like him and like you and like me, literally trying to use our tax money to silence us on Facebook and on Twitter. It's that bad now. And maybe we'll ask you about that as we close off the conversation, or you can talk about that now, Jim. But I often wonder about your experiences, not just in the softer, although very important, and I think something very easily recognizable for people who watch it, world of watching the conservatives circle the wagons and like you and bring you inside the wagons when you're critical of Bill Clinton.

But then all of a sudden, not like you when you're critical of George W. Bush. But now it's literally revelations that the government is silencing people like us. And it's amazing how this sort of thing, as you say, justice delayed is justice denied. Seventy years later, how long are we going to have to wait before we hear truth about Ukraine? Maybe your grandchildren, if you have any. But I don't have any, so, I mean, you know, they are going to hear it from that source. Part of what's frustrating is the media is basically condoning the government deceit and cover-up on Ukraine because it's not pushing. I mean, there are very few reporters who are, at least in the D.C. area,

who are fighting to say, well, wait a minute, this is BS. You know, a simple example for, you know, from early this year until very recently, we were hearing about how the spring offensive by the Ukraine army was going to completely change the war. And it's kind of like, yeah, well, we're kind of still waiting for that. And I guess they've had a few minor successes, but, but, you know, but the storyline changes and what the media does is simply make, make their previous storyline vanish. Yeah.

So, and, and it, it is not taken to have, have an impact on government credibility. Instead, well, it's simply like the facts change.

I mean, it's basically the same way that the media handled in the summer of 2021 after President Biden promised the COVID vaccines would be you did not get COVID or transmitted. Oh, well, it turns out that that was not accurate. OK, move along. Nothing to see here. Yeah. Quick revision as if you're, you know, checking out the chocolate rations at the opening of 1984. You know, you're sitting inside your head just saying, wait, do people remember that it was just two weeks ago that they already revised down? It just it is amazing. And and of course, you know, part of this, you know, I know a lot of people are very critical of the American populace. They get upset when, you know, I do too. You know, I think, gee, I wish people would pay more attention to this or that or whatever. But, you know, a lot of political scientists, so-called, and economists have said, you know,

the dynamic of government versus the dynamic of the market in your daily life are two totally different things. So you don't often see the lost opportunities that government takes away from you because, as Frederick Basia said, it's not seen. Your opportunity costs, they disappear. When you're directly involved with something and you buy a bad product and it fails on you, you know when something is happening in a foreign land and somebody's getting killed over there, you might never even hear about it. You know, you might not know anything about this. Yeah. When money is being given to Solyndra, that doesn't directly affect you in your own eyes,

but it does affect you. And so that's one of those great, important historic lessons. And that's why I am so frustrated that we have direct involvement of the federal government. And, you know, God bless Matt Taibbi and Michael Schellenberger and other people. And you, I mean, you've got you've got a great piece from The New York Post over on your website. Biden's judge blocks Biden's right to censor conservatives, his so-called claim that he can censor conservatives. Of course, there's been a stay put on the Biden influence on things like Facebook until the August 10th hearing begins for what are going to be the combined cases of Missouri v. Biden and Kennedy v. Biden, both of those about the censorship of the United States

government utilizing our tax money to censor us. And, you know, we have to credit Judge Doughty for trying to spell out the fact that this is utterly contemptible on the part of the feds. But there is unfortunately a stay until August 10th. But after that, it's going to be very interesting, Jim, to see what the federal justice system in the in the in the body of Judge Doughty does in hearing these cases. What do you think about that? And how does it affect you when you go around to say, you know, various publications with different articles? As a guy who's been working on this so long, you know, you see the ups and downs of various political figures and networks and so on, favoring you, not favoring you not favoring you but liking you then somehow not not answering your calls or not approaching you uh what about this

censorship thing uh have you found that it's been very difficult have you found that people are approaching you saying gee i look for your work and i couldn't find it yeah well google has not liked my work for a number of years, so the stories I did on Duncan left vanished pretty damn quick. But the interesting, well, there was a story that came out last year, Washington Times covered it, that the Justice Department had emailed USA Today trying to get them to squelch my articles criticizing Attorney General Eric Holder. Really? Really?

Yep. And what was that you said about goodwill? About goodwill. I mean, I think I missed a phrase there. Oh, sorry, sorry. You said someone, before you got into that, I thought you were talking about goodwill doesn't like you or something like that. No, Google. Oh, Google. Google does not like me yes

i mean there was yeah there was there were a number of stories which i wrote about a swat killing uh close to where i live of a young uh libertarian leaning guy named duncan lemp yeah through the cops basically well anyhow that's another story but those stories they were very hard to find on google even though they were in places like American Conservative Magazine, Mises Institute, and other places. I think the USA Today story I did on Duncan Lim's killing is a little more visible. But, you know, let's just say that the algorithm did not like a lot of the stories I've done. Now, I'm not familiar with his killing. I didn't see that.

Can you tell people about that and tell me as well? Sure. Duncan Lemp was a young pro-gun activist. He was a software guy, IT guy, very smart. Yeah. And he was outspoken, opposed to the government power and in favor. And about two months before he was killed in a pre-dawn SWAT raid, Duncan Lim sent out his last tweet, and it said, the Constitution is dead.

And then two months later, so was he. It was a no-knock raid. The Montgomery County police changed their story on the raid two or three times, but the story that they stuck with at the end was that the cops got there at 4.45 a.m. and went to his bedroom window. It was a break and a rake. You had one cop with a fireman's rake smashing in the glass. Another one pulled back the curtain, and then a cop stepped up with a rifle and shot him five times in his bed. But the media didn't care because he was pro-gun, outspoken, and it just got swept under the rug. Wow. Wow. Just unbelievable. You know, Jim, you have so many of these stories,

and I want to bring up to the audience that if they go to JimBovard.com, they can see your work. And I want to ask you about the story on Iraq in just a minute, but also want to mention the books that are out there, particularly one of the most recent, Public Policy Hooligan, just a lot of fun to read, just amazing stories about your experiences and getting information out there to people, and also some of the reactions on politicians and bureaucrats' fronts and media fronts and things like that. If you have the opportunity also, Jim, if you have a message for the listeners in New Hampshire, I know that you also got the chance to speak in New Hampshire. And I missed you. I missed you at the Liberty Alliance Dinner 2023. I've been there.

That's where I met John Kiriakou. Great guy. Yeah, I was there, I guess, a couple Saturdays ago. And a very impressive organization, the New Hampshire Liberally Alliance. Hearing what they've done, what they've achieved, I think it's one of the most effective pro-liberty organizations in America. And very disciplined. I mean, you know, talking to folks there before and after the speech, they were so well informed. It's like, you know, well, I guess I'm not a Washington, D.C. anymore. I'm following what the government is doing. It's a big influence of the Free State Project.

They did a great job with already some really good people like Don Gorman and other people who were already in New Hampshire. Yeah. And the way that they split things up, because in New Hampshire, every bill has to have a hearing. Every bill has to come forward. And they used to go once every two years, but then they opened up the legislative session to be annual, and that just expanded the number of bills. But the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance folks, if you're not familiar, you might want to check this out for your state legislature or the legislature in your state. I won't say your state legislature to ascribe it as if it's yours,

but you might want to check it out because they have people who volunteer and they read every bill and they give them assignments about their liberty quotient versus their anti-liberty quotient. That report goes out to all of the state representatives and all the senators. And as you say, Jim, they're extremely dedicated. And they work with each other. They train each other. They literally bring people into the House and show them, okay, this is where you get the bill.

This is how you go through it. This is where this office is located. And it's as if you're going to school for a couple weeks. It's really amazing. Yep, and it's a very impressive result. Absolutely, absolutely. They've done some great things. And really, I do want to compliment the Free State Project folks, Jason Sorens and all

the people who have headed up the Free State Project. Carla is just amazing. Really wonderful people who get involved with Porkfest as well. And of course course you and i met at liberty forum and that was fantastic jim and i believe that was the year that naomi wolf was also there and um she's been very outspoken about the jabs and things like that and so i'm glad you're able to be there jim it's uh it's terrific and i'm sorry that i missed you i i was so i wish i had known i've been so sick recently. I haven't had the

opportunity to get out. I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sorry to hear you've been sick. I hope you're feeling better. Yeah. Well, you know, you work at it and things are, things are moving along. All right. You know, and, and I, I draw sustenance from thinking I'm, um, I'm working in the path of good people, you know, following in your footsteps and that's not to butter you up or anything like that. It's, it's really, uh, as I mentioned as I mentioned, before I knew you, I was reading your stuff. And it's just super energy providing to me. And you bet, Jim. Let me ask you a one real question, one final question before we go. Your piece about the Iraq War. You came out with this one on July 28th, and it's the Iraq war was a systematic atrocity. People can find this at JimboBar.com.

And I'll just give this intro very quickly. Media coverage of the 20th anniversary of the start of the Iraq war mostly portrayed the war as a blunder. There were systematic war crimes that have largely vanished into the memory hole. But permitting government officials to vaporize their victims paves the way for new atrocities. So similar in a way to what you're talking about with Korea, just a variation on a theme. Tell us a little bit about this one.

You talk about the eve of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and First Lady Barbara Bush, and that's where you sort of start things. Tell us a little bit about that, Jim. Okay, well, Barbara Bush was And that's where you sort of start things. Tell us a little bit about that, Jim. Okay. Well, Barbara Bush was, you know, she was doing a TV interview, one of the morning shows, and she was asked about the pending invasion that her son was going to lead. And Barbara Bush says, why should we hear about body bags and death and how many, what day is's going to happen. It's not relevant, so why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? Wow.

And so I said that was the Barbara Bush role. And it was basically, it was institutionalized by the Pentagon. Early in the Iraq War, General Vince Brooks was asked about tracking civilian casualties of U.S. military action. He said, you know, it's just not worth trying to characterize by numbers. So, you know, it's not worth counting. It's not worth counting. And that was a standard which guided a lot of the rules of engagement, where they were just did far more damage than necessary to civilians and plus they shouldn't have been in the damn country in the first place absolutely

you know i have to tell you jim uh i was in england on the eve of the invasion of iraq and i had my favorite punk band is the damned and so so, yeah. And they're the first British punk band to release a single, the first British punk band to go on tour. T-Rex brought them around and really liked them. And so I was in, I was in not Manchester. I can't remember where it was now watching watching the band, and I had a sign, and I had a little cowboy hat, and I had seen them a couple months before in Boston. And so I was in this very rough and tumble club,

and it was punks, a lot of left-leaning folks. They didn't like the fact that the U.S. was invading Iraq. To their credit, good for them. And so they found out I was the American, They didn't like the fact that the U.S. was invading Iraq. You know, to their credit, good for them, you know. And yeah. And so they found out I was the American. And so I was down in the mosh pit and I was getting attacked. I was getting slammed around.

It was really getting intense. Like people knew and they were targeting the American. And it was, yeah, it was rough. And so I had made a sign out of a little piece of paper and I had it in my back pocket and it said greetings from the greetings from the US. And then on the back, I had it that I could And it's just crazy. You know, boots are hitting my head. People are crowd surfing. It's absolutely nuts. I'm getting elbowed in the face. It's, I'm getting out and, you know, people are like trying to break my ribs. It was nuts. And so they, they finished the song and I hold up the sign. I've got my cowboy hat on and captain sensible, who's their guitarist and a very fun guy, very anti-war. Um by the way, he and I had dinner a few years ago. He was very aware of the United States involvement in the overthrow of Libya

and Gaddafi's attempt to start a gold-based currency and things like that. He was very aware of the Hillary Clinton emails and what those revealed. So the captain up on that stage, I hold up the sign that says, Greetings from the U.S. He goes, well, hey up the sign that says greetings from the U.S. He goes, well, hey, hey, hey, greetings from the U.S. And then I turn around, goes, sorry about W. And I'm right down, you know, down in front of him. And it's very and he goes, he goes, you, I know you.

Where are you from? He's always very fun loving. And I was like, oh, near Boston. He goes, oh, Boston, Boston. He's like making fun of the accent. He goes, hey, everybody everybody give this guy a round of applause he's the only american here and then i became their friend and they're all pat it was great they're patting me on the back like hey mate all right all right yeah i love what you said that's great so later there was a little bar around the back and i don't drink or anything like that but i was in the bar talking to some people

and the band came out and they there was like a back back door that went from one place to the other place. And, uh, the band came out and the captain came and he goes, Hey, Hey, Hey. And I had put them in a spec script for, um, for my agent and he had actually gotten the script. So he, he actually ended up realizing who I was and he goes, and I say, Hey man, I think you saved me about $1,500 worth of dental work. Cause they were ready to punch my teeth in. He goes, oh, man, I love that little sign. So, you know, it's nice that I know a lot of people appreciate what you have to say here. And to draw it back to your piece, I want to bring this back up on the screen for the audience of The David Knight Show.

You mentioned here in your piece about Iraq, Jim, a 2005 American University survey of hundreds of journalists who covered Iraq concluded, quote, many media outlets have self-censored their reporting on the conflict in Iraq because of concern about public reaction to graphic images and details about the war. And you have this. Individual journalists commented, quote, in general, coverage downplayed civilian casualties and promoted a pro-U.S. viewpoint. No U.S. media show abuses by U.S. military carried out on a regular basis. You also have, quote, friendly fire incidents were to show only injured Americans and no reference made to possible mistakes about involving civilians. And you have this quote. I'll do this a little slower. The real damage of the war on the civilian population was uniformly omitted. Unbelievable. Looks like somebody else is trying to reach me here. The media, you write, almost always refused to publish photos incriminating the U.S. military. The Washington Post received a leak of thousands of pages of confidential records on the 2005 massacre by U.S. Marines and Haditha,

including stunning photos taken immediately after the killings of 24 civilians, mostly women and children. And we have the quote that is often played, and appropriately so, of former Secretary of State, now deceased, Madeleine Albright, being asked a question on 60 Minutes. Nearly half a million women and children died, and that was just because of the Clinton blockade of that country. Do you think it was worth it? Yes, we think in the end it was worth it a totally consequentialist view of this jim so it's um it's ugly it is ugly and so my final question james bovard um second to last question jim is when you see this sort of thing and you look at what's happening now in the military, when you see reporters like Julian Assange, can you tell people what you think of what

has been done to Julian Assange after Julian Assange tried to expose just this kind of thing yeah well um i did a usa today a few years ago saying that julian assange should get a presidential medal of freedom uh julian assange is a hero um the the work that he did was did struck a powerful blow for peace. Things would be worse if it wasn't for him. I wish that people in D.C. paid more attention, or policymakers, or even editorial writers. But to see how he's been vilified, I mean, it's certainly chilling for the media. You know, it basically shows how far the government can go to crush people who expose government atrocities. And Jim Bovard, were you surprised? Because, of course, and you bring it up in your article, in 2007, two Apache helicopters targeted a group of men in Baghdad with 30 millimeter cannons and killed up to 18 people. Video from the helicopter

revealed one helicopter crew laughing at some of the casualties, all of whom were civilians, including two Reuters journalists. Light them all up. Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards, one guy in the recording declared. And they killed people who went to try to rescue the harmed people, the injured people. And you note Army Corporal Chelsea Manning leaked the video to WikiLeaks, which disclosed it in 2010. I'm wondering, were you surprised that Chelsea Manning was given a stay of Chelsea Manning's, then Bradley Manning's prison sentence? And it was Obama who did that. Is that right? Not a state, but they lifted, they released him.

It was short. Yeah. So I wasn't that surprised. I mean, President Obama did some things that were a little bit out of character compared to George W. Bush. He also did a lot of bad things and claimed the right to assassinate Americans who he labeled terrorist suspects with no trial or anything else.

But I think it was 10 years ago, maybe yesterday or the day before, that Bradley Chelsea Manning was convicted. And then I think he was sentenced a couple weeks from now, 10 years back. But, you know, to see how the government was able to vilify people that exposed secrets, even when the secrets did not result in harming anybody, any U.S. soldiers, and the government's become far more secretive. And as you know, we have very little good information on what the hell's happened in the Ukraine war. This is what I go back to.

I mean, I'm sitting here, I see the Washington Post headlines on this. I can recognize most of them are often bullshit, but I don't know. I don't have good sources on the war. And it's frustrating. Yeah. Yeah. Well, Jim, I really appreciate you joining us on The David Knight Show. And I know that on your end, you're probably getting that little bit of interception. Someone is trying to reach me from some government office, I'm sure. But I do want to mention, Jim, a final thing as people get the opportunity to, if they can go over to the James Bovard blog and check you out at JimBovard.com and maybe gift themselves a little something from your collection of books. a fond memory to, as you say farewell to the audience, that they'll find in the book that they might find amusing, interesting,

adventuresome, adventurous, whatever you might have, from Public Policy Hooligan by James Bovard. Well, there's lots of zesty stories in there, and it includes the stories of the various women who tried to stab me. Wow. I was innocent. I was just a misunderstood country boy. What can I say?

Boston women, you've got to watch out for those Boston women. You know, they just don't take no for an answer. Holy smoke. Is a woman a woman or more than one woman have tried to stab you in your life? Well, it's more than one, but Boston was the most entertaining one because it was the first date. And I guess she was playing by Mike Tyson role. So basically, as soon as I entered her apartment, I was obliged to put out. And when I was kind of bulk, you know, all of a sudden she pulled out the knife. Whoa, whoa. put out and when I was kind of bulk you know all of a sudden she pulled out the knife whoa whoa

Boston is different than the uh the uh the women I knew down in Blacksburg so holy smoke Jim you know I have to say uh I was almost uh knifed a couple times in Boston uh one time actually I was walking in Kenmore Square which is you, you know, the Sitco sign. We had come from one rock club. We were walking towards another rock club. We had gone over the mass turnpike bridge thing from where Fenway Park is. You go over this little overpass over the highway. You head towards Kenmore Square.

And I was walking next to my roommate who was drunk, and I don't drink, and sort of walking along. It's like, you know, one in the morning, and everything's packed and crazy, and there are all these weird, it's a weird amalgam of punkers and sports fans and dancing guys with their shiny jackets, and it's just a crazy mix of people there. And I found out later that Kenmore Square was the most violent place in Boston per square yard or square foot, or I don't know. Really?

Yeah, it was like the most fights and kn Boston per square yard or square foot or I don't know. Yeah, it was like the most fights and knife things and craziness, right? Which I would never have expected. But I'm walking along and I see these two guys coming towards us amongst all the people who are on the streets, under the streetlights in this dark, you know, this, you know, it was a busy night, busy night. And my friend Doug is on my left and these guys are going to be approaching us even further on our left. And the guy closest to that is going to pass by my roommate, Doug, all of a sudden I see something shiny flick out from his hand and it points at about hip level towards Doug and Doug's arms are just, you know, at his side as he's walking on, he's going to slice his forearm just like he walks by, just going to slice it and cut a vein. And I was like, whoa. So I grabbed Doug and I pulled him

aside. That was my first instance where I said, okay, we got to be careful around here. And then later I almost got knifed by a drunk guy. And I mean, yeah, so I've had experiences in Boston, but never like that with a Boston woman. We're going to have to, we're going to have to write a song about that. It'll be sort of like, uh, uh, the man who never returned, but never like that with a Boston woman. We're going to have to write a song about that. It'll be sort of like The Man Who Never Returns, but it'll be about your experiences with Boston ladies. I don't know. Yes, I will draw the curtain of mercy on that.

James Bovard, thanks. I want to enlarge this on the screen so people can see all of your stuff. The Bovard blog. Check out you at JimBo Bovard blog. Check out you at Jim Bovard dot com. Check out your presence on Twitter. It's at Jim Bovard. And of course, that piece, if they want to read the piece about the Korean War, it is over at the Libertarian Institute. They can read your pieces in the New York Post. They can read your pieces all over the place. Jim Bovard, thank you so much, my good man. You are the man, and I am really frustrated I didn't get to see you in New Hampshire and save you from another Bostonian coming up from New Hampshire to knife you.

Well, all right. Thanks for the good thought, and I hope everything goes well Great to talk to Jim. And boy, he is a terrific guy. So you know, James has mentioned to me at times he's been very popular with conservatives. You know, Laura Ingraham used to have him on his show all the time when he was on talking about the Clinton administration. And then the invite suddenly disappeared. And, you know, I'm a big fan of this book right here, The Fair Trade Fraud, which was the first one I read by him he's got shakedown how government screws you he's got of course terrorism and tyranny which is absolutely essential reading attention deficit democracy in a similar vein and the bush betrayal um just awesome stuff and so many other books and so it is interesting to think that james bovard not cowed. He doesn't slow down and he doesn't change his work

to conform or become more popular, which is awesome. And I guess in a way, you probably are like, yeah, guard, you're going to draw in the lesson of David Knight and his integrity too. Yes, yes, definitely. And so many of you in the audience, you know, not to butter you up, but, you know, I've spoken to you and I know that you don't kowtow, you don't fall, which is great. Hey, thanks, by the way, also for spreading the word

and giving the thumbs up on Rockfin and Rumble. Greg, thanks for being there. Jason, thank you very much over at Rockfin. And Heron H, thank you also. So many people from everywhere. Steven Casper.

Thank you, Steven. And some folks I don't get to say hi to that often in chat for my show at Liberty Conspiracy every Monday through Friday at six o'clock on Rockfin and Rumble. But I do want to do that. And again, Hal Watson,

thank you for being there. And he has an interesting story here that I'll have to check out later on. Very interesting stuff. And Narrow Way, Narrow Gate. That is such a great title. Love it. So listen, let's round off the show by doing a couple things.

Want to mention also, please don't forget that if you want to contribute to The David Knight Show, you can do so. I believe today is the last day of the... It might have ended yesterday at the end of the month, but I believe there is today also that you can donate. And I believe up to $200 for the day will be matched by a listener. Now, if I have that wrong, please excuse me. And I'll contribute a hundred dollars or something like that. And you have my word on that, if there is a problem or anything like that. But I just wanted to mention that because David's work is great and the family is terrific. And boy, it's really nice

to be sort of swimming in these waters, you know. Anyway, that's just, you know, philosophical stuff. And, you know, I don't want to get too sentimental or anything like that. But, you know, my folks were very keen on Liberty and they obviously appreciated the work of people like James Bovard. And I think they would have been happy to know that all of you out there are listening and paying attention to. So listen, before we go, I want to give you a couple other items. If you go over to MRCTV, you'll see that not only the light bulb piece is out there but there is one more that i want to mention to you and it is about jim jordan's revelations of the massive scope of biden facebook covid censorship and it's more than covet now it's ukraine censorship obviously as james bovard and i were discussing but i thought what James said, this would be a good leap point to get into the meta controversy.

And that can be used in two ways, I guess. But as I mentioned here, as if the long and detailed stream of evidence that reporters such as Matt Taibbi, Michael Schellenberger and others have revealed this year, proving that during the Trump administration and especially under Biden, agents of the federal government pressured, antagonized and conjoled Twitter and Facebook's parent Meta to censor information and opinions about important issues such as the Hunter Biden laptop, COVID-19, the experimental mRNA jabs, lockdowns, masks, Ukraine, and more, House Judiciary Chairman Congressman Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, just turned that stream of evidence into a river as wide as the Mississippi and as long as the Amazon. So he posted over at Twitter, now known as X, this, the Twitter files, part one. This was on the 27th. Smoking gun documents prove Facebook censored Americans because of Biden White House pressure. And in his post, he adds the very important context. Never before released internal documents subpoenaed by the Judiciary Committee prove that Facebook and Instagram censored posts and changed their content moderation policies because of unconstitutional pressure from the Biden White House. Now, he gives us some examples, and I want to play you what Jen Psaki said, because I think it deserves that analysis again.

I did some of this yesterday, and if you watch Liberty Conspiracy, you saw some of it as well. The emails came to light because the House Judiciary Committee's Select Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, and that's where we heard RFK Jr.'s testimony, and we heard critics of him trying to silence him at a hearing about the government trying to silence people. I know, it was crazy. Thomas Massey did a good job highlighting the absurdity of that. We have here that the Select Subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government is conducting an investigation into federal government censorship via social media. As shocking as it might seem, Meta has been slow to respond to committee requests for communications, but maybe, just maybe, the committee threat to hold Mark Zuckerberg in contempt for withholding the

documents got old Zuck to comply. And maybe just maybe this new release will help more Americans see the falsity in then White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki's 2021 claim that, quote, we, the Biden administration, don't take anything down. We don't block anything. Facebook and any private sector company makes decisions about what information should be on their platform. Okay, now I want to play this for you and we're going to stop it at a certain point because clearly she does the straw man argument here. She takes something that a reporter asks her, changes the premise of it, and then answers the change. Here we go. Social media platforms, that feels unlikely to me. If you have the data to back that up,

I'm happy to discuss it. About things that are on Facebook. I looked this morning. There are videos of Dr. Fauci from 2020 before anybody had a vaccine. And he's out there saying there's no reason to be walking around with a mask. So is the administration going to contact Facebook and ask them to take that down? Well, first, I think what Dr. Fauci has said himself, who's been quite public out there, is that science evolves, information evolves, and we make that available in a public way to the American people. I have never seen any data to suggest that the vaccines cause infertility. That is information that is irresponsible.

Just one more. About the science evolving, Facebook used to block people from posting that COVID may have originated for a lab. That is something this president now admits is a possibility. So is there any concern that things you are trying to block or have taken down might someday turn out to be... We don't take anything down. So right there, I pause it right there again, as I did previously, done this once before,

but I think it deserves reiteration because these are the games people are playing with information from people like you, from people like me and James Bovard. She says, we do not take these down. We have not taken these down. But that was not what he asked. That's not what he said. He said, have them taken down. He said, have them taken down or blocked. Once again, she creates something different than the premise of his question.

So it allows her to be truthful in saying, we don't take them down. But that wasn't what he asked. And that is the kind of person you got to say to yourself, would you ever be near a person like that in your neighborhood? Would you ever deal with a person like that if you knew she behaved like that? way not a chance that covid may have originated for a lab that is something this president now admits is a possibility so is there any concern that things you are trying to block or have taken down might someday turn out to be we don't take anything down we don't block. Facebook and any private sector company makes decisions about what information should be on their platform. So again, that brings us back to what I brought up in the

article, which is that they have this thing called Section 230, and they use Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act as a lever to threaten people. So as I mentioned here, if people don't think there is a threat behind the government and treaties to social media, they need merely familiarize themselves with Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Decency Act. It grants social media and other websites immunity from defamation suits should a user post something that might harm another person, and it grants the online platforms protection against state action for any error the media platforms might make in allowing something like child porn to slip through. So, let that settle there. Yes, Section 230, however, only grants these protections if the federal government, i.e. the FCC, determines that the host was, quote, curating the content in good faith, which is an obvious ambiguity that gives the feds total arbitrary power to pull the protections for any reason the feds desire. Thus, when the Biden

administration asks your social media site to cut a post or user, it's likely you might consider, if you run that site, what will happen to your Section 230 status if you do not comply. And I said, of course, none of the FCC powers is constitutional, right? Now, the ability of the federal government to set up the court system between the state courts and the Supreme Court is granted to the Congress. So they can block interstate defamation suits, but they can't block the states from coming down on the social media sites if the social media sites aren't doing something that the states don't like. Again, the First Amendment only applies to Congress. You have to look at the state constitutions to find out what the state constitutions say regarding free speech. That's why that Creative 303 case should have been decided based on the Colorado Constitution. the surface in the minds of those two people and others, Elizabeth Warren, Senator from Massachusetts,

and Lindsey Graham, Senator from South Carolina. They're pushing for something that originally I thought might be a way for them to take over from the FCC, the Section 230 power of so-called curating on good faith over the social media sites. As you see on the headline, everybody, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Lindsey Graham team up to tackle so-called cyberbullying, physical, emotional, developmental, online harms, and more. Of course, that's up to them to define, isn't it? Right? If there is slander, if there is defamation, if there are threats, there are ways to handle that. Right? There are traditional common law judicial ways to handle that. This is ambiguous. This is opaque. This is the sort of thing that the government will arbitrarily use,

again, just like the Section 230 in good faith thing. So I thought, hmm, is it that they're trying to pull it out of the FCC hands because they worry that they won't be able to control the FCC? There might be a conservative on there for a while that heads things up. They might have a majority on the FCC panels that won't act the way they want them to act to come down on various people. So they can't back up their threats to get Meta to respond or something like that, even though Meta ideologically seemed quite inclined to respond to, you know, removing our posts about Cowabunga 19 and things like that. Ukraine, stuff like that. Well, here is a little bit about this. Democrat Senator Liz Warren and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham have proposed a strategy to, as they call it, rein in big tech companies, reignite competition. Really? We're getting

government that's going to be reigniting competition? No, it will harm competition. As I said, if they want to ignite competition, they can leave government and start their own companies and curb the spread of what they call harmful online content. Quote, our legislation would guarantee common sense, that wonderful euphemism, safeguards, in other words, threats for everyone who uses tech platforms. Families would have the right to protect their children from sexual exploitation, cyberbullying, and deadly drugs. Certain digital platforms have promoted the sexual abuse and exploitation of children. Meanwhile, they're helping to vote for federal funding for body so-called gender identity surgery, otherwise known as mutilation.

Certain digital platforms have promoted the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, suicidal ideation and eating disorders, or done precious little to combat these evils. Our bill would require big tech to mitigate such harms and allow families to seek redress if they do not. So again, all of these are very ambiguous. What is a promotion of sexual abuse that's going to be left up to the hands of the government? What is the promotion of exploitation of children or the promotion of suicidal ideation. Well, how far does it go in their spectrum of things? Right. Or how about eating disorders? Right. Well, how do you how are you defining that? Well, I actually called up the bill.

And let me in fact, I'll go over to it. It's in it's in the link here, actually. So here it is. So the name of this is the, it's called the Digital Consumer Protection Commission Act. And this opens us up to the opportunity, and I'll hopefully be able to do this on my program, Liberty Conspiracy, over the next couple of days. I don't want to go over time on David's show here with you right now, but they're not going to be using section 230 of the 1996 telecommunications decency act, which is surprising to me. The way that Liz Warren and Lindsey Graham are pushing this is, and I should have expected this, I should have realized it,

they're going to do it through antitrust. They're trying to do it through antitrust legislation. And they're going to do it through the Clayton Act. And that goes way back. So how they're going to do it is they're going to portray these people as being very big, and they're going to threaten to break them up. Using antitrust legislation that goes back to the 1800s, 1890s, Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Act and things like that. So they're trying to add another brick in the wall against free speech.

How big is too big? Now, again, these are corporations. They're granted this status contrary to the constitution. They're granted corporate status that gives them certain benefits for the people who form the corporations, their own earnings, their own private property is not put in jeopardy. If they, if their company should do something wrong to a customer, only the corporation's owner's property is put at risk, is liable in a lawsuit. That's part of the corporate status. But the idea that the federal government, A, is granted the power to grant corporate status by the constitution is erroneous. And B, then can say, well, we can tell anything that goes over, any business that is operating that goes over state borders, how they're going to operate. And we're going to use

antitrust legislation to break them up if they're not doing what we want is amazingly, amazingly immoral, unconstitutional, and fatuous. So I wanted to bring that to your attention, everybody. Watch that closely. We'll go into more details on Liberty Conspiracy, and we'll talk about it more with you. And thank you again as I close off the program on The David Knight Show for today, this 1st of August, the day the incandescent light bulb died in the United States. Thank you in Rumble. We got another contribution in Rumble. Flower sower. God bless Gardner and the Knight family.

Matched or not, let's make August great. Be blessed and prosper. Wow, that is wonderful. So nice of you. Real Jason Barker. Thank you, Jason. Thanks for holding down the fort for David. It was my pleasure. It was my honor. My honor. Awesome. You guys are great. Wow. What a day. What a week. Excellent. Just great, great, great stuff. Thanks so much for watching, everybody. Remember, TheDavidKnightShow.com. Remember, DavidKnight.Gold to contact Wise Wolf Gold and Silver Exchange. And of course, please visit David's website to get items from The David Knight Show and help promote the show as well. Thank you for watching. Thank you for listening. Be seeing you. 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. thedavidknightshow.com Keep us in your prayers. you