The David Knight Show - The David Knight Show 7-28-23 Vast WH-Facebook Censorship, Immigration, Gerald Celente

Episode Date: July 28, 2023

Hour One, we discuss the new charges against Trump, we dig into the stark difference between how Jill Biden's former husband was treated by the IRS versus Hunter's treatmentand we roll to Hour Two discussing the debate over federal border activity, especially in Texas, drawing out a constitutional lesson about what the Constitution actually says about immigration, and what it says about federal military operating inside the states. That let's us learn about the history of the Whiskey Rebellion,and THAT lets us welcome our gust, Gerald Celente, of TrendsJournal.com to discuss freedom, peace, and economics! - Thank you for your time!For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHTFind 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/silverBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

Come on, come on, yes, yes, come on. At this year's Cheltenham, glory rests in the lap of the gods. Oh, curses. Alas, our hero hasn't placed. But there are still divine offerings up for grabs, with all NoviBet customers getting a €10 free bet for every day of Cheltenham. And on top of that, we're paying up to seven places each way on selected races throughout the festival. I declare this a most generous offering.

No, we bet. More power to you. T&C Supply 18 Plus. Bet responsibly. Gamblingcare.ie. partner organisations worldwide, we bring together unparalleled expertise to serve businesses like yours. We can help you discover partners in new markets, advance your digitisation and gain valuable insights into EU funding opportunities. Take advantage of free expert advice and innovation resources. Visit een-ireland.com and take your business global today. Using free speech to free minds. You're listening to The David Knight Show. As the clock strikes 13 here on Airstrip One, welcome to The David Knight Show. I'm Gardner Goldsmith, given the great pleasure and honor of sitting in for David Knight today on this July 28th, 2023. On today's program, we'll be joined in the 11 o'clock hour by special guest Gerald Salente

of the Trends Journal. Great peace fighter, great freedom fighter. We'll also be discussing the latest news in the Trump trial trap. More charges for Donald Trump. A trial date set. Might not have a lot to do with my freedoms, but it might show us what the jackals are doing to each other. That and a lot more coming up on the David Knight Show. And welcome one and all, I'm Gardner Goldsmith. Good to have you along for the ride, as my dad would say.

Nice to have you aboard because he spent time in the U.S. Navy in World War II. And it's a pleasure to be back once more with you here on the David Knight Show. David and his family are away for a wedding and I get to fill in for David and I'm very happy to be able to do so. This is absolutely a pleasure. And thank you so much for some of your messages on the backside of Twitter. You can follow me on Twitter.

I should bring that up a little bit more often. You can follow me on Twitter at Guard Goldsmith. And I'm also known perhaps for some of my work for MRCTV. So if you want to follow the fine folks at MRCTV, you can just look up MRCTV.org and I'll give them a little plug there as we open up the show because they're awesome people. And I really appreciate all the positive things that you've got to say. And if you found me because of my work at MRCTV, please stick with The David Knight Show. It's a wonderful program, of course. And I'm just amazed and delighted that I get to be with such wonderful people, including the Knight family and all of you in the audience.

Please hit the thumbs up if you're watching on Rumble. We'll see you in the Rumble chat. If you're watching on Rockfin, we'll see you in the Rockfin chat. We'll look at your comments. And please remember that if you want to donate to help David Knight as they reach the end of the month and they try to achieve their goal for the fundraising for the program for every month,

of course, it's just you. They don't do advertisers here. This is an amazing model for a show. It's absolutely brilliant. And David is the brilliant guy of talk radio. It's great to be able to be here and sort of sample some of the things that they do on the backside of things and then talk to the audience. It's awesome. It's amazing. It's like jumping into a pool and like, wow, this is great. So if you are interested for today, and I believe for tomorrow on Monday, Monday's program, business cycle-wise,

we are going to be blessed again for two more days by matching contributions each day up to $200 if you donate at Rockfin or at Rumble, which, by the way, until the end of the year, I think will not take a cut from the donations over at Rumble. But if you want to donate to The David Knight Show, For the Love of the Road has promised to match your funds up to $200 a day. That is just awesome. Just, just awesome. So thank you for The Love of the Road. Thank you all you great listeners out there. And thank you also, not only for supporting The David Knight Show, but for believing in freedom. You know, I host a program each Monday through Friday on Rockfin called Liberty Conspiracy. And I started it up a long time ago,

the concept of the Liberty Conspiracy, because I thought, you know, the ideas and the principles and the morality of understanding freedom, just the understanding of freedom. It's out of fashion nowadays. So I started up Liberty Conspiracy and I talked to my father about it before he passed away. And it was great to talk to him about it. And so on Liberty Conspiracy last night, I was joined by a number of folks. We were going through a number of what I thought were breaking key stories and videos and things like that. And everyone was so gracious there because they've been watching me on David's show earlier in the day, watching me with Tony Arteburn. It was just, it was great. And so thanks so much for the welcome everybody. And let me welcome you to the program today,

the David Knight Show for July 28th, 2023. What's on tap for today? Well, today, of course, we'll be joined by our guest, Gerald Salente, in the 11 o'clock hour. And then we'll be asking some questions. More charges for Trump? Yeah, looks like it. And a tale of two tax prosecutions. We'll be looking at Hunter Biden and a very interesting, I don't often refer to these folks, a very interesting interview at Newsmax with Jill Biden's former husband and what happened to him and his brother. Yeah, very interesting. And I think also indicative of one of the jackals or perhaps a couple of the jackals out there in politics who have risen through the years. Then we'll be looking at some information I offered on my program last night about a new study that comes out of Europe about mRNA and your heart if you happen to get one of those awful injections.

We'll talk about informed consent. And we'll also give a tip of the hat, and I often do this on my own program. Let me show you. We'll give a tip of the hat to the fine people on the streaming show Redacted. Redacted is on every Monday through Thursday from 10 a.m. to 4 live. And then on Fridays, they take the day off, but they put out recorded material, added material often. And they're great.

It's Natalie Morris and Clayton Morris. Natalie Morris, formerly of CBS News. Clayton Morris, formerly of Fox News. You might have known Clayton from his morning times on Fox News. They're great. They live in Portugal now, and they are pro-freedom. They've been very good exposing the dangers of those jabs, Portugal now and they are pro-freedom. They've been very good exposing the dangers of those jabs, the lockdowns, the anti-freedom approach, unconstitutional

approach that the politicians took all the way down the line from Donald Trump all the way down to the local level. They've been very, very good on exposing the Maidan coup, the United States expansion with NATO, the overthrow of the government of Ukraine, the warmidan coup, the United States expansion with NATO, the overthrow of the government of Ukraine, the warmongering, all sorts of great stuff. So hats off. We'll talk about their coverage of this new information on mRNA jabs and your heart, as well as information that I've put together. Plus there's a new study, and I'll show you here on our agenda for the program, a new study adds to the case against masks as if we didn't need any more information. Well, there is more information, and I have to

compliment these folks, in particular, one professor from the University of California, I believe at Berkeley. Her last name is Hoag, and she did a very good job looking back at claims that were made in Boston, Massachusetts, about the efficacy of masks in schools. Plus, we'll be looking for your comments in the chat, everybody. So let's say hello to the folks in the Rockfin chat. Thank you very much for being there, one and all. It's great to see you. Aaron Moss, Mark is there, and I appreciate what Mark has to say. And let's roll with it. I like the energy. It's going to be good. Little John is there, and also over in the Rumble chat. And we had a lot of viewers yesterday in the Rumble chat. I want to thank you for being there, and I'll check out your comments as well as we roll along on the program. Well, you know, on my show, what I often try to do when I start the show is I give a quick newsflash update. So today on the newsflash, I often play Queen with their theme from Flash Gordon. And yesterday I

tried to, you know, mimic Freddie Mercury. And I know I sounded just like Freddie. People were calling me up saying, wow, that was amazing. And I know, I know, it's all my vocal coaching. But no, I got coached in baseball and basketball, not vocals, that's for sure. But instead, on David's show, rather than playing that, I've been playing this little bit, and I'll do it again today, just so you can see a little bit of information about the guy with whom you were dealing. This is from my time after college, actually, when I worked with some friends on a little

film called Skippy Binderman. And yes, that is me. It's time for us to check out what's going on with the News Flash. Wait a minute. I know you guys. You're from the News Flash. All right. Time for the News Flash, one and all, and that means that we get the opportunity to offer up a little theme for you all. And it comes to us via a man who also had the name Gardiner. At this year's Cheltenham, glory rests in the lap of the gods.

Curses. Alas, our hero hasn't placed. But there are still divine offerings up for grabs, with all NoviBet customers getting a €10 free bet for every day of Cheltenham. And on top of that, we're paying up to seven places each way

on selected races throughout the festival. I declare this a most generous offering. NoviBet. More power to you. T&C Supply 18+. Bet responsibly.

Gamblingcare.ie Take your business international. Enterprise Europe Network is the world's largest network providing free support and advice to SMEs with global ambition. With over 450

partner organisations worldwide, we bring together unparalleled expertise to serve businesses like yours. We can help you discover partners

in new markets, advance your digitisation and gain valuable insights into EU funding opportunities. Take advantage of free expert advice and innovation resources. Visit een-ireland.com and take your business global today. Earl Stanley Gardner. ah yes indeed barbara hale as dilla street i always thought she was pretty cool. I just thought she was cool. And Hamilton Berger, you loser.

You never, ever, ever won. And Ray Collins is the tenant. As I mentioned yesterday, Lieutenant Drag must have been pretty frustrated, you know, because he always got the bad guys, according to the police, but the prosecutor could never never seal the deal he probably tracks it like man this burger guy oh geez why couldn't we get somebody you know like uh the guys who were prosecuting donald trump

well you know what uh you might be surprised The first story we're going to discuss in the courtroom drama stuff, Earl Stanley Gardner, of course, providing the novels on which those wonderful of Injustice has dropped the campaign finance charge against crypto scammer Sam Bankman Freed. If you steal billions of dollars, if you steal billions of dollars, you go to jail. If a Democrat donor does it, they get off the hook without a slap on the wrist. Well, those are some of the charges. And there are other charges. It remains to be seen what's going to happen. He might not exactly walk free. But it is quite interesting to see, as I mentioned on my program last night, you know, I've said this before. When I was reporting on the Maidan coup in late 2013, December of 2013, that was happening in Ukraine. And I was explaining how forces under George Soros' splinter octopus, the United States

government, deep state, NATO, the EU, and others were changing, were involved in a coup to replace the elected government there of Yanukovych. I had a friend who approached me and he had formerly worked at the Obama administration for Eric Holder. And he left very quickly because he was disgusted by what was going on. And that was just before the Fast and Furious information came out, which was actually a program that was started with a different name under the George W. Bush administration. This shows you how much he loves your right to keep and bear arms. But this guy approached me and he said, hey, I've been listening.

I was doing an audio podcast at that time. He said, I've been listening to your podcast. This is December 2013. Where are you getting your information? And I said, well, I'm just doing research and so on. And I know what's going on there. I know how the United States has been trying to overthrow the government of Syria. I know about how they're trying to isolate Russian energy exports because Russia has disconnected from the US dollar after the American Recovery Act and Barack Obama and things like that. And so I said, I just know that they're trying to isolate Russia. They're going to replace a government that is close to Russia

and it's going to become a vassal state of the U.S. government. And he said, well, you're right. And there's a lot more. And you probably, if you listened to my show or to this show on a couple other occasions, I said, oh, really? Like what? And he said, you know, I think that's about all I should say. I have a daughter now. Now, if we then look at all the things that have transpired there, starting in 2014 with Victoria Nuland and Jeffrey Pyatt and the recording of them deciding that they were going to put Yatsenyuk in charge, all the meetings that various people like they, like Joe Biden, like John McCain, like Lindsey Graham, like Senator Klobuchar had with neo-Nazis in the Slobodan party, like this guy Chani Bak, and you can find pictures of Chani Bak doing the Nazi

salute, like people who were supportive of the Azov battalion, which slaughtered about 15,000 people in the Donbass region. And we also look at what happened as the United States tried to set up an aggressive attack on Crimea to again, isolate Russian energy exports. And then Vladimir Putin was painted as the bad guy for going in to try to offset and stave off that aggression coming from Kiev. It's very clear. Anybody who's been watching this knows who has been aggressive over the long term and what Putin's actions have been regarding the fact that it is a response to this. Putin would not have engaged in his aggression if there hadn't been two decades of aggression and expansion, contrary to promises

given by the West towards places like the Baltic region and the expansion of NATO. And as I mentioned, now we've got the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and it wants to expand into Asia because I guess the A is going to be different now. I was just, how about, how about World Hegemony Treaty Organization? How about that? How about World Tyranny, Warmongering, Deep State, Military Industrial Complex Organization? Maybe that's too many letters for an acronym, but you get what I'm saying. And many people who are here in the chat, I've had conversations with you offline, behind the scenes and so on. And you're so clued in to what's been going on.

And again, that's one of the reasons why I love the folks at Redacted, as I pointed the hat over there on the shelf. Because they also have hearts and they're trying to speak on the truth and trying to talk about peace. And Gerald Salentes, he's just been phenomenal on that. I can't wait to talk to Gerald at 11. So if we look at what my friend said, if we look at what happened in Ukraine, and then we look at Sam Bankman Freed and FTX, and we know about the money that was sent over to Ukraine, how Ukraine then funneled a bunch of money back into the Democrat Party. And it's all there. There are numerous reports on this, mostly the Democrat Party, in some cases, Republicans. Then I think

we can see that the people who are very close on the prosecutorial side to Democrats probably laid a lot of pressure or felt a lot of pressure. And I'm not saying that this is necessarily the reason why Bankman Freed is not going to be prosecuted this way. It's just speculation. It's just part of my thinking process. I don't know. Maybe they thought that they really didn't have a case against him. But there's another philosophical question that actually That actually could be raised about this, which is why are there statutes about donations and campaign finances in the first place? Right. To me, that just contributes more thought into how do we look at the state and the rules the state comes up with to perpetuate the state and the powers in the state? And should I be prevented in any way from funding anyone I want to fund for a political campaign? And again, I'm a libertarian, Christian, anarchist, voluntarist. And so I don't try to put people into those positions in power because I believe that those edifices, those offices of power are predicated on immorality.

They are immoral. They only operate through the forced seizure of my neighbor's money. And I will not support that. But I understand people who think that, well, if we can just get a candidate in there who will reduce the size of this, then maybe that's good. Or I understand people who say, you know, on my local level, I believe it's OK to vote because I go in and I vote negative on all spending things. I don't believe that that is a signal that I necessarily support the state. OK, well, we'll leave all that hanging. And I'd love to get your opinions on all those things. But also on the voting front, hey, you know, got to got to release the Kraken. Well, it looks like the Kraken's been released in a way. Rudy Giuliani admits on this court front that he made false statements about Georgia 2020 election workers. This comes from the Washington Examiner. We'll click on it because there is some interesting stuff here that has to do with what Rudy Giuliani actually said, which I think indicates to me to be redundant, which indicates to me that Rudy Giuliani is trying to stave off legal prosecution at the same time that it looks like he's going to make an out-of-court settlement with different forces who are involved in this. And also, of course, I want to remind

people that if you haven't gotten the opportunity to see John Kiriakou speak live or meet John Kiriakou, he, of course, is a whistleblower about CIA torture, rendition sites and things like that. Just get his books. Check out John's social media, what he does on his own program, the interviews he's done with David Knight. He is a stand up guy. And and God bless that man. Because as you probably know, if you watch David's show, John has mentioned to David, and I take John at his word, I trust him very, very much, that he tried to have a meeting with Rudy Giuliani and an assistant at a restaurant to discuss possibly getting a pardon from Rudy's great, great pal, Donald Trump, so that John could get his pension. He had already served his time for blowing the whistle on government wrongdoing and torture. But he was just hoping that his time spent in the so-called civil service could be accrued and he could get his pension. some sort of pardon from Donald Trump as president. Well, as he has related to David

and has mentioned in a few other forums. At this year's Cheltenham, glory rests in the lap of the gods. Curses. Alas, our hero hasn't placed. But there are still divine offerings up for grabs, with all NoviBet customers getting a €10 free bet for every day of Cheltenham. And on top of that, we're paying up to seven places each way on selected races throughout the festival.

I declare this a most generous offering. NoviBet. More power to you. T&C Supply 18+. Bet responsibly. GamblingCare.ie. Take your business international. Enterprise Europe Network is the world's largest network providing free support and advice to SMEs with global ambition. With over 450 partner organisations worldwide, we bring together unparalleled expertise to serve businesses like yours. We can help you discover partners in new markets, advance your digitisation and gain valuable insights into EU funding opportunities. Take advantage of free expert advice and innovation resources.

Visit een-ireland.com and take your business global today. The meeting was going along with just chit chat until he brought up the subject of the pardon. And then all of a sudden, Rudy had to go to the bathroom. You know, he's older and maybe he had to fix some of that hair color stuff. And yeah, it is a bit of a dig on him, but okay. So he got up and went to the bathroom and the assistant said, well, you know, if you've got $2 million, we could probably play ball on this. Essentially, I'm paraphrasing here. Essentially, it's a shakedown. If you get $2 million for the campaign of Donald Trump, you know, some of which, of course, Rudy Giuliani was probably getting paid as an advisor, whether it was a percentage of what he might bring in, who knows. But John said, well, are you kidding me? He's like, why would he why would he do that? Right. And then just like I don't even have that money anyway, but why would I do that?

This is a matter of principle. You know, it's just amazing. So here's the story. Washington examiner's Conrad Hoyt writes this. It came out on the 26th, but I wanted to make sure I brought it to you. Rudy Giuliani admits he made false statements about Georgia 2020 election workers. Rudy Giuliani admitted in a court filing that he made false statements regarding Georgia poll workers in the 2020 election and that he no longer contests the factual allegations in their defamation lawsuit against him. Okay, so clearly he's going to settle

out of court. But there's more in the second paragraph here. Quick overview. The court filing released early Wednesday morning details how Giuliani, quote, does not dispute for purposes of this litigation that the statements carry meaning that is defamatory. However, the former New York City mayor, according to the filing, still maintains that his statements are constitutionally protected. End quote. So I think we get it. I think we understand what's going on there. He wants to protect himself legally, but he's ready to settle out of court, which now brings us to the latest news about his friend. Oh, by the way, yeah, people in the New York area once held Rudy up as a hero, but I think we all are very well aware that Rudy Giuliani also worked to undercut the collection of evidence at the crime scene of 9-11. And I think that that's very important to remember. He worked hand in glove

with George W. Bush. And by the way, yesterday I mentioned Christy Tom Whitman. Yes, she was the former governor of New Jersey, but at that time she was, what was she in charge of FEMA or, you know, one of those, she was with the Bush administration at that time. And she's the one who promised everybody, oh, it's totally fine. Go on down there. Yeah. Yeah. It's, it's, it's, it's completely healthy. Like she could know anything about that. Don't trust them at all. And we'll get into the mRNA stuff very soon to give you more information about that. And if you've got information and opinions, please drop them in the Rockfin and the Rumble chat. And I want to thank the folks who are joining us over at the Rumble chat as well.

Hal Watson, 9000. Thank you very much. Very, very good to have you there. Narrowway, Narrowgate. I love that handle name. That is great. Nick, nice to have you there. He says, America's mayor. What insanity. I fell for it in my pre-awake life. Embarrassing. Yeah, so true. Please give it the thumbs up, by the way, everybody. And I hope I'm doing a good job for David and the family, and you in particular, the audience.

And whether you're watching live or later, please share the videos as well. Now it's time for us to move from that guy from New York, Rudy, former prosecutor. He should have known the law pretty well rather than trying to play that game from the start. Let's go to his pal, the shakedown king, one of them, of another jackal, Donald Trump. Yeah, here is a little Google search if you do additional charges for Trump. And there's the New York Times headline. Trump faces new charges in

Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. Yep. New charges. One of those has to do with the elimination of video camera footage. But I want to turn to the ABC News report and play a little something from the wonderful team of David and Terry Moran. Former President Trump, we now know when the federal criminal trial over classified documents will begin. The former president and his legal team had asked the judge to delay the case until after the election. She did delay the trial, but not until after the election. Instead, it will play out just months before the crucial presidential election in this country. Here's Terry Moran. Take your business international. Enterprise Europe Network

is the world's largest network providing free support and advice to SMEs with global ambition. With over 450 partner organizations worldwide, we bring together unparalleled expertise to serve businesses like yours. We can help you discover partners in new markets, advance your digitization and gain valuable insights into EU funding opportunities. Take advantage of free expert advice and innovation resources. Visit een-ireland.com and take your business global today. Federal Judge Eileen Cannon setting a trial date of May 20th, 2024 for the classified documents case against former President Trump in Florida and striking a middle ground, calling special counsel Jack Smith's request for a trial this coming December

inconsistent with ensuring a fair trial. But Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Trump, also rejecting Trump's call to postpone any trial until after the 2024 election, acknowledging the public's interest in a speedy trial. Trump's campaign claiming victory, calling the ruling a major setback for prosecutors. But the reality is Trump will now be on trial in front of the American people just months before the election. Now, this is the part I really wanted to get to. Watch, as David says, he notes it. Watch the narcissism, the arrogance. It's as if not only is he a paladin for the people, it's as if he is now the sacrificial lamb. Check it out. On the campaign trail, Trump's trying to turn it all to his advantage. I consider it to be a great badge of honor and courage.

I'm doing it for you. I'm being indicted for you. But he will now have to show up for at least two criminal trials right in the middle of the 2024 campaign. All right, so we know that stuff, but what's the story, Morning Glory, about the additional charges? Let's get to that, because this other stuff about the trial dates and so on and so forth. Yeah, we get it. We know. We know.

I just wanted to make sure I got that little added spice in there about Donald Trump. I'm doing it for you. Sort of maybe he says that to Syria, you know, as the United States government, as he said, we've got the oil. You know, after he said he was going to pull out of Syria and he said he wanted peace in Syria. And that was, uh, for many people, a very refreshing change of rhetoric from Barack Obama's line in the sands and the spurious, uh, claims that the Obama administration made that Assad had gassed his own people, which was proven to be false on numerous occasions. It was a nice change of pace.

And of course, Donald Trump either lied or didn't pull through on his promises. We're going to get out of Syria. Then later he said, we've got the oil and the United States sits on one third of Syria, an area that the United States occupies while it plays mafia kingpin with organizations like the Al-Nusra Front, which formed ISIS, and it plays them off each other as long as you're good with the hegemon that's sitting in your country. And that is an area of Syria that is larger than the area of Ukraine that Russia has taken so far. Because, you know, we got to make sure we know the bad guys here, right? So Donald Trump is doing that also for the Syrians. I hope you all know this. We love you in Syria. It's really great.

By the way, the weapons that we gave to some of the people who are assaulting you and being it's for your own good because we love you. I'm doing it for you. I'm taxing you Americans to make sure that we own one third of Syria for you. Here's the story. Former President Donald Trump and two others are facing additional charges in special counsel Jack Smith's investigation into Trump's handling of classified documents after leaving office. The charges came in a superseding indictment returned by a grand jury in the Southern District of Florida that adds one defendant and four charges to the prior indictment filed against Trump and aide Walt Nauta. The new charges include allegations involving the handling of surveillance footage and charges related to Trump's unauthorized possession of a document that he was previously

heard discussing on an audio recording. But again, I don't see how you can indict for that because he was just saying that he had it and the people to whom he was speaking can claim that they saw a document, but they can't actually verify that it was that document. So I don't think that that's really going to go anywhere. But with that stated, our final piece of the legal, I guess we'll call it the legal puzzle comes with this. And I don't go to Newsmax very much, but I do want to show you this one. Think about Hunter Biden's charges and what's going on now as his plea deal falls apart

and they look at possibly prosecuting him under the Foreign Agents Act. And what is the Registration uh, that's the one, by the way, that Nina Jankovic, the former head of the ministry of truth, she had to register because after she was dumped from the ministry of truth, which by the way, still exists, they just brought Michael Chertoff in to run that by the way. Yeah. It wasn't eliminated. If anybody thinks it was eliminated when Jankovic was dropped, it wasn't eliminated. It was handed over to Michael Chertoff of the Chertoff group. He of the body scanners, you know, and after the bizarre underwear bomber was brought onto a plane

towards the end of the W. Bush administration and, you know, started a fire on a plane, was brought aboard the plane by two sketchy black suited people. Very odd. All of a sudden we saw this push for body scanners and a person who was with the Bush administration as Homeland Security's are left and joined the body scanner company and ended up getting the contract, no competition, to insert those into all of the airports, contrary to the Fourth Amendment and contrary to your natural rights to be able to contract with individuals to be able to fly where you want to fly, completely contrary to any sense of morality, the U.S. Constitution and all sorts of things. And there's no power for the federal government to force those things into local airports in the first place or have any control of local airports. And if they use the Interstate Commerce Clause as an excuse because planes go over state borders, they might want to reread James Madison's comments about the Interstate Commerce Clause.

He knew a thing or two about what he was discussing. But anyway, regardless of that, Chertoff took over for Nina Jankovic. She joined a British so-called online harassment analysis company, which is just basically a front to be able to claim that white supremacy is involved with, you know, your posts about mRNA injections and things like that. You hate women if you happen to be opposed to the United States warmongering in Ukraine. A lot of really sensible things. That is a British company she had to sign on as a foreign agent. And it looks like Hunter Biden could be prosecuted under certain violations of that statute. We can ask questions as to whether or not those statutes are constitutional or moral, but that's where things stand. And of course, Hunter Biden's father is the guy who promises that he will execute all those wonderful statutes. But this story comes around about his father from Newsmax, Joe Biden's ex-husband to Newsmax, he was targeted by the Biden crime family.

And so Newsmax and Joe Biden's ex-husband bring up a pretty good point. He got hit by the IRS for basically screwing up something for his business decades before, along with his brother. They ran a tavern and it was a pretty popular tavern. And I want to read some of this to you and give this to you. And then I'll play a little bit of the video just to give you a sample of this. The ex-husband of First Lady Jill Biden said the Biden crime family has come after him for 35 years and is targeting former President Donald Trump the same way. Quote, I got on the wrong side of the Biden family and they have literally come after me for 35 years in a row, Bill Stevenson told Newsmax's Greg Kelly reports on Wednesday. One little thing after

another, I was charged with an $8,000 car loan on a BMW that was owned by my business that I had just sold. It's been tragic. I can't let them do this to a president that I love and respect. I can't let them do this to our country. This is why I've come forward. Okay. Well, it took him a while and I don't know, but anyway, again, I'm not supporting Donald Trump. That's for sure. Trump promised to uphold his side of the statutes, which most of which are unconstitutional. So perhaps he's being hoist by his own petard. I think so. But Mr. Stevenson says, I can't let them do that, do that, what they did to me, President Trump. I can't let them do what they did to me to President Trump, I think is what they mean here. Stevenson, who married Joe Biden in 1970, told Newsmax that

Frank Biden, brother of President Joe Biden, approached him after the divorce in 1975. And he goes, give her the house or you're going to have serious problems, Stevenson said. I looked at Frankie, is this an episode of The Sopranos? And said, are you threatening me? And needless to say, about two months later, my brother and I were indicted for that tax charge for $8,200. Stevenson said Joe Biden, quote, turned down a million dollar settlement from me during a vicious divorce trial. I gave her the Corvette. I provided a townhouse for her. I did everything I could to make sure that she was happy because I still cared about her, Stevenson said. And to this day, I still care about her. My problem is with Joe. What he did was right before the divorce

trial, he switches law firms. They bashed me in front of the IRS. They bashed me in front of the Department of Justice. Bottom line is I won everything. Well, they went after him for eight thousand dollars. And if you compare the easiness with which Hunter Biden was going to get off, there seems to be a double standard for the son of a president. But I want to show you a little bit of the video that is available at the Newsmax YouTube channel. So here it is. We're back with Delaware businessman Bill Stevenson, who, yes, as we mentioned in the previous block, was married to the current first lady Jill Biden back in the 1970s now they got divorced and you know what led up to the divorce but it was actually somewhat amicable um but then things got very hot for Bill Stevenson uh in Delaware hot in a bad way now Bill if you

don't mind let me take you us through this the stone balloon is the place that you ran an amazing kind of legendary pub in wilmington all kinds of great music acts uh showed up there uh bruce springsteen and others now at one point you got in trouble in 1982 but when people see this let's go's go through some court papers here. On April 21st, 1982, defendants were arraigned in this court for failing to make payments to the account for the first quarter of 1982. You're the defendant along with your brother. The first quarter of 1982, failing to make payment. How much money was not paid? $8,266. Now, this is federal court,

and you were charged with a felony. And this is in April of 1982 for the first quarter. Just to review, January, February, and March, three months make a quarter. And you were charged in April. Bill Stevenson, I've never heard of something happening quite so fast. It seems like maybe they were out to get you. What do you think? Yeah. Listen, this was devastating. And I'll tell you how it happened. We went to court because Jill turned down a million-dollar settlement from me. She was about 22, going on 23. We were only married four years at that point. We're in this vicious divorce trial. I turn around and try to make it as easy as possible for her.

I give her her Corvette. I provide a town possible for her. I give her her Corvette. I provide a townhouse for her. I did everything I could to make sure that she was happy because I still cared about her. And to this day, I still care about her, to be perfectly honest, and everybody around me knows that. My problem is with Joe Biden. What he did was right before the divorce trial, he switched his law firms to his old law firm, a gentleman named Melvin Monson. For three days, they bashed me. They bashed me in front of the IRS. They bashed me in front of the Department of Justice. And I said, what in the world and why is this happening? The bottom line is I won everything I had given her quite a bit.

And they ruled that her education at that point, which was her master's degree, going on to the doctorate degree, that she had enough. She actually owed me a little bit of money at the end of the court thing, which was bizarre. My lawyer stood up and said, no, we don't want it. Here's what happened. They appealed, I owned a couple houses with her, but the problem was I owned our big house and my home at the beach in my company's name.

So they sued me for one of the houses. It took six years to resolve that. And this is when my problem started. In 1982, they lost the house and Jill had to come to the lawyer's office and sign off the deed of a house in downtown Newark. Wasn't even our beautiful home in Oak Hasn or my home at the beach that I own corporately with friends. It was a house that was worth $35, $, $40,000, and now it's worth a fortune.

But here is where the problem was. Frankie of the Biden crime family comes up to me and he goes, give her the house or you're going to have serious problems. I looked at Frankie and I said, are you threatening me? So there you go. And if you want to explore that, of course, you can check out the Newsmax YouTube channel. And I do, in addition to the differential between the negotiated now defunct agreement, plea agreement for Hunter Biden, which was a very sweetheart deal. And what happened to

Joe Biden's former husband, there is the whole story about how Joe Biden cheated on this man, it appears, when she got involved with Joe Biden. There have been stories about how, oh, you know, everything was fine and they had separated and so on. And that is not the case. Evidently, Joe Biden was babysitting for Joe Biden when they started their affair and both of them were married to other people. So that is the story. And I'm not going to delve much more into their personal things. But I think if all of that is true is more of more and more evidence as if we need it anymore about their squirrelly personal problems. And, you know, God bless

anybody who is getting attacked by the IRS for reasons that have anything to do with just their honest dealings. And the IRS itself shouldn't exist in the first place. It's a machinery of theft. And however, I do think that when you've got corrupt politicians and they're not being held down the way that the civilians like this man were held down for something much, much less egregious. And just, it looks like an error. It's just, and it's not my place to say, you know, it's his money. He should be able to do what he wants. But if we look at that differential, I think it's pretty darn amazing. Absolutely incredible. As if we needed more information about that, right? Just amazing. And, you know, I do want to mention in the program, as we look at some of the stories coming up, this tale of two tax prosecutions is preceding our story about mRNA and heart.

But there is something else I want to get to. We'll talk about the border in just a little while. Coming up, we're going to discuss this story about the mRNA jabs and the heart. Let's go over to this Texas border thing because it opens with a story that I think you'll just find absolutely amazing and actually almost amusing when we talk about the border. You're listening to The David Knight Show. All right. And I'm Gardner Goldsmith filling in for David. And thank you for your kind welcome to me and your graciousness. I really, really appreciate that, everybody.

And remember, if you do want to support the program today and on Monday for the love of the road will match your donations at Rumble or Rockfin to the David Knight Show up to $200 each day. Amazing, just amazing stuff. And I really appreciate it. Now, I want to take the opportunity to get a couple of things set up here for you that I think you'll find kind of interesting, kind of fun. If you follow my Twitter

feed, you know what we're talking about here. Well, you might know what we're talking about. Last night, I just had a ball with this story, even though many people are upset about this story, but it does provide us the opportunity to go into another musical theme, actually. It's the subject of immigration. I feel a hot wind on my shoulder And the touch of a world that is older That, of course, Wall of Voodoo. I love the way he does the eye twitch. And then I slumber

I hear the ribbons of the music About a product they never use it I hear the cockbons of the music About the product that never used it I hear the talking of the DJ Can't understand just what does he say I'm on a Mexican radio I'm on a Mexican radio Radio. Stan Ridgeway, very creative guy. He, of course, headed up Wall of Voodoo, did some solo work. Great song called Just Drive, she said, about a guy getting involved.

He's a taxi driver, I think, and he picks up a woman who's just robbed a bank. It's a wonderful story song. Stan Ridgeway and Wall of Voodoo with that. And that gives us the opportunity to talk about this story over on my Twitter feed. And it's funny when I hit the tabs now, because the tabs no longer have that blue bird on it. It's that black and white X. So I keep looking like, where's my Twitter tab on my computer? Here's the story. It's absolutely crazy. And it shows you the bizarre lengths to which this border protection through the federal central government situation has,

uh, the, the, the bizarre lengths to which people will be fighting within it. Epic times reports. This officials from the U S and Mexico have busted an attempt by smugglers to transfer illegal aliens across the U.S. border using a fake CBP vehicle. Oh, boy, oh, boy. And as I mentioned on my show last night on Liberty Conspiracy on Rockfin. I was like, I just hope it's an EV.

You know, I hope they're somehow magically carbon neutral. I hope they're a coal-fired electric plant-powered car. Which also reminds me, folks, there are lots of stories in the news right now pertaining to the fact that electric cars are catching fire. You might have seen the report about the cargo ship that had the fire. It had 3000 cars on it. But also there are stories about homeowners associations now banning electric cars. There are stories about how worried many municipalities are becoming because their public parking lots aren't designed for the weight of all those cars, even though the cars are the same length oftentimes and width of regular internal combustion engine cars. They weigh much more.

So those buildings aren't designed for that kind of weight. So they're going to have to restrict the number of electric cars if they keep pushing this thing. And then they'll have to build new parking. The whole thing, it's just insane. It's sort of like, I don't know if anybody's familiar, but there's a takeoff of Sherlock Holmes meets Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde meets Jack the Ripper that was on Doctor Who during the golden era of Doctor Who when Philip Hinchcliffe was the producer. And Tom Baker was the star as Doctor Who. And one of the stories is called The Talons of Wang Chiang and it was written by probably one of the three best Doctor Who

writers of all time, Robert Holmes and it's a pastiche of Hammer horror and things like that meets, you know, and of course Hammer did some Sherlock Holmes films with Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing and so on and those are great. But it's, it's a story that happens in the late 1800s during the end of the Victorian

era in Whitechapel, the Whitechapel region. And the doctor and his savage companion Lila are in that area. And they discovered that women of the evening, ladies of the night, as the euphemism goes, are being killed. They're disappearing on the streets. And they trace it to this magician named Li Xingcheng. And the magician is under the thrall of a guy who's actually a time traveler who has depicted himself as a god to Li Xingcheng. He's a time traveler who's stuck in the 1800s and his body is starting to fall apart on him. His DNA is unraveling. And the only way that this guy, this guy that the Chinese dude

thinks is a god, the only way he can survive is by getting essentially the life essence, pulling out the DNA from other people. And the easiest way he's found to do it is to have this magician guy go out, hypnotize the women of the evening and bring them back. And then this man puts them in this device that he has, and he basically sucks their life away. And it brings him back. And what's interesting in it is this was a time when Doctor Who was populated by some libertarian writers. And Robert Holmes might have been a libertarian. I don't know. But if you watch that early era of Tom Baker's episodes, they literally in one episode, they say the doctor has a long association with libertarian causes. And when they said that it was around 1975. So that term libertarian as a party,

what that was fairly new, it was only a few years old at that time. So people were pretty clued into libertarianism on Dr. Who at that time. So in the Talons of Wing Chiang, it's basically, it's sort of a, it's a metaphor to inflation because the doctor realizes what this enemy is doing. And he says, listen, the more you do this, you think it's keeping you going, but it's actually accelerating your problem. It's going to make it worse in the end. And which is what central banking does, the inflation of the money supply. You know, for the short term, they think,

oh, we're going to go along to get along. And of course, now we're seeing the ramifications of it, even as our prices increase even more. And they tell us, oh, well, inflation is, the rate of inflation is down. Yeah, but year to year, it's still going up by over 3%, as we discussed with Tony Arterburn yesterday. So you're still getting inflation. And that is the reduction of your buying power. What we're seeing are the price increases that are resultant of the inflation of the money supply. Inflation is not the increases in prices. Inflation is the increase in the money supply that causes the units that are out there to be able to bid with less power on those items because they're bidding against more monetary units. So the prices go up because more monetary units are available to bid and people will start throwing them at those things. That's just the way it goes. So they're talking about price increases.

But this guy, Li Xingcheng, this god, suppose it, from the future was stuck as he was trying to work on his time machine. And the more bodies, the more deaths he caused, the worse it became for him. He was accelerating the problem. And it's quite interesting when you think about things like their answers with the electric vehicles, because they're making up the boogeyman problem, right? In this case, it's not a problem,

the CO2 emissions and the way they portray that. And of course, it's all done so that they can get power, they can control things, they can impose carbon taxes, they can again game the system and have more fascist carrots and sticks that they can hand out and again, gain more power, gain control of the monetary system and gain control of us down at the basic level as they institute CBDC and they put in their ESG controls that will try to manipulate our behavior in a very Skinnerian way. But it's very interesting because they keep introducing these ideas about how they're going to solve the environmental problem that doesn't exist, but their idea is they don't want people

to know that they're actually making things worse in the environment with cobalt mining and lithium mining. And they don't want people to know that their magical electric vehicles catch fire and weigh a lot and don't work in the wintertime or under very hot conditions. You can't charge them properly at your house. You don't want it in your own home. And you can't park it in a parking garage the same way you would park it in a parking garage like a regular car. And I mentioned last night on my show, we've gone to Boston for concerts and had the opportunity to park next to electric vehicles and said, in parking garages, no, let's not do that.

Let's not do that. And we've moved. And so we go back to this story from the border. The Epoch Times, smugglers caught using fake Border Patrol vehicle. As I said, I hope that it's an electric vehicle. But that also brings us back to the story about the conflict between Texas and the Biden administration

over these floating balls. So let's go back to that story because that introduces something I brought up yesterday and I promised I would offer the opportunity to delve into this more thoroughly about what the Constitution actually says about immigration and why in one instance Greg Abbott is actually doing the constitutional thing, or has done the constitutional thing. So we'll go through some of that, and I'll give you, again, the reference in the U.S. Constitution, is not supposed to be the central government's purview. And I would hope that more peaceful, thoughtful conservatives and even small government libertarians, as they might call themselves, will recognize that if they call themselves constitutionalists, they should, I hope, also acknowledge, as I mentioned, I've been in

conversations with Pat Buchanan and Tom Tancredo and J.D. Hayworth about this, and they all have acknowledged in a very kind way during our debates when And they all have acknowledged in a very kind way during our debates when I was doing radio in a very friendly way. You know what, Gardner? They would accept my argument, which is great. And then they'd fall back onto, but the federal government's got something to do with it. I thought you were conservatives. I thought you understood that you don't want to Sovietize everything. You don't want command and control. You want to decentralize. You understand the economic axiom that the people closest to the situation know best. Individuals have to determine what they value. They are the ones who recognize problems and then

they express the value of those problems through the market. Do I want to spend my money on this? Do I want to spend my time on this or on something else? We have to decide. And as I mentioned yesterday on David's program, if you actually think it through, and if I were to do this with some of my students in a lecture hall, I would say, if we actually think this through philosophically and logically, morally, we know that the state imposes itself on us. The state imposes its preferences, whether it be through the majority or the vocal minority or the gamesmanship corporation that's trying to play favorites, whatever it is, the internationalist organization, the postmodernist Marxist mindset that has infused so many of those politicians

for ideological reasons, whatever it is, government, the polis, is not voluntary. Because if it were voluntary, it would be a business arrangement. It would just be a contract. You can't enter a contract with government because the minute you actually enter a contract to create something that you're going to call the polis, it's no longer a polis. The polis by definition is something imposed on you. Okay. There's no denying this. This is just the fact in political philosophy. So anybody who claims that people like John Locke, who say that everyone gets together to form the government for their own protection and people who don't want to pay for it are also going to have to be included. and they're even misconstruing the term social contract. You can have a contract in society. Society is separate from the state. Society are those arrangements and cultural institutions

we create through voluntary peaceful actions, human morals and ethics, ethics expressed outwardly, morals being the inner understanding of right and wrong. That is society, that is culture. The state is not society. The state is the state. It is not voluntary. It is imposed on people. The state is sociopathic. By definition, the state can only exist by siphoning off of society and what society produces through our arrangements,

through our private arrangements, and what we determine is valuable to us. As government grows, even from its inception, it tells us what we have to value. So then we bring it back to the border. The very idea that a polis can create something that everyone agrees is the border is illogical and impossible because the government itself has to impose itself for everything onto people who don't have a choice. So therefore, the very idea of the government creating something that is good, that can never be determined because we weren't allowed to decide what was good and the politicians aren't paying with their own money.

The very idea that the government can define what is a border is also a negation because the government is telling some people who might not agree on whatever day, they might even change their minds halfway through a day. You know, I think I'd rather have the border a different thing. It's up to them.

And that's why private property is so essential. One of the main reasons why. Because private property is the only manifestation, outward manifestation that we can show that we respect the sovereignty of the self-ownership, the self-property in oneself. If we have a property in ourselves, then we have to respect the property that others have in themselves and what they claim for themselves and they respect for us, right? Just like the Old Testament, the Ten Commandments, right? With thou shall not cover, you know, and thou shall not steal. But the idea that the government can

impose on us, on everybody at the same time, what is a border is just, it's just laughable. And then on the constitutional level, you've got the fact that the word immigration doesn't appear in the constitution. So let's give you this story out of CBS News. And I'll just remind you of this one about the border balls. OK, as I said, they're like the wipeout balls here. Justice has sued Governor Greg Abbott after the state refused to remove large rolling buoys in the Rio. We begin tonight with a showdown between the federal government and Texas over the southern border. The Department of Justice has sued Governor Greg Abbott after the state refused to remove large rolling buoys in the Rio Grande, installed in an effort to block migrants from crossing.

The federal government says the barriers are dangerous and unlawful, while the governor said he had a right to defend his state's border. Last week, an internal complaint from a state trooper obtained by CBS News called the state's response, quote, inhumane. The trooper claimed he and other law enforcement officers were told to push migrants back into the water. He called the buoys a trap. CBS's Janet Shamley starts us off tonight. Janet, good evening. Major, good evening to you. These are the buoys in question here along the Rio Grande. And tonight, it appears they are not going anywhere.

Despite the threat from the Justice Department, this one is very likely headed to court. It's a proverbial line in the sand. This one floating in the middle of the Rio Grande. Texas Governor Greg Abbott and the Biden administration at a standoff at a barrier meant to keep migrants out. No matter how much razor wire that Governor Abbott puts up, it won't solve the border crisis. The Department of Justice gave Texas until 1 p.m. Central to agree to remove the buoys. The governor's response? Texas will see you in court, Mr. President. Tonight, the DOJ filed a lawsuit and said in a statement,

this floating barrier poses threats to navigation and public safety and presents humanitarian concerns. The one person that is sowing chaos. So we understand we played some of this yesterday. And I want to give you some more information. If you didn't get the opportunity to see Chip Roy going to town with Mayorkas, I want to give you the opportunity to see that from the Daily Caller because, of course, Alejandro Mayorkas, the DHS chief, as Jim Jordan and others have said, was not supplying the House Judiciary Committee with the documents that it wanted pertaining to the number of apprehensions and releases and the number of asylum seekers that the DHS was filing. They weren't getting this information at the same time that Mayorkas was claiming that the border was so-called secure. And again, I say this within the context of just trying to

remind conservatives, it is, I think, absolutely laudable that so often many conservatives will express the value of decentralization, of local information, allowing local people to make their own decisions and the individuals therein. And I would decentralize it completely and have no state. I would have voluntarist systems the way they had in ancient Ireland under the Brehon Law system or Viking Age Iceland under the Goddard system or the early tribes of Israel after the Exodus. But this situation where conservatives, I think, also have in their hearts a sort of nationalism, a sort of patriotism, and a concept of, well, you can't have a country without borders, Gardner, you know, that sort of thing. I understand that, you know, we have people who enter the military, they think they're

defending the United States. But if you read the Constitution and you call yourself a constitutionalist, you have to face this reality. And if you do believe in decentralization, you have to recognize that the very principles you describe, that people on the ground who have local information know best what's going on, and that it's also immoral to take money from some people who have nothing to do with a problem in one area. I don't live in Hawaii. Why should I have to pay for what's going on in Hawaii? I don't live in Anwar in Alaska. Why should I be telling the people up there what is going to happen in their forest land? That principle also applies to imposing some sort of so-called responsibility on someone who lives in Ohio and has nothing to do

with what happens in Arizona or Texas. And of course, it reflects on the wisdom of the founders to leave these things up to the states. And we'll go through some Thomas Jefferson information from the Fourth Kentucky Resolution as we first get introduced to this by a fiery exchange from Chip Roy as he grilled Secretary of DHS Mayorkas about this. And I will play for you a bit of this just to show you. And as I mentioned on my show last night, Chip Roy does not pull punches. He plays bare knuckles. And appropriately so, if we just ask for honesty from Mayorkas and we don't even discuss the constitutional side of it, which Chip Roy doesn't really address here, he is still assuming that Mayorkas is supposed to be playing some role, which he is not, and that the DHS is actually constitutional, which it is not. Maybe if we were to talk to Chip Roy, he would say, yes, you know, this is just part of my larger criticism. And thanks for being

fair and allowing me to to, you know, hit on this while at the same time assuming that I also oppose the DHS. I bet he probably does oppose the DHS. But here here is the immediate situation on the border. And it's this conflict between Texas and the Biden administration and the people in Congress who have not been, I believe, had not been treated fairly by Mayorkas. Good luck with that one. Yield back. Gentleman Yield is back. The gentleman from Texas is recognized. I beg the chairman. Secretary Mayorkas, on April 28, 2022, I asked you, quote, will you testify under oath right now? Do we have operational control? Yes or no? End quote. You responded with, quote, yes, we do. Period. End quote. I then asked, we have operational control of the borders? You responded, yes, we do.

Followed up, I said, I read to you the definition of operational control. I actually held up this chart, operational control as defined under the Secure Fence Act. Put it up for plain reading plain as day i put up the second part of the same statute which defines operational control means the prevention of all unlawful entries in the united states including entries by terrorists other unlawful aliens instruments of terrorism narcotics and other contraband just want to pause here this is very very important i'm going to go back because i was doing some stuff there on the screen i don't want to distract you i'm going to go back to what he said very important stuff here from chip roy yes or no end quote you responded with quote yes we do period end quote i then asked we have operational control of the borders? You responded, quote, yes, we do.

Period. End quote. Followed up, I said, I read to you the definition of operational control. I actually held up this chart. Operational control as defined under the Secure Fence Act. Put it up for plain reading plain as day i put up the second part of the same statute which defines operational control means the prevention of all unlawful entries in the united states including entries by terrorists other unlawful aliens instruments of terrorism narcotics and other contraband. I said to you, do you stay? You responded with, quote, I do, period, end quote.

Earlier, you testified, I didn't give you a chance to finish. Yet you specifically, when asked and held up a statute defining exactly what operational control meant under the Secure Fence Act, you said, quote, I do. I believe that was purposeful. I believe you want the American people to believe we have operational control of the border when we very clearly do not. Less than a month later, in Homeland Security, you testified, quote, under that strict definition, this country has never had operational control. This year, Homeland, House Homeland Security, then Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz testified before the Homeland Committee that DHS did not have operational control of the border, either by the statutory definition or not.

Now, that is an honest answer. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, shortly thereafter, you testified with respect to the definition of operational control. I do not use the definition that appears in the Secure Offense Act. And the Secure Offense Act provides statutory that operational control is defined as preventing all level entries in the United States and by that definition no administration has ever had operational control if you will recall when you testified here in front of me when I asked that question when you very clearly stated we do have operational control when presented with the actual definition of operational control you didn't hesitate hesitate. You said, I do. And you, in fact, then referred back and said, I believe that my predecessors would have said

the same thing. I asked Chad Wolf that question in this room. And Chad said, well, no, we didn't use that framing to say we have operational control. We're striving to achieve operational control. But you didn to achieve operational control. But you didn't do that. You looked straight at the American people, straight at me, straight at every person on this committee and said, we have operational control. Why? Congressman, two points. One, you did not let me complete my answer. Hold on. Give me your second point. Go ahead.

Thank you. Two, the Secure Fence Act defines operational control as not a single individual crosses the border. I'm aware. I read it. And I read it to you. And you read it. And, in fact, you said, I do. You didn't hesitate. You didn't say, I do.

I need to explain what I mean by I do. You said, I do, over and over again. And here's the problem with that. This is a pattern. Did you lie another time when you said on September 24, 2021, at a press conference, quote, we know that those images painfully conjured up the worst elements of our nation's ongoing battle against systemic racism when responding to the alleged whipping incident by the border patrol agents who report to you when in fact on october 22nd 2022 it was reported that two and a half hours before that press conference marcia espinoza assistant secretary of dhs public affairs emailed you and cc'd other

dhs leadership alerting you all that the photographer who took images did not see any whipping occur, invalidating the initial claim. And it wasn't until May of this year that you corrected the record to say, well, let me just correct you right there, because actually the investigation concluded the whipping did not occur. Don Rosenberg in this very room testifiedified it a few weeks ago That you lie It is a perpetual pattern And the fact is There are real people that are impacted by that

Well, I think Chip Roy lays it out pretty well Everybody on that level And I think he makes a pretty good point About the varying statements By Alejandro Mayorkas The Homeland Security Director. Hey, do you think maybe he could follow Michael Chertoff and start working for some body scanner company, you know, breaching our Fourth Amendment rights? And then maybe he could take over for Nina Jankovic after she files as a foreign agent and she leaves the Ministry of Truth.

Maybe it could just be a totally round, rotating door. How about that? That would be awesome. Kudos to Chip Roy for having the information there. But I do want to bring up a couple things. Okay. So if you look at the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution, and I'll bring this up. I've brought this up before.

Mark Levin, Mark Levin, in one of his books, I think it was called Men in Black, mentions that the first immigration statute in the United States, and he calls it single, was the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Alien and Sedition Act is what he says. And I say, okay, well, first of all, the Alien Act is different from the Sedition Act. Okay, do you get it? They were both from the Adams administration and the Sedition Act clearly was written up and put forward to help John Adams because it made it a crime, a federal crime to publish criticism of the president, but it was perfectly acceptable to publish criticism or speak critically about the vice president, who was Thomas Jefferson. The Alien Act is the one that perhaps the brilliant man in black author, talk show host and neocon, sort of neocon, paleocon, warmonger Mark Levin, who evidently, you know, never saw a rendition site that he didn't appreciate and never saw, you know, United States invading other countries and actually asked whether or not

there was a real declaration of war. He's too busy writing books and conflating the Sedition Act and the Alien Act into one thing, folding them into one thing. But the Alien Act, at the time that the Alien Act was written, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolutions at the time of the Alien and Sedition Acts. And I'll read to you a little bit of information about what Thomas Jefferson said at that time. James Madison also, and I was unaware of this until recently, also wrote contemporaneous things about the fact that, as I brought up, immigration is not a federal purview. So what I'd like to do is just mention to you that in Article I, Section 8, the Congress has the power to control naturalization. And again, this is coming from a

Christian anarchist, a voluntarist. I have not signed on to the Constitution. Most of you have not unless you entered the military or you took a political position. Whether or not you think it's good or bad or whatever, it is not a real contract. As Lysander Spooner, the great legal scholar and philosopher and pro-freedom person, he was very, very anti-slavery of the 19th century from Massachusetts. He started his own private postal service, as Lysander Spooner said in his essay, No Treason, the Constitution of No Authority. No, your grandparents can't sign you into a contract. There is no, there's no concept that those politicians, A, could sign for all the people there at that time for the Constitution, and B, they can't sign into

perpetuity a constitution. You have to agree to something. And again, the minute you agree to it, it means it's no longer a polis. It's no longer a state. So if we take that out and we just look at the rules of the constitution itself, we'll see that the word immigration doesn't appear in the constitution. Naturalization does. How you become a citizen. So I'd like to turn to, as I mentioned, as we were closing off the show yesterday, I'd like to turn to, as I mentioned, as we were closing off the show yesterday, I'd like to turn to my 2007 book, Live Free or Die. And I'm just going to grab a quick drink of water here because I have a section in it that offers some of this information and also additional information on the positive economics of allowing for immigration based on the concept of division of labor, competition, lowering labor costs and things like that. But I won't go into that right now. Let me go into the immigration story. Where will I find it here? All right. And by the way, if you do want to pick this up, it's still available over at Amazon. Not that, you know, I want to, quotes from my father. My father, when he went into World War II, actually when he was in college, he started to write down epigrams and great statements that he found that other people had said, you know, whether it was Frederick Bastier or Thomas Jefferson or anyone like that. And so he also wrote many of his own.

And so I put some of those statements in here that my father wrote. So just going to find this section here. Let's see here. And I'll read to you one of my, here's one from my father, summer of 1984. What is more dangerous than an eloquent man with good intentions captured by evil ideas and desperate motives? What is more dangerous? Only the ignorance that spawned the ideas in the first place. Very good. All right. So let me just get over here. Oh, and I'll read you this one as well. This is from my father in 1985 while he was down at the Reagan administration with Charlotte Iserby trying to dismantle the education department. Quote, the educational system is the most powerful determinant of who controls whom. George Orwell put it well, quote, the party is not interested in the overt act. The thought is all we care about. We do not merely destroy our enemies. We change them.

End quote. My father says this may be the best explanation for the progressives' centralization of educational authority in pursuit of its goal to socialize America. Now, I just have to find this immigration section. So please pardon me while I look for it here. And by the way, my father, if you are unaware of it, my father edited the book by Sam Blumenfeld called NEA, Trojan Horse of American Education. And yeah, so this comes in a couple of pieces here, this immigration story. And if you got to see the interview that David Knight did on the book called New School Order, School World Order. That book was on the shelf of the author,

and I want to do an interview with him too. All right, so here we go. Here's a bit of information about immigration. So I'll spell this out first by just mentioning again, if you look in Article 1, Section 8, Article 1, of course, pertinent to the powers granted to Congress. We know that naturalization is a power that's supposedly granted to the Congress, according to their claims of power, right? Now, I brought up yesterday, if you actually look at the Constitution in depth, they also have one clause in it that mentions the word importation or migration. Okay, it mentions that phrasing. The migration or importation of certain persons into the states now existing, and at that time was the original 13 states, shall not be interfered with or impeded by the Congress until after 1808. That was the only area where anyone might consider that the Congress had anything to do with the importation of people,

and it was supposed to be about slavery. It was supposed to be about slaves. And as I mentioned yesterday, after the Constitution was adopted, they adopted the Missouri Compromise, which had the states enter a slave state free state. They would never have done that if they understood some sort of ridiculous idea that outside the original 13 states, Congress could control the importation of slaves or the migration of slaves into those states because they could just by du jour, by statute, make those states essentially free states by blocking slaves. So it's very clear that Congress had no power over immigration. But I'll give you this. Here's a bit of constitutional information.

And in fact, I mentioned Mark Levin here. We have from his book, Men in Black, quote, The first effort to control immigration and naturalization came with the Naturalization Act of 1790, he says, when Congress set the residency requirement for U.S. citizenship at two years. In 1795, the requirement was increased to five years. Okay. Well, in fact, let me go back a little bit. I said, first, there's a constitutional issue. I said, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to control naturalization, a provision which has often been mistaken for the granting of power over immigration itself, and which has been used to promulgate heaps of pernicious legislation for decades.

And of course, as you know, they have ICE agents 75 miles inside of some of the southern border states stopping people as they're trying to get to work. It's a police state. Of course, all states are police states. That's how they have to be. So it has unfortunately pushed these heaps of pernicious legislation for decades. Despite the fact that there is a profound difference between naturalization, becoming a citizen, and immigration being on the soil of one of the United States, many so-called conservatives have taken it upon themselves to mix the two as they attempt to justify federal immigration law. For example, Mark Levin, well-known radio host in New York City and author of Men in Black, has stated, quote, the first effort to control immigration and naturalization, you see how he conflates, he puts them both into the same basket, to control immigration and naturalization came with the Naturalization Act. Well, that's funny because

it's called the Naturalization Act of 1790, Mark. And the immigration isn't part of it. Why are you putting immigration in there, Mark? Is it just poor editing? Were you just tired when you wrote that? How did that slip through and get published? I wonder why. It's almost as if you're deceiving people. Let's continue. When Congress set the residency requirement for U.S. citizenship at two years, because, of course, that has something to do with immigration. Oh, no, it doesn't. That's right, Mark. In 1795, the requirement was increased to five years.

So thank you for the straw man argument where you're bringing up something completely different. That's good. Aristotle would be delighted. Unfortunately for many conservatives and for Mr. Levin's claims, the Naturalization Acts of both 1790 and 1795 pertained strictly to what was constitutionally granted to the Congress, the power to determine citizenship requirements. The acts had nothing to do with whether people could be in one of the many states. The power over immigration was a state purview, and the founders knew it. To try to mix the two is either a mark of an amateur historian or someone who is attempting to mislead his readers. The only place where the concept of immigration appears in the U.S. Constitution is Article 1, Section 9, which reads in part, quote, the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808.

So I would implore conservatives, if you ever want to call yourself a constitutionalist again, please read the document and stop listening to blowhards like Mark Levin when they say things like that. And I'm sure Mark Levin is a very, very nice guy. But when he does that, he's just blowing steam. It doesn't mean a thing. It's not pertinent. It's not logical. It's a straw man argument. And it is deceptive. We cannot allow ourselves to be deceived, as my dad said. This provision of the Constitution tells the careful reader that prior to 1808, Congress could not write any laws regarding the migration into

any of the original 13 states from outside the U.S. or from other states in the Union. Such wording and the philosophy of the founders themselves would imply that unless the Constitution was amended, Congress did not have jurisdiction to write laws dealing with immigration in the original states before 1808 and did not have the power to write laws dealing with immigration in the original states before 1808 and did not have the power to write laws pertaining to immigration in any states that subsequently joined the Union. This is an important distinction, one lost on most so-called conservative politicians and, sadly, one also lost by Supreme Court justices very early in U.S. history, and we'll go into that. It was not until 1875, with the Supreme Court decision in the case Chai Lung v. Freeman, and I brought it up before,

and the passage of the Page Law subsequent to that in Congress, that federal control was established regarding immigration into more than the original 13 states. So again, just like the Dred Scott decision, just like the Roe v. Wade decision, it was a completely immoral misreading of the U.S. Constitution by a politically motivated court in 1875 in the Chai Lung v. Freeman case. That stemmed from a California statute called the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1872 that they passed, as I mentioned yesterday, to block female Chinese immigrants because they said that they would be carrying diseases and engage in prostitution and to block male Chinese workers. And the reason they did it was because they didn't want the competition from lower wage workers. That's why

they did it. That was challenged. It went to the Supreme Court. And there had been numerous cases that had been brought to the Supreme Court prior to that, where states had imposed taxes on ship owners when they docked in places like Massachusetts. And I'll go into that. The question of whether the taxes, which were essentially imposts and tariffs, whether those were state purviews or federal purviews. And they were found to have been, unless Congress granted the states the power to do it, they were found to have been unconstitutional. But the question of the types of people who could come into the states was never questioned, whether the states could actually determine that. It was

the tax part of it that was questioned. Continuing, I said, the Page Law, that federal control was established. As one would expect, and as we have seen with the push to restrict immigration today, the driving force behind this 19th century shift in power was political economics. In the West, native U.S. workers were upset by the growing presence of lower-cost Chinese labor in gold mines and on railroads. And I said the Transcontinental Railroad was built in no small part by low-priced Chinese workers. And, of course, that was unconstitutional. As a result, they lobbied the natives, the non-Chinese, they lobbied their representatives to restrict their competition. Such activity seems

very familiar today. In 1882, the so-called Chinese Exclusion Act was passed. It barred entrance into America by Chinese laborers for 10 years. Oh, sorry. Yeah, the Chinese Exclusion Act on the national level. I have to double check what the California title of that statute was. It barred entrance on a national level. So this was the first national exclusion of Chinese after the 1875 ruling. It barred entrance into America by Chinese laborers for 10 years, halted Chinese non-labor immigration for 60 years, and prohibited entirely all naturalization by Chinese people. just like today as members of the. So I go on to some of the contemporary stuff about unions and things like that.

So then I mentioned how some people say that it's an invasion. I say some people tell us that the U.S. Constitution sanctions Congress to protect the United States from invasion. And it is therefore acceptable to vest Congress with the power to force employers to collect ID data on all employees, force employers to report that data to the federal government, imprison employers who do not comply, and arrest and deport anyone without proper identification. But this logic stands on the belief that the United States are being invaded. Whether this is true on an immigration level is clearly debatable. An invasion is an entrance with malicious intent by members of a uniformed military from another nation state. And it seems a stretch to think that Honduran, Mexican, Haitian, and Salvadoran

migrants attracted to the U.S. standard of living and employment opportunities are coming with malicious intent. Even if one were to believe that the nation is being invaded, the proper response is spelled out in the Constitution. In order to protect the borders from such a threat, post-soldiers to be the first line of defense or anything else, Congress would have to identify the offending nation state and declare war with a capital W against that nation state. And as I said, if they aren't with a nation state, then they have letters of mark and reprisal that they can issue. That is the other constitutional way that they can go after people who aren't

members of a nation state. But they haven't done that. And this is where, when I would get into the debates with Pat and with Tom Tancredo, they would acknowledge, yes, Gardner, we understand your point is actually right, that it is a state purview, but we're being invaded. And so then it becomes a national concern. And so I say, okay, well, if you're going to think that through, what's the proper response if the nation is being invaded according to the Constitution, declare war. Or if they are non-state combatants, you issue letters of mark and reprisal. It's very simple. It's like playing a board game.

The rules are right there, right? So then I offer some additional information. So here is additional information about Texas and Thomas Jefferson. I any strict reading of the Constitution, the immigration issue is verbally tied to the importation of slaves, Article I, Section 9, according to the Constitution, only in the original 13 states. Congress was forbidden from regulating the importation of slaves or other people in the states existing at the time until 1808, and there was a very powerful political reason for this clause to be put in there. If it had not been written, the southern states would not have been likely to approve the Constitution. And I said, here's the layout as it stood at the time of the founders.

By the time the Constitution was written, the Northwest Ordin way of life would not be immediately threatened by northern states exercising great power in Congress. As a result, the famous Three-Fifths Compromise was established, making each slave count as three-fifths of a man for the purpose of congressional representation. After the Constitution was written, the Missouri Compromise was achieved. This set a standard for the process of admission of states from the territories of the Louisiana Purchase, whereby the northern free territories and southern slave territories would alternate in admission. If the federal government could set the rules

regarding new state importation of slaves or new immigrants in general, if we broaden the issue, outside those original 13 states, which is the only thing that's written in the Constitution, then there would be no need to decide which kinds of territories could gain admission in what sequence? Because the territories themselves, upon becoming states, could then have restrictions placed on them regarding slave importation or general immigration. It is unlikely that the Southern states would have accepted such an arrangement when debating the Constitution. What the South wanted, to put it in an anthropomorphic way, what the Southern people wanted, it seemed, in negotiating this, was an assurance that Congress would not be able to stop importation of slaves in any of the future states that might be admitted beyond the use of the term of the states now existing was intentional, and the exclusion of future states was intentional as well. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments then set the bar higher for any assumption that Congress could adopt this power or assume anything not specifically enumerated. But stronger than the opinion offered above in this book is the fact that Thomas Jefferson took this view on immigration in 1798 when he forcefully commented in the Kentucky Resolution No. 4 about the Alien and Sedition Acts. Quote, this is in particular the Alien Act, resolved, this is Kentucky Resolution 4, quote, resolved that alien

friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are, that no power over them has been delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the individual states distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true, as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people, the Act of the Congress of the United States, passed the 22nd day of June, 1798, entitled, An Act Concerning Aliens, which assumes power over alien friends

not delegated by the Constitution is not law, but altogether void and of no force, nullify. As the 10th Amendment Center, Mike Meharry and Michael Bolden often say, end quote. After he was elected, Jefferson pardoned all people captured under the law and Congress paid restitution. Later, President Grant, of all people, held the same view and James Madison also held the same view. Grant said, quote, responsibility over immigration can only belong with the states since this is where the Constitution kept the power,

he once said in a letter to Congress in the 1800s. In Texas, the state constitution, approved in 1869, had an article in it establishing a Bureau of Immigration, headed by a superintendent of immigration for Texas. Consider, if the people of Texas believed Congress had the power to control immigration in the new states, would they have bothered to include such a provision in their own state government? It's doubtful, to say the least. In numerous Supreme Court cases in the early 19th century, and I mentioned some of these here, Milne v. New York, Smith v. Turner, and Norris v. Boston, participants cited numerous laws enacted by the state legislatures that put restrictions on the kinds of people, such as paupers, that shipmasters could allow in the respective states, and many of the laws were passed after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution.

There was debate as to whether the states could impose taxes on such imported people, or if such taxes infringed on Congress's power to impose levies and tariffs, and there were also controversies about whether such states could trump federal treaties with other nations, but there were many non-monetary restrictions on immigrants placed by state legislators. As stated before, it was Supreme Court malfeasance and congressional politics of the late 1800s that brought about the federalization of immigration policy. It was not the U.S. Constitution, and that is something that conservatives, I hope, will remember. Now, with that, I want to go back to the Texas story and refer to the one area where the governor of Texas

actually has done something that is pretty close to the Constitution. We're going to go back to the CBS story. Biden administration sues Texas over floating barriers used to repel migrants. So I'll just refer you to this piece of information, again, that I brought up yesterday a little bit, and I promised that I would discuss this more. So a little, you know, little hangout in the classroom with you guys, with me. I'm the student. You're the student. Whatever it is, you've got comments. We'll go to the Rockman chat, but I'm offering my information. And please feel free. I want to make sure I remind myself to open that up to you as well. After I've, you know, gone through and, you know, gotten on my soapbox.

But I do want to mention that last year, Governor Abbott actually did the one thing that according to the Constitution he can do if he believes that the state is being invaded. And I'll refer you to Article 4, Section 4, 4-4. Remember, we've got the Kentucky Resolution Number 4-4. Then we've got Article 4, Section 4, which reads, The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion and on application of, and how do they do that? By declaration of war and on application of the legislature or of the executive of that state when the legislature can't be convened against domestic violence. So we saw this in various shades with some of the rioters around Portland and things like that. And Donald Trump saying, I should go in. They're like, no, we're not requesting this. They have to request it first. So, you know, this idea of a standing army coming

in, especially for so-called natural disasters, utterly ridiculous, utterly ridiculous. That's not why. It is very clear in Article 4, the only areas where the feds can come in. And this brings what Governor Abbott did and what Joe Biden declined to do. He refused to answer what Governor Abbott requested, which was federal help. And yet they've got the standing army there of the border patrol agents in the first place. So the border patrol agents on a constitutional level shouldn't be there. They shouldn't exist unless you're even going to try to look at the original 13 states. But then beyond that, the very fact that Biden refused to comply with the request from Governor Abbott, and I don't even know if Governor Abbott knew what he was doing constitutionally, but that's the one vestige that goes back to the founders and those people who lived in the late 18th century

who put that provision into the constitution to say if there is domestic violence or in order to protect the republican form of government from invasion the state legislature or the executive if the legislature is not in session can request that help they requested requested it in Texas. They didn't get it. Instead, they're getting Mayorkas, who is manipulating things and evidently lying about the statistics and not providing information to people like Chip Roy and the folks like Jim Jordan. Now, with that stated, I want to draw out one final bit of history, and that has to do with the Whiskey Rebellion. Because if you look at George Washington, as admirable as George Washington was for many people, I'll give you an example. There is a science fiction writer who passed away a few years ago

named L. Neal Smith. My friend F. Paul Wilson refers to anarchist Neal in stories, in particular stories in this series of novels. He was a libertarian anarchist and he wrote a book, actually a number of books, but the first book was called The Probability Brooch. And some of you might be nodding like, oh yeah, I know The Probability Brooch. And he has a character named Vaughn in it. His last name is Mises and he's a detective. And he ends up going to another dimension where in this other dimension, the hero in this other dimension is the man who shot George Washington during the Whiskey Rebellion. And it's very interesting because George Washington was coaxed into going into Pennsylvania to collect the excise taxes. He was coaxed by Alexander Hamilton. had fomented the move to usurp the Articles of Confederation and replace it with the Constitution so they can have that taxing power. Previously, under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government had to rely on the states to voluntarily hand out money, and the states were not giving up to give money to the central government to pay off its war debts, and the states weren't doing that. And so Hamilton convinced a lot of his

banker and highfalutin friends to go around to a lot of the very poor farmers who had purchased war bonds. The war bonds were worth virtually nothing because the Congress, the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation looked like they weren't going to be able to pay off the war bonds. So Hamilton, in his squirrely way, had his friends go and approach these farmers and buy them up on pennies on the dollar from the farmers, these war bonds. And then he pushed, as well as they pushed, for the passage of the Constitution. And with the passage of the Constitution, they got the taxing authority through tariffs and excise taxes. And by the way, I want to mention when Jefferson said no farmer knows the tax man, that's a bit of a dodge.

He doesn't might not directly deal with the tax man, but because of the tariffs, which, of course, led in large part to the civil war and, uh, you know, are all part of gaming the system to try to get for rent seekers, to be able to play favorites and, and block foreign competition so that their domestic business will be the one to which people turn. Um, if we actually think about the tax man, Jefferson wasn't exactly honest there. They didn't fund through internal taxes, but they funded through tariffs. And he did reduce the size of the government, which is much to his credit. But the idea or the quote that no local farmer knows the tax man is wrong. Because if you're paying sales taxes, you're paying taxes. If you're paying a higher price for something,

that a portion of that includes the increased price because of a tariff, you're paying. You're just not seeing it directly, which in a way it's almost more insidious, right? So you've got to keep that in mind when you hear that quote from Jefferson. Not exactly right. And I'm sure if somebody were to have a conversation with Jefferson, he probably honestly would have to admit like, yeah, you're right. You're right.

It's part of the price there, you know? And so, but what I think is interesting here is the whiskey rebellion. Yes, Congress was granted the power to impose excise taxes. And so with that, these guys who bought up these war bonds then said, yeah, this is great. We're going to get paid off at 100%. And they did get paid off, but before they could get paid off, they joined Washington and Hamilton in invading Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania's legislature and governor did not ask them to go in to collect these taxes. There's actually no mechanism inside the constitution that allows or spells out how the federal Congress can collect the excise taxes. It's very interesting. And the person who said, yes, there is a domestic violence emergency in

Pennsylvania when the risky rebellion so-called was happening, was not the governor, was not the legislature of Pennsylvania. What Washington did was unconstitutional. They got permission to go by a judge around DC who was a friend of Alexander Hamilton's. And he said, oh yeah, it's in rebellion. There's domestic violence. Go ahead. And who traveled with this army that was bigger than the army of the Potomac with Washington into western Pennsylvania to attack these people on whom they had imposed an excise tax for their whiskey? The people who held the war bonds that had purchased them, friends, they were with the army. They were there with Hamilton and Washington. And so to give you a little tidbit of this, I want to turn to a very good video, which is from Historical Spotlight. And it covers a lot of information that's provided in Murray Rothbard's excellent book, a series of books, Conceived in Liberty. Here we go. This is, I think, really, really exceptional. Everybody hates taxes, right? Well, at least everybody hates paying taxes. Today on Historical Spotlight, we will look at a time in history shortly following the creation of America's constitutional republic when Americans became really angry at being taxed.

Today we will look at the Whiskey Rebellion. The American War for Independence had taken a severe toll on the new nation. From the opening shots at Lexington and Concord, through the grueling winter at Valley Forge, and ending with the triumphant victory at Yorktown, Americans paid for the war in blood. Seven years after the war, Americans were still paying with their treasure. Following the ratification of the new Constitution, the United States federal government found itself burdened with an excessive amount of debt. Years of fighting a war with England had caused the United States to owe bondholders and others approximately $54 million. This would be comparable to a U.S. national debt

of $4.1 trillion in 2009 by relative share of GDP. The states themselves had amassed a debt of approximately $25 million. In order to manage this debt and make the country fiscally stable, the first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, in his first report on public credit, proposed a solution. First, in order to make the federal government appear credit worthy, the existing debt would have to be paid. He urged Congress to consolidate all existing federal and state debt into a single debt that would be funded by the federal government. Revenue to satisfy this debt would be funded by the federal government. Revenue

to satisfy this debt would be raised by issuing bonds. No surprise there. Government seemed to be content with creating more debt to pay existing debt. The interest on the new debt would be paid by tariffs and an excise tax. Congress approved Hamilton's proposal in June and July 1790. The initial reaction to this measure caused a massive speculation in previously issued war bonds. Speculators with inside knowledge of the plan, knowing that the government would pay full face value of the bonds, combed the states, looking for unsuspecting bondholders to sell

their bonds for pennies on the dollar. Economist Thomas DiLorenzo writes, everywhere men with capital were feverishly pushing their advantage by preying on the ignorance of the poor. New York newspapers speculated that Robert Moore stood to make 18 million dollars, more than 300 million in today's dollars, while Governor George Clinton of New York would pocket 5 million dollars. Hamilton himself purchased some of the old bonds through buying agents in Philadelphia and New York would pocket $5 million. Hamilton himself purchased some of the old bonds through buying agents in Philadelphia and New York, but insisted that they were for his brother-in-law.

The key to Hamilton's proposal was the excise tax. Hamilton knew that current revenues from tariffs were insufficient to pay the interest on the new debt. The plan needed additional revenue to work. Hence, an excise tax, a tax on goods produced within the country, would solve this problem. At Hamilton's urging, Congress passed the Whiskey Act in March 1791. This act taxed the production of distilled spirits. It became the first tax levied on a domestic product by the federal government. The new tax was not well received, especially in parts of western Pennsylvania. Many refused to pay the tax. Protests and demonstrations ensued. Some tax collectors were reportedly tarred and feathered. Some statesmen, such as Secretary of State Edmund

Randall and the first Attorney General of the United States, urged negotiations between the federal government and the Pennsylvanians. However, when local courts refused to convict tax delinquents, Alexander Hamilton urged George Washington to quell the protest. Subsequently, a 13,000-man army containing many conscripts was created and led by Washington for the purpose. This army was larger than most armies fielded by Washington during the entire Revolutionary War, and it would be the first and only time a sitting American president led an army against his own people. The rebellion was eventually put down in October of 1794. However, only 12 men were arrested, with two men being convicted of treason. Washington eventually pardoned

both men. The Whiskey Act was later repealed after Thomas Jefferson came to office in 1800. What was the Whiskey Rebellion all about? Why did the rebels refuse to pay what Hamilton saw as a luxury tax? Why did the federal government call out an army of 13,000 men to arrest 12 individuals? From the tax protesters' side, the whiskey tax was more than a luxury tax. Many farmers not only in western Pennsylvania, but also in Kentucky, Maryland, and other backwoods Appalachian areas, found it difficult to transport their grains to market. To avoid this, they converted their crop into whiskey. The whiskey was then used as a type of currency to purchase other goods. Thus the distilling of whiskey was quite

widespread and the revenues generated from it were integral to the lifeblood of the farmers economy. Why should our crops be taxed and our economies threatened when farmers in other parts of the country are not taxed on crops such as cotton or tobacco. After all, shouldn't taxes be equally apportioned? The national government has given us two methods of paying the whiskey excise. We can pay a flat charge or pay by the gallon. This tax effectively favors the large distillers, most of which are based in the east. They produce whiskey in volume

and can't afford the flat fee. We western farmers who own small stills produce as a home business, or for ourselves. The large producers end up paying a tax of six cents per gallon, while we small producers are taxed at nine cents per gallon.

This tax gives them an advantage over us. That doesn't seem fair. Murray Rothbard points out that there might have been a deeper resentment to the whiskey tax as an excise tax. Since the British imposition of the stamp tax in 1765, Americans had developed a hatred of the excise tax. Rothbard states, To the average American, the federal government's assumption of the power to impose excise taxes did not look very different from the levies of the British Crown. Why then did Hamilton urge Washington to send such an overwhelming force to crush a non-violent rebellion? First, it should be pointed out that it was not only Pennsylvania farmers who did not pay the tax.

The tax was not paid in farmers who did not pay the tax. The tax was not paid in other backcountry areas either. Why did the federal government invade Pennsylvania and not other states? Historian Claude Bowers wrote in Jefferson and Hamilton, These officers were eager to enforce collection of the whiskey tax so that the value of their government bond holdings could be enhanced and secured. It was probably easier to muster a conscripted army, commanded by officers who had a vested interest in seeing their bonds paid by the tax revenue, to venture into Pennsylvania than the geographically difficult areas of Kentucky and Appalachia. Also, since Kentucky was recently made a state, the possibility of secession was not something

Washington wanted to risk. But we still have not answered the question of why did Hamilton suggest such an overwhelming force? This is what Madison said of Hamilton's handling of the affair. Hamilton's extreme excitement over this whole affair exposed his not-so-hidden agenda of the glories of the United States woven together by a system of tax collectors. Hamilton was making a point. The federal government had passed a tax.

This tax was integral to his vision of government. Deficit spending was necessary and someone had to pay for it. An army of tax collectors was necessary for receipt of payment. Who then were the victors? The rebellion was generally considered non-violent. Two men were convicted and pardoned. The tax was generally not collected. The tax was eventually discarded. Except for the War of 1812, the excise was not used until the Civil War. Murray Rothbard called it a victory for liberty and property rather than for federal taxation. Well, I don't know about that, but I do respect the work of Murray Rothbard a great deal,

and that book series is terrific, and I love that little video. A little touch of history, everybody, to show us that those political machinations and those wicked, you might call them mercantilists under Adam Smith's terminology, they are in every generation, aren't they? They certainly are. And so let's take the opportunity now to consider that and now talk about things that are happening today with the United States and our liberties. And we unfortunately have to handle the burden of many of the mistakes that were made, many of the evil wrongdoers like Alexander Hamilton, plus the people who are around today. And in a moment, we're going to be joined by a great defender of liberty, the man behind the Trends Journal. It's Friday. It's 11 o'clock.

It's time for us to talk to Gerald Salente. ༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱༱� you're listening to the david knight show good stuff from of course david knight and his wonderful music and now we get to be joined by another wonderful man and i got to meet this man when i met david and he spoke in kingston new york at gerald salente's wonderful gathering there i drove down from new hampshire and i get to say hello again in a another reacquaintance we got to meet very briefly at his wonderful historic spot in kingston Gerald Salente, the man behind the Trends Journal. I am a subscriber. Welcome back to the David Knight Show.

Gardner Goldsmith filling in. How are you, Gerald? I'm very good, Gardner. Thanks for having me on, and thanks for coming to the rally. You know, people hate those rallies. They're called peace and freedom. I'm one of the most hated. I'm serious.

I'm one of the most hated men in Kingston, New York. I was going to say, I got the impression that you were sort of like seen as a rebel around there. Oh, yeah. How dare I not swallow the crap spewing out of the mouths of little political freaks and bureaucrats that people call bureaucrats. How dare I not swallow the crap that they love to swallow? How dare I have peace and freedom rallies? Who the hell are you to be free and to preach for peace. That's the way they feel about me. Absolutely. Because they're just a bunch of low-life little boys and girls

that you call them out man to man and they back out really quick. Oh, don't talk to me like that. Don't talk. Don't you mess with me. Oh, Gerald. I could do anything that I want and you can't do it. Don't mess with me. I could do anything that I want and you can't do it. Don't mess with me.

And then they run away. And that's what this whole country is. It's amazing to see that on an intellectual level, well, you know, Gerald, on an intellectual level and on a moral level, they don't want to engage in debate. They want to use gang force and violence against whoever actually wants to stand up for being left alone. You brought in people with music and so on, a wonderful food array. And yet these people don't like you because you want to leave people alone. It's stunning.

It's crazy. It is. This country is gone. It's finished. It's over. I mean, you get your testicles cut off, you get your breasts cut off, and that's normal. I mean mean come on look at the little clown that's our secretary of health or whatever his name is that rachel

levin oh he used to be richard levin or something you look at this guy you couldn't make up a better cartoon character this is the health guy the guy got more chins than Chinatown, a little slob of a jerk. And it's one after another. Oh, oh, how about Mitch McConnell out of his mind? Biden out of his mind. You saw Diane not so Feinstein the other day out of her mind. These are the clowns that are telling us what to do. And the people hate me because I say, don't tell me what to do. I am an American. I believe in the founding fathers. I believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You know, it's almost as if we're characters in the emperor's new clothes. We've got these predatory characters out there

who, in addition to that, a cadre of them, as you say, show that they're mentally unbalanced. They're not fit for those so-called offices, even on their standards, which they don't even uphold on a constitutional level anyway. They're constantly showing us how corrupt they are. We just had Sam Bankman Freed released, and they're not going to prosecute him on the very sorts of things for which they would prosecute us on the campaign finance stuff involved with Ukraine. And they're still grabbing our cash to fund a military excursion over there, which began long ago when the United States promised. And you had a great conversation about this kind of thing with Judge Andrew Napolitano, and you have excellent information in the Trends Journal about this as well,

that they promised the then rebutting Russian Federation, they would not expand into the Iron Curtain nations, and they did. And they overthrew the government in late 2013 under Yanukovych, who had gotten reelected. They put in somebody that, of course, Victoria Nuland and Jeffrey Pyatt loved. And you called it right during that early winter period of what was going to be coming. And you nailed it. We knew that the United States was involved in this new startup of what they want to be, a new Cold War. And it's absurd.

And they're just draining our livelihoods to do this with these crazy, maniacal people. And as you say, people like Feinstein, who are just going to nod their heads based on whatever hand is stuffed up there, you know what, to make them a puppet. It's ridiculous. I know. And the people just follow along. Look, let's go back to another little boy, little Georgie Bush, a little daddy's boy, a little moron of a stupid

clown. 88% of the Americans swallowed his crap. I'm not making this up. We're going to get that guy Osama bin Laden, get her alive. 88% of the people into Afghanistan.

Longest war in American history. And what did it accomplish? It only stole about $8 trillion or something from us. Killed a load of innocent people. You know, destroyed the country. Another losing war by these arrogant war clowns. Haven't won the war. And by the way, right now, when you look at the current cover of the Trends Journal, America's blimpitis, right?

American soldiers are too fat to fight. Yeah, I got the cover right up there, Gerald. And it's a great issue. It's a terrific issue. The artwork is great. And your blimpitis information. Let's talk a little bit about that. And also on page 3031, I want to go into some of the other information that you have about the financial problems that the United States is

running into with a lot of corporate bonds that are going to become virtually worthless. And also want to talk to you a little bit more about under the Trump administration and that first PPP COVID relief package where they gave the Federal Reserve the power to buy corporate bonds. But I'll reserve that till later. Tell me a little bit about what inspired you to put this cover piece into the Trends Journal this week. And it is an amazing, it really is like reading a book. And I love being a subscriber. And by the way, I'll mention,

I subscribed under the code Knight for the 10% off. I became a subscriber right away, Gerald. And I said, this is great. I remember that well coiffed, well, your outfit was beautiful when I saw you in Kingston. And I said, boy, this guy's got it going on. So tell us a little bit what inspired you to come out and devote time and attention to this particular story that you have in the blimpitis story.

Well, you know, I have a sister. She's about seven years older than me. And she was in a nursing home for like 12 years. She had two strokes. And every time I go visit her, and she was in the top place in America, had a private room. Every time I go see her, she's like this.

All drugged up. You put somebody in a nursing home, forget about it. Anyway, I brought her up here to Kingston now. And I put in one of my buildings. I have someone taking care of it 24 hours a day. She's a totally different person. She paints now. She talks, laughs.

All I wanted to do is give her a happy ending. And I have accomplished that. Anyway, I sit her out in front of my office over here. She's in a wheelchair. And, you know, I sit next to her as I'm doing my work, reading my stuff. And she sees people walk by. These blimps with

purple hair. And she goes, Oh. Oh. Well, remember, she hasn't seen people in 12 years. Right, right. She sees guys walking down blimps with dresses on. Blimp, it's blimped everywhere.

And she goes, oh, oh. That's what America's become. And it exemplifies, by the way, people hate me for this one. The reason, again, you go back, the data's all there. Like, I'm Woodstock generation, right? I'm born in 1966. And you look at the pictures of Woodstock, 1969. Guys got their shirts off, and so do girls.

There's no blimps. There's no blimps. You know why? They hate me for this. Mothers used to raise their children. Oh yeah, only since the beginning of time. And then they started selling it in my generation. Why? Why men are discriminatory against women. Women should be in the workforce and having these great jobs. And what did they do? Into the workforce they went. Who's taking care of your kid?

Oh, I got a whole bunch of other screaming little kids. They're called daycare centers. No, they're not. They're nursing homes for children. I'd be dead if my mother, may her soul rest in peace, didn't raise me. Stranger raising me is a kid. You're out of your mind. They're isolation quadrants.

Just shuffle them off onto the reserve. Then what are they feeding them? Oh, they're feeding them crap. They're feeding them crap. Low-paid people that are in bad shape themselves feeding little kids crap and that's all they do they eat crap they swallow crap they eat crap they just turn into crap so that's what happened again a woman who's working she comes home what 6 30 at night well here's some ultra processedprocessed food for you.

My mother makes you rest in peace cooking all day long. Great food. Mothers used to cook. You look at the old movies, the old TV shows, from Leave It to Be What. The mothers used to cook and raise their children. So you wonder why suicide rates are going up, drug deaths are going up. That didn't happen in my generation. Yeah, there were a lot of us getting wiped out, but not at these numbers. The kids are out of their mind. They have strangers raising them, not a family.

Last night, we were out to dinner. Anyway, and this woman who's a nurse and she's taking calls blah blah blah blah and uh they this kid was on drug uh medication because of a rash or something and the father says well we we pick our baby up at uh 5 30 and we put her to bed at 6.30. So my friend said, you mean you only spend an hour with your child a day? She said, I know I shouldn't have said that, but I said it anyway. So that's it. It's the end of this country.

It's the end of America. Again, you get your breasts cut off, your testicles cut off, your penis cut off. That's perfectly normal. You can't make a science fiction movie up like this. And, you know, Gerald, the ubiquity of things like the Internet, the phones, it's that I'm here, but I'm not present problem for these kids. They're handed these electronic devices.

Even when they're around their parents, they might not even psychologically be with the parents. They're being exposed to these other things which are corporatized, which are Marxist, they're cultural Marxist. You know, it's amazing to me because Gramsci, you know, the cultural Marxist, his stuff is now part of the cultural zeitgeist. The idea of picking certain minority groups that will be propped up in order to gain political advantage and then promoting that as normal, promoting those things as normal. And if anyone is critical of them, then you are actually counter to the Orwellian slave state. You are not fitting in. You better shut up. And it happens with everything. It happened with COVID. It happened with anti-war protesters back

in the back. And, you know, when you were in your 20s, probably your teens, it happened with me as a punk rocker, you know, that sort of stuff. You know, we were constantly in our generations fighting against this weird establishment. They kept throwing down nonsensical stuff. It was just puerile nonsense. And when we find comrades and I find someone with your sartorial sense, your sense of morality, I find David Knight, I say, wow, where have these guys been? And it's incredible to think that I appreciate the fact that we can communicate with each other. But I do think that your point about parenthood is so important. And this visual manifestation is actually a very valid point to bring up. When we think about that, those overweight kids, we can think about the neglect of parents and the forces that have brought about a lot of this neglect, the forces that promote this neglect, whether it's the women's liberation movement that, as we know, was established in many cases

to try to break up the family, whether it's the tax system that continues to force women to work, or it's just the mentality now that motherhood is somehow beneath a woman. That sort of thing is what is important to foster the next generation. It's in the Bible, for goodness sake. I'm telling you, it's over. We are at the, to me, the end of civilization.

You talked about the COVID war. Show you how crazy the people are. Again, if I said, listen, God, let's do it with a science fiction movie. We're going to scare the hell out of people and tell them this virus is going to kill them. And the first thing they're going to do, the first thing they're going to do is they're going to run to the supermarket and buy toilet paper. Come on. What are you kidding me? That can't even be a science fiction movie.

Right. Right. That's the first thing that people did. They were fighting over toilet paper to show you what kind of crap heads they are. By the way, the Neanderthals were using toilet paper. Scots, I think it was. They never knew how to clean yourself any other way other than with toilet paper. You know, it's interesting you bring up the Neanderthals. I often tell my students in economics lectures that they were sold a canard when they are told that division of labor came only with settled agriculture. I said, listen, you had division of labor when the moms stayed in the cave and the pregnant women didn't go on the hunt. When the older people stayed at home making spears, you had division of labor. From division of labor, you get surplus. With surplus, you get barter.

With barter, you come up with easier ways. You get money. You don't need government to produce money. And yet we have all of these concepts, all of this top-down ideas that people somehow couldn't do these things on their own. It's like, no, in order to survive, people come up with these things. They produce these things and they keep them if they're valuable, if they're worthwhile. Gerald, I'd like to ask you on. And in fact, I'll show it on the screen rights Journal, you have an excellent report, $500 billion in distressed corporate debt, presages wave of bankruptcies.

And I thought, wow, boy, am I glad. And, you know, the Trends Journal, every time I hope people will go in and get on board the Trends Journal because it's essential reading. Every day I read another piece from the Trends Journal because it's essential reading. Every day I read another piece from the Trends Journal. And as you say here, Bloomberg says the tally is all but certain to grow. It's 500 billion. And of course, Bloomberg says that's the most since 2008, when they had the so-called Great Recession, which actually lasted long enough to be a depression, but nobody wants to admit it, especially some of the Obama-type so-called economists. You say that's deepening worries on Wall Street by threatening to slow economic growth and strain credit markets.

Well, it's not just that, is it? You've got some very important information here about corporate debt. And you say here, in the U.S., the number of risky loans, leveraged loans, and high yield or junk bonds more than doubled to $3 trillion from 2008 through 2021, according to S&P Global data. Then the U.S. Federal Reserve began jacking interest rates even higher, as we just saw. Again, during the same period, the size of China's dollar-denominated corporate debt grew faster than the national economy. Europe's junk bond sales and dollars rocketed up 40% in 2021 alone. As a result, bottom line, $785 billion in debt is coming due before 2030.

Tell us a little bit about your thoughts there and what you see coming and what are the major problems with that. And then perhaps we'll talk about the gamesmanship and how they want to save the people who are really close to the Federal Reserve and the corporate fascists in Washington, D.C., Gerald. Yeah, I will. And before I do, I just want to to also i was watching that video about taxes and uh there was another low-life piece of crap warmonger scum woodrow wilson who got us into world war one gave us the federal reserve and also gave us federal income tax yep you got it it's amazing. It started at 1%. Yeah. They said that they were going to get rid of it in a few years,

took us to war, kept it going. What is it now? Between like 35, depending on how much money you make, 30 to 40%. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. So going back to the debt, the way you, you talked about the Recession and how it kept going. What happened was they ended it by pumping in a thing that they didn't teach me in graduate school or Economics 101, quantitative easing and buying up bonds and keeping interest rates low and keeping in the cheap money flow. So now the COVID, now let's go back to 2019. Before the COVID war began in January 2020, in celebration of the Chinese Lunar New Year, the year of the rat is when the Chinese launched it. The economy was going down. One of our top trends,

we do our trends in December for the year ahead, was New World Disorder, 2019. France, the Yellow Vests, Algeria, Lebanon, South Africa, Chile, Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, one country after another, people taking to the streets. Lack of basic living standards, government corruption, crime, violence.

It was nonstop. India, one country after another. They launched the COVID war. You can't go out anymore. You can't go out anymore. No protests allowed. That ended it. Again, the people were protesting against lack of basic living standards and government corruption, crime and violence.

Yeah. Now what happens? We're fighting the COVID war. We're fighting the COVID war. And any time you spread fear in war, people march off. And I'm not making the line up about war. Those scum politicians and bureaucrats around the world called it a war, even Trump. This is a war.

This is a war. We're fighting a war. We're fighting a war. Yep. COVID war comes. What do they do to fight the COVID war? Bring those interest rates down to zero. Pump as much money as we can into artificially boosting the economy you don't

have to work here's some money here go shut down yeah close down your business you can't open here's some money they created this false bubble now interest rates have gone up the only reason the dollar is strong is because interest rates are high the only reason gold hasn't skyrocketed is because the dollar is strong interest rates are high interest rates are high all those junk bonds and all those people have borrowed all that money when interest rates were nothing and now their business isn't what it used to be and they have to pay back those loans they have to read they have they need new loans at much higher interest rates how they're have to pay back those loans. They have to read. They have, they need new loans at much higher interest rates. How are they going to pay him?

They're not. The banking crisis has just begun. The worst part about it that barely anyone talks about. We made it a top trend this year because we said, this is the year they'll finally start admitting it. As we're showing in the articles, is the office building bust. Right. You can't go to work.

You can't go to work. Work at home. Now, you're commuting an hour and a half each way on the LIE. And now you're at home for like five, six months. And you're saying to yourself, holy Christ, I was getting up at five in the morning to go to commute an hour and a half each way. I'm not going to do that anymore. I'm the guy that has, let's say, 12 floors in an office building. My business isn't what it used to be, and I don't want to pay all this rent. Listen, work home two or three days a week. Okay, you got a deal office vacancy rates in san francisco where the geeks started the covid war

that dorsey guy we wrote it in the magazine the trans journal in the end of february you're supposed to go to south africa he canceled the trip and told everybody to go home he can't go to work right so all they made all that dough you have almost a 30 vacancy rate and you see the implications of walgreens is putting uh chains on their their their their refrigerators so people can't steal crap out of them all the time oh oh all the businesses that have gone out of business now let's go with the 10 top countries 10 10 top cities in the United States. It's around 18%. Vacant. Office occupancy rate, meaning the people that go to work in the office, 50%.

Now all the businesses that depended on commuters, oh, happy hour on Friday? No, no. Friday is the least day that people go back. So all the businesses that depend on, let's go back now to the people, the billionaires, and all the hedge funds and the private equity groups and the venture capitalists, three things that did not exist when I was a young man.

They own all these buildings. They can't pay their debt. Right, exactly. You're going to see a banking bust you have never seen the likes of, and it's going to hit the small and medium-sized banks. It goes back again. The bigs will get bigger. The JPMorgan Chase's, the Wells Fargo's, the Citigroup's, all of them,

they'll get bigger. Absolutely. But the banking crisis is going to wipe out the system. And I think also, we're speaking with Gerald Salenti, folks, of course, the publisher of Trends Journal. Gerald, why don't you mention to people where they can find you on Twitter and where they can find the Trends Journal

if they want to subscribe? Trendsjournal.com, Trendsjournal.com. Oh, you think we're going to go out? We're going to change it, though. We they want to subscribe trendsjournal.com trendsjournal.com oh you think we're going to go we're going to change it they're going to make a trans journal have like blue hair going over the screen i can't see anything what am i what's this you know gerald you bring to mind something a couple things first as i mentioned it was the 10% off, you know what we're talking about? We're talking about less than a lousy cup of coffee a day. It's awesome. It is. It is awesome. And part of the things that part of the thing that I like too, Gerald, is when I discovered that I connect with people and I sign on to people and I can feel the energy behind what they're putting

into something. You know, it's not just something that's laying out there flat. Like this just jumps out at you when you're reading trends journal, you know, and, uh, it reminds me there was, I had a conversation. This actually brings it back to, uh, to this, uh, this, these coming defaults and, and the, uh, the, uh, business, uh, uh, business, uh, emptiness for the business, the office buildings and things like that. I was writing for MRCTV when they pushed this at the time under the Trump administration that they're going to be playing favorites on the corporate side through those corporations that are friends with the Federal Reserve or the Federal Reserve is friends with these corporations in this crony capitalist sort of way, this mercantilist way that Adam

Smith warned about, to say the Federal Reserve now has the power to buy bonds of anybody the Federal Reserve wants to buy, and they don't even have to say whom. They don't have to release any information. At the same time, the FDIC can approach different financial institutions and say, you are insolvent if you've got, say, Bitcoin. We don't like you. We're going to bring you down. They can warn the people that they favor, say, out on the West Coast and San Francisco and say, you know, you might not want to hold on to your money here. Take it out now, which they did. And we're seeing what I think is right on the money with what you're saying. And hopefully this is not going to come about. We can warn up people. But I think what they're gunning for is they want to have that consolidation, exactly what you said. And as we know, in any inflationary system where you have central

banking without a competitive banking system that's separate from the government and the political interests, the people that get the money first will be able to utilize that money without the inflation of the money supply destroying the buying power of that money. So they're close to the engine of the train as it's going along. They've got the money. I often show this to students and I say, they can spend it now. So they're the ones who are going to grab up these assets as these assets become depreciated. They're the ones.

They're just banking on this window before the entire system collapses. And I think that's part of what the BRICS nations represents as a threat to them. That's part of what some of these other nation states where they've been buying up gold and silver reserves, that represents something dangerous to these Federal Reserve connected corporate status people. They're going to try to push this as long as they can. And I wonder, I just, I fear for the people who are going to be caught up in this. You know, we saw what happened in the housing industry after the Clinton administration and the W. Bush administration kept pushing for more home purchases. People got those variable rate mortgages. We had Janet Reno saying that certain banks couldn't consolidate unless they gave loans

out to people who really shouldn't have gotten loans. And the whole system collapsed, even with their rhetoric of the Home Ownership Society from George W. Bush. So we know that that is a collapsed model, and they're just mimicking it now on an even larger scale, I think. Oh, yeah. By the way, we don't see a housing crisis. You mentioned before, you know, the subprime mortgages, you don't have a job, you don't have any money in the bank, you're deep in debt, don't worry about it. Here, sign over here, you could get a mortgage. Right. I mean, I'll never forget. I remember

everywhere I drive, every time I'm going out, I'd see these, you know, trailers with these prefab houses on them. Go back in the early 2000s, from like 2004 to 2007. Yeah. Building, building, building, building, building. This is different this time. It's different because the people that bought the homes could afford them on most part.

Number two, what will bring it down is when we go into a depression and people are out of work and they can't pay their loans that'll bring down prices but we don't see a crash happening in that market yes prices are going to go down but look where the median price of a home It was about $408,000. Who the hell could afford a home? This is insane. But on the commercial sector, you're looking in total of about $20 trillion in debt, in loans.

And these are floating loans and their interest rate loans so they got to pay more on their debt as they got less and less money coming and they're not going to be able to do it but the government will bail out you said, they'll bail out the bigs. George Carlin had the line. It's one big club and you ain't in it. Right on. End of story. Yeah. It's a crime syndicate that people call a government. They're murderers and thieves.

Yeah. It's incredible. Gerald, let's talk a little bit about, you had a great conversation with Judge Andrew Napolitano, and I've actually called that up on my computer for memories to show off a little bit of this information. And if you don't mind, I'd just like to show this on the screen, Gerald. We're going to have two versions of you on the screen. There'll be me, you, and you with Judge Andrew Napolitano. I got to meet Judge Napolitano at a Free State Project conference here.

It was great. And I love the fact that you welcomed him back from Italy, the mother country. It was good stuff. I was thinking about you talking about your mom cooking that way. And I was like, boy, I bet that was good cooking. Yeah, no rotten food there. But I want to show just a little segment here because, again, as you watch the economic stuff, you also are a great proponent for peace. And you call out the government wrongdoing domestically, invasion of privacy and invasion of our civil liberties, destruction of our savings and destruction of our opportunities

to better our lives. And also this weird mentality, this postmodernist mentality of destroying the family. But also, yeah. And you've spoken up very strongly for peace. And just as you mentioned with Afghanistan, I don't know if you saw the report, Gerald, about the drug sales going down dramatically after the United States left. It's just, it's amazing. It's amazing. What a shock, right? On that note, before Bush invaded in 2001, October, the Taliban were in control. The heroin thing was dead. They killed it back then before the United States invaded. Unbelievable. And remember, we have that video of Geraldo Rivera

interviewing that major general Christmas. His name was Christmas in front of the poppy fields on Fox. Remember seeing that? It's just amazing. I'm going to play a little bit of this. You'll be able to hear it. And I just would love to get your comments on this, Gerald, because I thought it really it really hit me. This has to do with information that was released on Friday last week that about which many people did not hear about the United States government spying on hundreds of thousands of Americans. This is what I was just saying, how we lost our liberty. Has liberty died in our hearts? Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it. No constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. This is Judge Leonard Hand, 1872 to 1961, where the cat lived a long time. You go on to say, last week, a judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court revealed that he had enough of the FBI and Congress trashing the Constitution. The normally secretive court and the normally secretive judge explained in a rare public

opinion the unlawful behavior of the FBI agents. You ready? Spying on ordinary Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the FISA judge revealed that the FBI has spied illegally on nearly 300,000 Americans in 2022. Correct. Correct. And among them was a United States senator, not named publicly, but they have told the senator who he is, a state senator and a state judge. I'll tell you about the state judge in a minute. Bush, in order to deflect attention from his own sleepiness in the days leading up to 9-11, began to blame everybody and everything for 9-11. And the principal object that he blamed was the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment. Same

Constitution he took an oath to uphold. He persuaded Congress to override the Fourth Amendment, which Congress does not have the authority to do, and tell the FBI and the NSA, you can go ahead and spy on foreigners in the U.S. without suspicion and without a warrant. Just pause it there, Gerald. Your conversations with Judge Napolitano are always excellent. And I know you've known each other for quite a while. Looking at news like that, and you bring up later in the later in the conversation how that information was, of course, released on a Friday during the death of watching the United States from a perspective that came before me. You know,

I was a little, little kid during the Vietnam protests, the Woodstock generation you mentioned, what seemed to be very radical people who were opposed to this sort of thing. It seems to me that most of the Democrats who were involved with the anti-authoritarian movement either were just caught up in a fad or they have lost their way or they're just not around anymore. As a libertarian sort of Generation Xer, I wonder what you think about those people from your generation and whether or not this sort of spirit to fight for freedom can still be resurrected. And what you think right now about what we're seeing with the United States government and ways that we can try to protect ourselves against this, whether it's just we can only do our economic best or whatever. But spiritually, you know, whether or not it keeps the fire going in you or you just get frustrated in how you deal with it. On the my generation, when I was a young guy.

I believed in the Vietnam War. And again, I'm prime draft age because I'm born in 1946. I'm the prime draft numbers. And I just didn't want to go get killed. And that's why I went to college. At a high school, I wanted to open up a delicatessen in Parkchester in the Bronx. I go to my father. I said, Pop, they're drafting everybody.

What should I do? He said, listen, he said got my own problems you figure it out i ended up as they used to call us greasers you know we had black greasy hair yeah i end up in charleston west virginia in 1965 was the only school i could get into but anyway i was stupid enough to believe it now going back to my generation do you know why they protested and why they were so against it because of the draft end of story the majority of the people were protesting because of the draft they did away with the draft yeah kill as many iraqis as you want. Kill all the Afghanis you want. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, let's go into Syria. Yeah, let's get out that guy, Qaddafi. I don't want it.

Yeah, get him. Qaddafi must go on the Nobel Peace Crap Prize winner, Barack Obama. Yeah, yeah. They only protested because of the draft. Right. That was it. And I got to tell you it it it brought down i remember you know because you know in those days everybody used to get dressed up but then when that whole

hippie thing started going that's when the slop thing started that's when the whole style started to change because everybody they didn't want to get drafted so you're doing everything freaky that you can to look like crazy and and crazy. You want to get killed. You know, so by the way, a friend of mine I met recently, he was in Vietnam. He killed over 200 people. He's a vegan now. He won't eat anything from anything, a fish, anything that's been killed. He said every day he wakes up

he's heartbroken. He's very pro-peace. And he's telling me the stories. He said they'd have us going up this mountain. I forget how many meters he told me. He said we're getting shot at. We get to the top of the mountain. He says there's nobody there. He said what the hell did we do this

for? He said he realized how stupid everybody was that was running the show and he was a young guy so he believed the crap you believe it you believe it when you're young yeah i don't know you're growing up yeah so going so that that's that's why they were were protesting and today there's no fight and again where are the multi-millionaires and the billionaires putting money into the peace movements? You know, I launched Occupy Peace and you see the rallies we have and the money comes from average people. We don't get a lot of money. It costs us money to

put these things on. And where are the billionaires? Where are the Buffetts? Where are the Gates? Where are the Bezos? Where are they saying, look, here's a hundred million dollars. This is really chump change for me. We want to get your peace movement going because we need peace on earth. Because if we don't, we're going to get annihilated in a nuclear war. It's amazing. And Gerald, what I love too is when you go to the rallies, you have such a positive spirit. And it sort of reminds me of, I remember you telling this story about when you were in school and the teacher, Nunn a story myself. When I was in seventh grade, a teacher threw me in the closet. I hadn't done a thing. Hadn't done a thing. She just hated me. And, uh, she threw me in the closet. I'm sitting there in the dark and the biggest kid in school in seventh grade. And I mentioned this on the show. He was the biggest human being in the school. He had actually stayed back many times and he was sort of the alpha

around which the troublemaking kids would surround, uh, around whom they would surround, but he actually wasn't a bad guy. His name was Matt. I'm in the darkness with this closet and I'm sitting on this tiny chair and I hear his voice, the toughest kid in the school. I mean, legendary tough. His, his, he could have been a boxer. He was massive, right? He says, what'd you do that for? And she goes, sit down, Matt. He goes, I won't sit down. He wasn't doing a thing. I'm crying. He was great. He was great, Gerald. He was great. And then the next most troublemaking kid stood up, this guy, George, and said, you're right. He wasn't doing it. Now, maybe he just wanted to get out of class but she sent them both to the office wow and i'll never forget there are two facets of this

gerald that i'd like to relate to you that yeah um i later that guy matt unfortunately he didn't live a lot longer and um he took his own life which uh just is it hits me every time I think about that guy because he was such a good guy and he showed me such character, you know, but I got to see that other guy, George years later. And I thanked him. I was in a convenience store and I hugged him and I said, thank you for what you did for me. And I think about what was done to you. And then I thought about, I see this woman, she's 90 something years old now. And it took me so long to forgive her. And I have.

And I'm just wondering how, you know, you have such energy and you stay positive and, you know, maybe you don't show the positivity to everybody. maybe you don't show the positivity to everybody. Maybe you don't show the negativity to everybody or whatever. But you have a wonderful way to balance these things out. And I don't know if it's a combination of your belief in God or just your general attitude or some way that you trained yourself to be this way. But you combine this wonderful enthusiasm for freedom,

this very, very appropriate, righteous indignation against these people and a knowledge of what is coming, almost like Cassandra. And I just, you know, wonder if you have any tips for people on, you know, what they can do, whether it's surrounding themselves with friends or going into projects or whatever, devoting yourself to your work to find that positive side, that satisfaction side where you say, I'm going to find the positive here. And, uh, you know, whether it's, it's God and Christ or whatever it might be. Well, first of all, I'm not the same guy I used to be. I pulled a lot of crap in my life. I mean, I, and by the way, I was also, I was killing environmental legislation

at the height of the environmental movement in the 70s. All I want to do is make money. At 28 years old, I was staying at the Willard Hotel and putting my meetings on the Hay-Adams. I got a photograph here of me picking Ronald Reagan up at the Chicago Hilton. I was the number two guy running a major trade association at 30 years old.

Wow. And putting on a brunch with 16 of our board of directors before he's going to talk to our group. And this is two days before he's announcing he's running against Gerald Ford, 1976. Interesting. I was the assistant to the secretary of the New York state Senate. But you got, you're not, you got out of those circles. That's very very interesting i wouldn't know what i know if i wasn't on the other side yeah yeah so just to let you know she said how'd i get so i pulled a lot of crap and and then i started growing up so here's by the way this is the first book i worked on natural healing yeah my former wife and it was a warner book it's not a

little it's a real book this is 1986 and people hardly talking about this stuff she had severe colitis they were going to take out her anus and put in a bag at 27 years old take out her intestines and we got we moved up here to from chicago to a place called Rhinebeck, which is now like the, you know, for the Hillary Clinton's daughter, Chelsea, got married in Rhinebeck. When I got there in 79, it was all artists, and the artists had to leave because couldn't afford it. Anyway, we found this chiropractor,

and chiropractors knew more about natural healing than anybody, and he healed her totally. Totally. That's awesome. So, um, what we, I lost my train of thought on this.

Oh yeah. Yeah. Moving away from the circles, the political circles. Yes. Now I got into this, this, this whole thing.

And then I started really changing. That's when I began the trends trends journal. So again, what do you do? You get in the best health you can physically, emotionally, and spiritually. You saw the buildings that I own. I own three of the most historic buildings in America. I it's the most historic four corners in America, the only place with pre-revolutionary war stone buildings. I bought them when no one wanted them. I bought them because the seeds of democracy was sown here. And that's why I launched the Occupy Peace Movement. And you weren't in my office, but I have in my office over 200 plants that I take care of.

And I clean the place by myself. And I cook all the time. And in that garden that you were in, there's 48 tomato plants, about 25 pepper plants, lettuce, arugula, all this other stuff. So I grow things and I surround myself with art and beauty i have art everywhere i had a wonderful girlfriend her name was marie pierre marie pierre's brother francois was the left shoulder the security of jacques chirac in mitterrand two presidents in france and she was a great artist and she used to tell, art is the way of finding the true meaning of the human spirit.

Think of the Renaissance. Ale Romana, Ale Antica, the manner of the Romans and the ancients. That's how they described their work in the Renaissance, to go back to the beauty of the past. So I surround myself with beauty. I create my own world of beauty around me. So every time I get depressed, I look around, I say, thank you, God, for everything that I have. And the parents I came from, my aunts and uncles, thank you, thank you, thank you. And every day I try to get in the

best shape I possibly can. And you got to get in the best shape you can physically, emotionally, and spiritually. And I think if people think there are challenges, they've got to get in the best shape you can physically, emotionally, and spiritually. And I think if people think there are challenges, they've got to remember that whatever role they're playing, God has put them in that role to teach them and show others that God gives you power. He gives you strength. And I'm always so impressed, Gerald, every time I see you on with David or I see you on your own channel on YouTube with the wonderful energy that you have. And I absorbed some of that energy when I met you. And I love the buildings. Absolutely beautiful. And you paint a picture for me now of having met you and how wonderful it was.

I was so glad that I drove down from New Hampshire. I actually went by the American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. And it wasn't too far from Kingston, just over the border and had a great time over there. And tell us a little bit about maybe your plans coming up for coming events or anything like that, that might be on your mind right now. Yeah. I have a humanity for peace. It's a rally.

That's going to be at the UN on August 6th. Oh, wow. That's peace. I'll be a speaker. They are so tool, Scott Ritter. Oh yes.

And so anybody that you're for peace, please try to make it New york it's going to start at around one one o'clock you manage you say uh douglas mcgregor as well as going to be no i'm sorry scott ritter i don't know if mcgregor will be there okay all right cool all right so scott ritter is going to be there and it's very important uh by the way uh i mentioned this sometimes on my own little show uh I do in the evenings, Gerald. I really admire the work of the people of Redacted. And I don't know if you've gotten to see. Yeah, Redacted.

Awesome stuff over at Rumble. And so I really like what they're doing over there. And you're part of that nexus for me of information gathering. It's really important for me. And it's been wonderful. It's just a great blessing for me. And I want to thank you. You know, you welcome me at your home. You it's been wonderful. It's just a great blessing for me. And I want to thank you. You know, you welcome me at your home. You've welcomed me here. And you offer great information

for future generations to just keep going. And I love what you have to say about the spiritual side of things. It's so important, Gerald. It is. And again, you know, it's, you know, again, I'm so thankful, you know, that my every day I have on the wall over here, I have pictures of my aunts, uncles and parents and grandparents. I have a great grandmother picture. And I thank them every day, every day with a cup of espresso. I thank them all for what they gave me and all my friends that passed on and how wonderful they were and kind and to be grateful for everything that you have.

And again, you talked about, you know, that when that nun beat me up, that destroyed my life for a long time because she perforated my middle ear and broke my eardrum. Oh, I remember that. You'd been a swimmer. I was water skiing.

The Hudson River. I used to, at 10 years years old with just a belt on i was going over the they had ships in those days going up the river and i go over the wake of a ship and almost being able to do a 180 on a slalom whoa and i can no longer get my ears wet the rest of my life and and she left me back so i became the stupidest kid in the school and i mentioned about marie pierre's brother francois was the left shoulder i didn't get my fight back and i was the toughest kid because i was the smallest kid when again when you grow up in the bronx and you are you know they you better learn how to fight yeah right and i learned how to fight right away. I came home crying one time.

I went, what are you crying about? I said, I got beat up. You don't come home crying. I became from the toughest kid and I was the smallest kid. So the bullies pick on you. I lost everything when that nun beat me up. I didn't get it back until I got back into martial arts. And then I started into close combat. I didn't get it back until I got back into martial arts. And then I started into close combat. I had my own school. I used to teach close combat for many years. And my,

and my close combat teacher who I pray to every day, who just passed away three weeks ago, John Perkins, he used to go to Palace Elysee in France and work out with these guys. My, my, my old girlfriend's brother was the top security guys. Matter of fact, I showed Francois how to fight with a knife, you know? So, you know, the stories keep going on and on for the places I've been, the people I've been with and, and, and how I've been in so many different levels. So I'm very blessed. And you had to come back after that. And that's,

that's also, I think important to us, you know, as we conclude the week and people go towards their families and, you know, they finish watching the show here or whatever to carry on after being hurt like that and finding those blessings. Yeah.

You know, critical care nurses say that the most dreadful thing of dying people is they didn't become the person they wanted to become and do what they wanted to do in life. And I want to get out of here on a high note. I'm doing, you know, again, I pull a lot of crap. I'm doing the best I can to live the life of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Oh, by the way, it says on all of the American paper currency, in God we trust, what God you're talking about. What God you're talking about. The only God that I believe in believes in peace on earth, goodwill to all. Yeah, absolutely. And there are very few politicians who ever comply with that. Again, I used to run political campaigns in Westchester County in 1971. I designed and instructed, of course, American politics and campaign technology, how to run political campaigns and taught it at St. John's University.

I was on the other side. The people out of politicians are the people I hated in high school and college that wanted to be class president, head of student council. And now this is amazing work that you're producing. I want to mention before you go, uh, trendsjournal.com. What's your, uh, Twitter handle for people, Gerald, if they want to. Gerald Salenti. All right. That's easy enough. That's awesome. Hey, Gerald, thanks so much. As I said, you know, it's great. Yeah. And I love it. I love seeing the background there with the beautiful flowers and just, it makes me think of the buildings. I'll see you again as soon as possible. Remember August 6th, it's going to be a big gathering. They can find out more, follow you on twitter and push for peace thank you gerald for

doing what you're doing and thanks for welcoming me on the show today this is great i appreciate it greatly yeah it was great meeting you i remember very well and thank you for having me on and thank you for all that you're doing yeah night of the crew oh thanks well you know i do hate you for holding on to your hair though keep that in mind yes it's going quick ah well you know, I do hate you for holding on to your hair, though. Keep that in mind. Yes, it's going quick. Well, you know, you're looking good. And thanks again for believing in freedom and peace, Gerald. And I hope people will definitely check out Trends Journal.

If we can get a number of people to look and subscribe, I'll feel like I have done yeoman's work for the day. Gerald Slenty, thanks. We'll disconnect. I guess I should get ready for the close of the show now. And just thank you again. I really appreciate it, Gerald. Really appreciate it. Thank you.

You got it. Take care, Gerald. All right. Well, everybody, I guess it's time for me to sign off. Gerald Salenti says farewell. And we'll do a little quick transition action and then say goodbye to some of the folks in the chat. You're listening to The David Knight Show. Oh, what a great piece of music. And what a nice, nice man. Gerald Salente, absolutely phenomenal guy.

And before we go, everybody, I do want to mention that there are a couple items that I wanted to cover with you today on the program. Didn't quite get to them, but I discussed them last night on Liberty Conspiracy Live on Rockfin and on Rumble. It's six o'clock. We start up. So if you want to check that out, just go to Rumble or to Rockfin, look up Liberty Conspiracy. You can follow me on Twitter

at Guard Goldsmith. And also, by the way, thank you to all the people who were so nice about me filling in and who found my show because I was filling in for David. You know, I want to fill in for David because I like what David does. I like the family and they're off to a wedding. It's going to be great. And they're just great people. And to have the opportunity to connect with you and connect with people like Tony Arterburn and Gerald

Salenti and you is awesome. And then I get the added bonus to be redundant. I get the benefit of more people finding my show, which is great. It's great. Well, on the show last night, we did get to discuss this study that came out of Switzerland about the effects of mRNA and its effects on myocarditis. And it is amazing. And there's an incredible video that is out there that I hope you will check out. If you don't already check out the videos on YouTube,

and it's amazing that he can still do what he does on YouTube. One of the most recent videos from Dr. John Campbell goes into great detail about this. And also the people at Redacted have done great coverage of this as well. So you're Redacted over at Rumble. They are not censored at Rumble, of course. So check them out. And I'll try to cover that some more tonight on my program. But also there's other information about a mask study, a reanalysis of mask information that came from the folks at University of California in Berkeley. And I'll just read you the conclusion.

Conclusion, we failed to find any consistent notable negative relationship. In other words, that masks helped between school mask mandates and infection rates in the greater Boston area or state of Massachusetts during the 2021-2022 academic year. And we'll give you more information about that, sort of do a recap of that tonight on Liberty Conspiracy. And I'll be here on Monday for the David Knight program. And don't forget, thank you for your contributions. And a quick, big thank you to Johnny Vips, who over the course of the program contributed numerous times with great comments. And I got to read some of your comments, Johnny. And he welcomed me to the show. A lot of very important things about the Joe Biden situation, Joker Joe, George Soros.

Excellent stuff. And, of course, contributing. And those donations will be matched thanks to For the Love of the Road. So if you want to contribute again on Monday when we're together again on the David Knight Show, please consider it. Your contributions up to $200 will be matched by that very, very kind viewer. So with that stated, everyone, I wish you a great afternoon. I hope you have a really good one. I'll be back tonight on Rockfin and on Rumble and on my Twitter feed. And I want to thank David Knight and his family for welcoming me the way they have.

I really, really appreciate it. So that's dated. We will say fare thee well. And let's go with a little farewell music. Thanks for watching The David Knight Show. Be seeing you. The Common man. They created common core to dumb down our children. They created common past to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future.

They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.

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