The David Knight Show - The David Knight Show Best Of Interviews - Christmas - 12/25/2023

Episode Date: December 25, 2023

INTERVIEW The Skyscraper Curse What is the "Skyscraper Curse" and what does it portend for our future? Mark Thornton, Senior Fellow at Mises Institute, mises.org, joins to explain and to show how govt uses various economic theories —Keynesian, MMT (Modern Monetary Theory), etc — as ruses to justify its actions. INTERVIEW Richard Gage 20 Yrs of Data Debunks 9/11 Official Story Richard Gage, RichardGage911.org, joins with a wealth of evidence that contradicts the official story used to justify wars abroad and surveillance at home. INTERVIEW - Dangerous Precedents of RICO Indictment Davis Younts, YountsLaw.com, joins to talk aboutRICO and other perversions of the rule of lawvital importance of reclaiming trial by jury and jury nullificationhow to best protect your family from escalating attacks on parental rightsFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here:SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

At BetMGM, Ontario's best casino action is just a click away. Play thrilling games like Premium Blackjack Pro, the dazzling MGM Grand Emerald Knights, or try to score in Gretzky Gold Lucky Tap. It's all here at BetMGM. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly.

If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor, free of charge. But MGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Happiness. We all know what it feels like, but sometimes it doesn't come easy.

I'm Garvey Bailey, the host of Happy Enough, a new podcast from The Globe and Mail about our pursuit of happiness. We know people want to live more fulfilling and positive lives, but how do we actually do that? Is there a happiness code to crack? From our relationship with technology to whether money can really buy you happiness, we'll hear from both real people and experts to demystify this thing we're all searching for and hopefully find ways to be happy enough. You can find Happy Enough wherever you listen to podcasts.

All right, welcome back. Joining us now is Mark Thornton. He is the Peterson Luddy Chair in Austrian Economics and a senior fellow at the Mises Institute. And so I want to talk to him a little bit about the Mises Institute. I refer to their articles frequently. And so I'd like to talk a little bit about what do we mean by Austrian economics, who was Ludwig von Mises, and a little bit about the Mises Institute. But he also wrote a book that is available at their site,

and Skyscraper Curse. And it looks like with a crash in commercial real estate that we're going to be looking at a skyscraper curse coming back, the return of the curse. But joining us now is Mark Thornton. Thank you for joining us, sir. David, it's great to be on your program but with government solving all the world's problems i'm not sure if we're going

to have anything to talk about that's right it just if we got a problem we just have it done by government but especially at the federal government level because that's all the problems need to be solved there tell us a little bit about the the mises institute uh the mises institute is now 40 years old it was founded by mr lou rockwell uh we're right here in auburn alabama and we're about economic education really from the perspective of thegrowing school of economics. And I think it's the science really behind free markets, and we're trying to get it out to as many people as possible. That's right. Give us a little bit of an idea, the audience. When we talk about Austrian economics, you know, several of the founders were from Austria, of course, but you know, what is it that's different about Austrian economics versus what we typically have with our, you know, what people learn in college with macroeconomics or Keynesian economics and things like that. Tell us a little bit about what distinguishes Austrian economics from that.

Well, it was founded in Austria by Karl Menger in the 19th century, and one of his primary students was Ludwig von Mises, and Ludwig von Mises applied Menger's method, which is based on deduction and logic and human action rather than on mathematical models and econometric analysis plug in the numbers and see what comes out or see what you want to come out and as a result you know the austrian school was basically able to develop economic principles about the laws of supply and demand, marginal utility, those kind of things, those basic things that you see in an introductory textbook, and everybody can basically agree on them.

But most economists, which we call the mainstream, they go off and use their mathematical models and their econometric analysis to come up with anything they want. But with Austrian economics, you have to stay very close to the logic of human action. And through that method that Mises developed, he was able to develop modern monetary theory in his very first book. He was able to critique socialism in the socialist calculation debate and prove that pure socialism was an economic impossibility. opus, human action, basically laid out everything from basic economic analysis to things like the business cycle and fiscal policy and everything else that we want to basically talk about today. He was the person who put forward all of those great contributions. And that's why we celebrate him. And we try to extend his work and to teach his work here at the Mises Institute.

And it's still not, you know, um, I know when I was in college and I was taking economics and we'd get to macroeconomics and it was like, okay, forget all the, the, you know, the real physical world of how your budget will work and everything. Because if we're the government and if we make this thing really, really big, then none of those rules apply anymore. And it's like something about this seems really fishy. This is kind of like saying if I get a big enough rock, it's going to float up into the sky. That's right. It was like that just doesn't make any sense to me.

And, uh, you know, Austrian economics is really, as you pointed out, it's more focused on, um, on human action on reality than on this obfuscation, this fiction that, that, uh, this massive debt just doesn't matter. But of course that is, it's not that I think that Keynesian economics has really been capable of explaining things because it hasn't, but it's been a useful crutch for the central planners, hasn't it? Oh, absolutely. You know, we, we stick with supply and demand in real world prices for the most part. Keynesian economics, for those who have suffered through it in introductory college courses, God bless you, is more like an exercise in plumbing where you have a series of pipes and

valves and you have leakages and injections and all sorts of plumbing-related problems that seemingly the expert plumber could fix simply by turning a dial or tightening a pipe or soldering something together. And we all know that the real world economy in the U.S. alone is made up of 330 million people. The worldwide economy is many billions of people and they're all doing their own thing and the Keynesian approach the Keynesian macroeconomic approach of turning a few dials overlooks all of the basic problems overlooks the negative effects of taxation the negative effects of regulation. They just assume that, for example, regulations will fix problems at a zero cost and the world will be happy thereafter, when in reality it distorts all sorts of decisions on the part of entrepreneurs,

on the part of input suppliers, and on the part of consumers and laborers, and basically just gums up the work and works. And so Austrian economists try to stay very close to the real world and how it actually works. And as a result, we have a general policy outlook where we want to have the government have hands-off as much as possible in every conceivable situation to allow the free actions of individuals that respect property rights and so forth uh that that's the way to allow people to achieve their potential and in achieving their potential they're really serving other people and it's a it's really you know economics is thought of as you know a fierce cutthroat competition thing, but 99.9% of it is cooperation between employer and employee, between the consumer and the supplier, between whole giant worldwide webs

of networks of the factors of production coming together in order to produce the goods that we want to consume. So it's really much more of the idea that the economy is cooperation and competition certainly exists. We all compete on the basis of price, whether it's the price of our products, the price of our labor, the price of the resources that we own, and so forth. We all have to compete at that level, and that profit and loss statements that we all have to measure up to keeps us all, in a sense, honest in this game of competition and cooperation yeah that's a good

way of putting it i especially liked your analogy of it's this complicated plumbing thing i think of it maybe they should call it the rube goldberg school of economics keep adding another complicated bag on the side oh this didn't work okay let's add this other complication to it it's highly analytical it's highly complicated uh doesn't really work very well. I've always thought of this as I've always thought of the free market as versus Keynesian economics as a neural net distributed system versus a centralized computer. It just seems to me that, you know, even if they think that they are the smartest person in the room, there's no way that they've got sufficient information to be able to do that. That's the, you know, the invisible hand and the open market where everybody is interacting

with each other. And that's the one thing that they haven't been able to grasp. When we look at the central bank digital currency and the, you know, the surveillance aspect and the control aspect of that, uh, that they're trying to impose on us to me, it seems like again, because it's ultimately authoritarian, it isn't like they're going to look at this and say, well, you know, what would be the most efficient way for us to do this or that? You know, we, now we got more information about what everybody is doing. I think it is simply more of a ham-fisted, authoritarian, centralized approach. It's not really going to be leveraging technology to even get a better view of what is happening

so they can run the system. They just want to run the system, whatever happens. They want to make the system run to their advantage, I think, is really what we're looking at. What do you think about this coming central bank digital currency, the efforts to do that? Are we going into a more centralized control approach in economics? Certainly, that's what the politicians want. Oh, yeah. The central bank digital currency, the only positive is that it's positive for central banks and positive for the government to oversee and be able to check on everything we do.

There's no positive economic benefits to having that type of system if they really wanted to have a close to ideal monetary system where they didn't need monetary policy at all where they didn't need the vast bureaucracy thousands of econometricians uh and and tens of thousands of bureaucrats uh to manage the system then they would go back to a gold standard that we established with this country and silver money and things of that nature. That is the ideal monetary system for a human economy. And the idea that, you know, well, you can have digital currency, you can have digital money but there's no benefit that they can describe that isn't just solely a benefit to the central bank in the government itself and i um you know

and it would be terrible uh for the economy it would hurt a lot of, there's memes going around on social media of all the harms it would do to certain groups. In particular, as is typical with policy, it would hurt the most disadvantaged groups in society, from the paupers and the poor people, the beggars, to people who live hand-in-mouth, to the people who don't have bank accounts. What are those people supposed to make of this central bank digital currency? They're completely shut out. All sorts of transactions that we make on, well, in the fringes of society to, you know, the streets of Manhattan, cash transactions are absolutely necessary

and required it's really the only way to conduct uh business um of any sort for those particular groups and of course it helps uh large corporations it helps government. It helps the taxing authorities. It helps the central bank. I think they're probably going to lure those people in with a lure of welfare payments and health care things, because that's what they've already done in India. Take the number and you get this stuff, because it's all about dependency, you know, and they can, you know, that, that really is a key way that they want to, to pull people in. I think they'll use that dependency to, to rope in the poorest people and to get them to take the ID, to take the central bank digital currency. I think that's, uh, you're right. They're going to victimize them.

They'll be the first ones, uh, inside the open air prison being surveilled and controlled with everything. They could make the argument that, hey, we'll be able to have more visibility about the metrics of the economy. We'll be able to fine-tune it and do that better. They may make that case, but that's not why they're doing it. They're just doing it simply for control, right? Yes, and I anticipate that they're going to cause some crash of the system where people are going to lose access to their money and lose access to their accounts and won't be

able to transfer money. And whether or not the government can solve it immediately with central bank digital currencies, they will implement a central bank digital currency or they will implement a central bank digital currency, or they will attempt to implement a central bank digital currency as a consequence of them crashing the system in some way. And we're already seeing little hints of this where transactions between banks and settlements between banks are getting gummed up at various points in the system. And I think that a comprehensive crash of the system would scare people into accepting this idea of a central bank digital currency. And that's something that they could pull off really at any time.

And even if they didn't do that of their own volition, of course, we are talking about government and they, you know, have screwed up everything else. And so they can certainly manage to do something like that as well. Oh, I agree. Absolutely. By accident. Yeah, I agree. Absolutely. By accident. Yeah, I agree.

I got a comment here from Gard Goldsmith who has a Liberty conspiracy. And he says, when I was teaching Austrian economics here in New Hampshire, it was great to see how many students got it and then continued their education by watching Mises media and getting Mises Institute documents. That's good. And of course, I want to talk about that as well. And I want to talk about your book, which is available for free, right, at TheMises.org.

Of course, people can also get an audio book. There's a fee for the audio book, but you have it in various PDF and e-book and things like that for free. And I want to talk about how that really seems to be folding into another big problem that's come into the economy but before we get into that uh guard also commented about luguig and he says mrs almost didn't make it out of nazi territory he and his wife were trying to make it to france i believe and almost were arrested by the ss richard ebeling did great

work in the 1990s and saving a lot of his work that the Soviets had stolen at the close of World War II. Amazing stories related to his work and life and his economics. That's interesting. You know, I wonder why these centrally controlled economies like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union would want to have his works, except perhaps to destroy them, right? Yes, when the Nazis invaded Austriaria one of the first things they did was send a crack troop of intelligence officers to mises apartment to get him and his

papers and so forth but he had already left the country wow they took his papers they took his furniture and everything and brought it back to an intelligence lab in Germany. We thought the papers were lost, but Richard Albelin and others found the papers in an intelligence warehouse in the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union invaded Germany, they took all of Mises' materials thinking, because Mises had discovered that pure socialism, which both the Nazis and the commies both advocate. That's right. You know, complete socialism. The Nazis were the national socialists.

Yeah. The Nazis were the national socialists. That's right. Yeah. So they both wanted this complete totalitarian socialism socialism mises said no that's impossible you have to have property rights you have to have prices you have to have money uh you know wage rates and all those kind of things determined in marketplaces and so the nazis thought that misises had held back some secret of how you solve the problem of socialism. And then the Russians, the Soviets, also thought that Mises had hidden that problem.

And, of course, there was no solution. Mises didn't have the solution to socialism except to get rid of it, to abandon it. And of course, the world has seen not only was Mises right about the fallibility of any kind of socialism, but they've also seen that throwing off the socialist yoke in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and to a large extent in communist China, once you throw off this yoke of complete totalitarian socialism production starts happening people are better off people live longer people are happier um you know and all of these things uh that mises predicted about the economic system came true. And we could do that here in the United States.

You can do that anywhere in the world. Just reduce the amount of socialism and government in your economy, and you'll get the benefits of the free market economy. Yes, yes. And, of course, this isn't a theory. We've had massive experiments to prove it. Just take a look at East versus West Germany or North versus South Korea. The same people, you know, exactly identical. And what you do is you cut the country in half and you have half of them living under a centrally planned economy.

The other half have a freer economy, if not a very free economy. See the same thing with communist China versus Hong Kong. And, of course, Milton Friedman did a long series, Free to Choose, where he spent a lot of time talking about Hong Kong and how things at that time were very free in Hong Kong. So we've had the experience and we know exactly what this looks like over and over again. If you had a satellite picture, I've seen this over and over again, a satellite picture of South Korea at night and it's all lit up and North Korea, it's all dark because there's nothing there. And they just completely destroy everything with their economic system.

There was something that was, I can't remember the name of it. I'm trying to think of the name of it as we started the interview here. It came to mind. The economic theory that's being put out by the Biden administration and these other people. It was really kind of the basis of their so-called Inflation Reduction Act. There was a woman who came up with this and she kind of rejected the technical aspects of Keynesian economics. She kind of simplified it and everything, but it's still just an excuse for the government to do whatever they wish. Maybe you remember the name of it. I can't remember what it is. Well, modern monetary theory.

That's it. Modern monetary theory. MMT, and I used to always call it the magic money tree, you know? That's what it really stands for. So yeah, modern monetary theory. Yeah, that's a long established fable that goes back for centuries, really. And is it, it is the basis really of our monetary policy. The idea that you can print up pieces of paper to create economic prosperity, that you can take ink and paper that are very well and good and productive, put them together in the form of a dollar bill or a million dollar bill or a trillion dollar bill, and somehow or another, that's going to create more resources. It's going to create more workers. It's going to create more resources it's going to create more workers it's going to create more energy and more productivity and more products

goods and services it's always been thought of as a fable by economists except now that we get to more recent times where economists are so unhinged from reality that they believe, well, maybe this does have something to it. Maybe we can just print up money and put unemployed resources to work. And so modern monetary theory basically says that you can borrow you can print and you can spend to keep the economy on an upward and always upward trajectory rejection that any shortfall from for employment any shortfall of GDP growth from trend you can just make up by borrowing and printing money and then having the government spend it but actually you know right now I think is a

good case in point because right now the government statistics tell us that GDP is growing at a fairly brisk pace and And yet, when you look around the country, and I'm sure many people in your audience right now are suffering from inflation and lower wages and things of that nature, why all the economic suffering in an economy that's growing at a brisk pace? Well, the problem is that they've been printing up money, they've been borrowing money,

and the government has been spending it on programs and subsidies that don't make sense in the family budget. It's not food, clothing, shelter, electricity that they're producing, they're actually doing things that actually undermine the production of food, clothing, shelter, and so on. And so that disconnect of economists and the implementation of that disconnect, that modern monetary theory disconnect, we're seeing that in real life today. Yes, the government is borrowing, the government is spending,

the government is printing up money to pay for the whole thing, but what happens in the real world is that we're not getting the things that we actually need. We're just getting entries in national statistical accounts that don't put bread on the table. Yes, yes. Yeah, we've never had a more centrally planned economy where they're planning to shut down our energy infrastructure, change all of our transportation system, and they don't have anything that works to take its place.

It's all just rewarding their friends. And I look at this modern monetary theory, like you point out, it's just taxes and printing money, and you can't replace supply and demand with taxes and printing. But that seems to be what they think they can do. And you look at the inflation reduction tax, whatever they called it, they decided that when they print this money up, they give it to their friends. And if things get out of control, they raise taxes on their enemies.

It's really kind of the way this thing works in practice. And so it's just another excuse, again, for what it is that they want to do. And so they use these economic theories as kind of their court gestures to do that they want to do you know and and so they use it as kind of they use these um economic theories as kind of their court gestures to do whatever they want but if we get back to the real world you know we look at austrian economics it looks you know in the real world it's got to follow the same examples that you have uh if you're running a business or you're running a household or something like that and so with that in in mind, let's talk about your book, 2018, The Skyscraper Curse, and how Austrian economists predicted every major economic crisis of the last century. Now, that's pretty large, but we've got this developing commercial real estate problem

that seems to have been kicked off by the lockdown and people working from home and the vacancy rates and everything. And even in a booming area like Shanghai, because the Chinese communists wanted to show their power, I think was perhaps their motivation. I'm kind of reading into what their motivation is, but it seemed to me like it was a power play, kind of like Mao's Cultural Revolution or the Great Leap Forward. He decided that he was going to lock down Shanghai and show his authority there because maybe they're getting a little bit too much freedom and a little bit too much independence.

And now you see there and in Guangzhou and so many other places that were bustling and unbelievably crowded when I was there, now they're ghost towns that are happening. And there's a concern that, you know that even though it's not at the same dire straits that Shanghai is in, New York City's got vacancy rates of about 40%. And you've got a lot of people holding these high interest rates that are variable, that are just collapsing and turning them back in how does that current

phenomenon how does that fall back into what you were talking about back in 2018 well the skyscraper curse is just a really an illustration of the Austrian business cycle theory and the Austrian business cycle theory turns on artificially low interest rates that artificially low interest rates, that artificially low interest rates now cause entrepreneurs to make bad investments, investments that won't pay off in the future when interest rates rise. And so, of course, we had more than a dozen years of artificially low interest rates because of quantitative easing, because of zero interest rate policy, all sorts of Fed mechanisms to reduce interest rates to spur on the economy. They wanted to turn the dial down in order to increase investment and increase employment during a slow time in the economy.

But of course, it was slow because of the housing bubble, the previous housing bubble. And things started to look really bad after I published my book in 2018. In 2019, the economy was going down the tubes and it was essentially saved by COVID and the COVID rescue package, which sent interest rates back down to zero and the Fed soaked up trillions of dollars of government bonds and mortgage securities. So for those couple of years, you could borrow money essentially worldwide at almost no interest at all. And so we had a big boom of additional spending, investment spending in commercial real estate on top of all of the real estate that had been built over the previous decade, and so them to raise interest rates to try to squelch the price inflation that they in effect caused now we're seeing the

initial signs of breakage in commercial real estate skyscrapers big and small are failing they're going into bankruptcy they're being resold at a small fraction of what they originally cost to build or what they might have been sold for a few years ago now they're selling for pennies on the dollar quarters on the dollar and I expect to see much more of that going forward with the Fed holding interest rates higher and possibly inflation remaining much higher, much longer than anyone in Washington, D.C. cares to admit.

Wow. Yeah, that's an interesting way to look at it. I thought about it as you were talking about i i never really you know we talk about the stimulus checks you know that they tried to appease people that they locked down and put out of business and put out of work now here's your little stimulus check but they wrote a really big gigantic stimulus check to all the big guys the big players the big banks and wall street people and everything gave them a massive stimulus check to keep this thing going. And it seems like, you know, the first bubble when they created the real estate, um, bubble, the residential real estate bubble, uh, low interest rates, they kept them down for a

very long time. You look at that one point, uh, the, the federal reserve just starts raising it, you know, like every, every month or whatever, a quarter of a percent, you know, 25 basis points. And, and, uh, then they just, um, whenever that, and until everything popped and it crashed and then they started doing the same thing again, but even bigger. And, and then as you point out, you got the stimulus check, uh, that's written with a low zero interest rates, uh, to all these, uh, bankers and, and, uh, businesses and, uh, as part of COVID. And then they start the whole cycle has been started all over again since the real estate market crash,

as you point out, with all the quantitative easing as well as interest rates and everything. They created it and did it even bigger this time. And then they started when it came time for them to burst it, they started jumping it about three or four times as much as they did the first time and created massive disruption with this. So as you're looking at this, you're thinking that we're going to continue on with inflation quite some time. Do you think it's going to go into a hyperinflation, uh, type of a scenario like we've seen in Argentina or Venezuela or some other place, Zimbabwe or

something, are we going to go into really, really high hyperinflation? How do you see this? Well, I mean, I'm worried about that because it's not just real estate. It's been borrowing money, but the federal government has been borrowing trillions of dollars of new money, trillions of dollars rolling over of the national debt. And remember, they were borrowing 10-year government bonds for less than 2%. Many governments around the world were borrowing money at less than 2% for 10 years. And now they're

having to start rolling over that stuff and so interest payments on government debt is rising because everybody's upside down on their portfolios and as a consequence the interest payments on the national debt have risen very sharply from a half a trillion to near a trillion dollars now in a very short period of time and we're adding a trillion dollars of national debt uh it seems like every few months and uh you know we're we're on pace to be borrowing uh trillions more over the next fiscal year with that interest payment on national debt increasing over time. And the Fed itself is upside down on its portfolio. So it is losing money now for the very first time. It's lost $100 billion in the last year. It's probably projected to be losing $200 billion, and that's added into the government's debt.

And so everything is going in the wrong direction. And the only thing that has continued to hold up is, well, the seven technology companies in the S&P 500, if you take them out, the stock market is either flat or falling and has been, if not for those seven giant tech companies. So that's just not a good sign. And the other thing that's been holding up is the U.S. dollar. The value of the U.S. dollar has been holding up. And it's precisely because all of the other currencies in the world are so weak that people are sending more and more of their money to be invested in the United States as the least worst currency

in the world. So that's been holding up. But once that starts deteriorating and that starts fueling oil prices directly, for example, yes, I mean, we're on the path to hyperinflation. We're early enough now that we could do something about it. But, you know, there's no stomach in Washington, D.C. to make the kinds of changes, slashing government spending, cutting taxes on workers and investors, rolling out or rolling under vast swaths of government bureaucracy, returning those resources to the productive side of the economy. That's what we really need.

And there's no stomach in Washington, D.C. for that. There's no stomach for reducing welfare payments and curbing entitlement programs. All of those things seem to be off the table generally. And those are exactly the types of things that need to be on the table immediately so that we can get off the road not only to hyperinflation but of course hyperinflation uh is just one step short of the road to totalitarianism and dictatorship so this this you know it's not just that prices go up and everybody has more money in their pockets and so forth. This is the road ultimately to the destruction of the economy and the destruction of the American way of life. I agree. And the takeover by totalitarian government.

We're all, you know, everybody recognizes that that's the direction we've been going with the COVID lockdowns and so forth. That's the direction that our politicians have us in the direction of. I agree. Yeah. They want us on the road to serfdom because they'll be the feudal overlords that are going to be running this. I mean, you know, we look at this like, no, we don't want to go the roads, but they do.

And that's one of the reasons why I think this appears to be really kind of a deliberate takedown. You know, I think it was last week. I think they did hit a trillion dollars in terms of just the interest payment on the debt. I think I reported that last week. It did hit finally a trillion dollars because I was like, wow, it's amazing. But as you point out, they keep going further and further into debt and the interest rates

keep going higher. So, of of course that's going to happen and the famous saying the road to serfdom was actually the famous book by F a Hayek who was a student of Ludwig von Mises and Mises and Hayek both wrote books in 1944 Hayek wrote the road to Serfdom. Mises wrote the book Bureaucracy, where, you know, an omnipotent government as well, Mises wrote. And they were warning us that the tendency in American government that far ago was that we were going in this direction where we just felt good about having more government programs. But ultimately, you would get to a point where the people no longer had control over their own very government. That's right. Yeah, that's the path

that it always takes. You know, when you talked about the fact that the dollar is doing well because we have the least worst of the central banks, it reminds me of, you know, we've got, I think it's this weekend, there's going to be the election in Argentina with Javier Malay, who is a free market economist. I don't know if you know him or if he's connected with you, but that's one of the things he was saying. We've got to get rid of the Argentine, I think it's peso,

and we've got to replace it with the U.S. dollar. He says, I think all central banks are awful, but he said exactly the same thing. He said, you know, they're not as bad as our central bank. Do you know anything about Javier Malai and what is happening there? Has there been any correspondence with the Mises Institute and him? Well, he's not affiliated with us at this point, but we've written about him on our webpage several times, and we're following him very carefully. He considers himself an Austrian school economist and a student of Murray Rothbard, who was really the great modern Austrian economist and our first vice president for academic affairs.

So he's very much in our camp. He's a very obviously intelligent person, and he's got the right instincts with respect to policy. And he doesn't want to make the U.S. dollar the currency of Argentina that's just a transition policy away from their hyperinflationary tendencies down in Argentine Argentina they've tried these kind of measures in the past and ultimately they've come back to fail and that's why he views dollarization as a temporary transition policy back to a sound monetary system of gold and silver where everybody out there in the economy their money is gold and silver coins something the central bank

can't do anything about something the government can't do anything about if we hold money that has an intrinsic value and cannot be printed at the whim of a central banker or at the whim of some economist or a politician, yeah, so he's definitely from the Austrian school. We have very high hopes that he'll do well and he'll be able to implement a lot of his reforms. But basically, he wants to cut a lot of government spending down there. I mean, they have a bloated government sector down there, which forces the current government to print money to pay for it. If you cut the government sector significantly enough and you open up the free market economy, then you simply don't need the printing press.

And sound money is really a prerequisite for sound government. That's a point that Mises made a long time ago, is that he was considered a medalist because he believed in gold and silver coins in the hands of individuals as the most significant guardian of the free market society that prevented government from, in effect effect taxing the population through the printing press yes and so and of course that experience best of luck that's right the the uh you know

the american founders uh experienced that that's why they say you know it's going to be uh gold and silver you know it's going to be minted but because they'd lived through a continental dollar that was just a worthless piece of paper uh worth less than a you know not worth a continental and so uh they wanted the same type of thing he's living through 150 inflation it was interesting i i found a a book um that was done by axel Kaiser called Street Economics, very much like what you're talking about that Mises did, taking practical examples out of everyday life and saying, you know, this is how the world works and this is why we need to organize ourselves this way economically and so forth, as opposed to, you know, the Keynesian abstraction and saying, you know,

no, everything works differently when the government is doing it. That's become a very, very popular book in South America. He knows Javier Millay, and he just recently got it translated into English. But, yeah, it is interesting to see, you know, whether they're going to come back to their senses or not. It seems like the biggest obstacle to him coming back is they're trying to throw Taylor Swift against him. I mean, she's got a big popular following there. And right before they're going to have the election, she's going to be there for the opening concert.

And she and the lefties that are following her are already starting to make noise about Javier Molay. So we'll see if he can beat Taylor Swift and all this. But let's get back to your book here the skyscraper curse that's an interesting title explain to us what that means well it's just that um there's a long history dating back about 150 years now where uh whenever a world record-setting skyscraper is built and completed, right in the aftermath of that is a world economic crisis. And so what this tells us is that when central banks go through long, concerted efforts to

artificially lower interest rates for a very long time, that eventually somebody comes up with the idea that they're going to build a record-setting skyscraper it's very difficult technologically not just the money but every time you build taller you've got to come up with completely different and new ways of building a building designing a building all of the elevators and the the water system sewage air conditioning everything about it has to change a little bit in order to make a record possible and so you can go back into the 19th century and every know, with these new low interest rates, everybody's implementing new technologies, stuff that is future-related technologies.

And we're seeing that today with artificial intelligence, for example, that probably wouldn't have come about for several years, but because Google and some of these other companies have just tons of money sitting around, they were able to finance those kind of research efforts and bring them online before their time. But the skyscraper, again, is just an illustration of what goes on in the economy, except for maybe mom and pop grocery stores and restaurants, where everybody's adopting new technologies before their time. They're changing their structure of production that's not really in sync with the true interest of consumers.

And as a consequence, once interest rates start to rise, all of these investments, all of these investments in technology and future technology really break. And it brings the economy into an economic crisis. I'm all for technology, and I love futuristic things, but if we do it as a society, we're barking up the wrong tree, essentially, and the skyscraper is just a really good illustration of how that takes place naturally in terms of implementing new technologies and new production techniques and new structures of production in the economy. So there's a natural way to do this, and there's an artificial way to do this, and the artificial way leads to economic crisis crisis that's interesting that's very interesting as you're talking about this i'm thinking how the you know the they as they build

these skyscrapers and they're pushing everything to an all-new level gonna do this uh in a way that's never been done before i'm thinking maybe it's a tower of babel curse that's what's going on there or the titanic right where we got this new uh this new ship and it's unsinkable and all because at the heart of it is is really kind of a lot of pride that goes before these falls but uh it is it is interesting to see that happening as a phenomenon and as you're talking about this and skyscraper curse you know one of the things in the commercial real estate uh as as it's starting to become a real issue, they have these things called mezzanine loans.

Maybe you know what it is, but I'd never seen that before. So for the people who aren't in the business, um, they said that, you know, it's, it's called a mezzanine loan because people do this high risk, uh, loan because they're not the, they're not at the top of the capital stack. And so they're further down if things, if, if the skyscraper gets cursed and it collapses. They're a few floors down, and they don't get paid right away. And so it's much riskier, and they get a higher loan in it. But after the 2008 crash, the government prohibited that for the big banks that they bailed out.

They said because it's riskier, so you're going to do safer things, they said. But that's another level of risk that these small and medium-sized banks assumed in the interim, which is going to be another thing that's going to wipe them out, perhaps, because now these mezzanine loans are really, you know, they're collapsing left and right. Yeah, I mean, the idea that the government bureaucrats can regulate financing of investments is just ludicrous, you know, and they themselves opened up this opportunity by not allowing certain banks to be involved, and then yet making funds available in the economy for 1% or 2%. So naturally, somebody is going to come along.

Somebody is going to be willing to borrow money at 2% in order to lend it making these mezzanine loans for financing large construction projects and earning 10 or 12%. Somebody's going to do that. Even though they don't, yeah, that's right. They take the bait. Even though they don't have collateral in the building, and even though it's maybe not as long a term loan as the

initial investors the people who are covered with the collateral and so forth you know somebody's going to be willing to take that bait and you know and and I don't know what the overall figure is, but, of course, the market as a whole with commercial real estate is trillions of dollars. And we're starting to see the cracks in those markets, you know, where projects are failing. And it's going to affect everybody because it's going to be a massive curse for the entire banking industry. And that is going to filter out and affect everybody. Absolutely is.

It's been great talking to you. Thank you for coming on. Mark Thornton, and he is a senior fellow at the Mises Institute. You can find his book that we've been talking about. There's a lot in there.

You can see that for free as a PDF or an e-book. They have an audio book that they've been talking about. There's a lot in there. You can see that for free as a PDF or an e-book. They have an audio book that they do sell. But you can find other information, very useful information at mises.org. That's M-I-S-E-S.org. Thank you so much for joining us, sir. Thank you, David. It was my pleasure. Thank you. And thank you, everyone, for joining us. And thank you, Dougalug. I appreciate the tip thank you very much have a good day everybody the common man they created common core and dumbed down our children they created common past 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. thedavidknnightShow.com If you like the Eagles, the Cars, and Huey Lewis and the News, you'll love the Classic Hits channel at APS Radio. Download our app or listen now at APSradio.com Thank you. ¶¶ © transcript Emily Beynon You're listening to The David Knight Show.

Elvis. Ladies and gentlemen, the Beatles. And the sweet sounds of Motown. Find them on the Oldies Channel at APS radio.com I'm delighted to present something born from my love for music and the Christmas season Christmas night is a perfect accompaniment for anything from family gatherings the moments of Christmas. This collection of 20 instrumental songs brings new life to timeless Christmas classics. With original orchestrations alongside lesser known, yet equally enchanting carols. For the listeners of The David Knight Show, this is more than music.

It's part of our shared journey. Christmas night is available at thedavidknightshow.com. May it bring a little extra joy and peace to your Christmas season. Thank you for your unwavering support and for joining me in this new musical adventure. Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good Christmas night. Well, today we're going to begin with our interview. Usually we have our interviews in the third hour. But joining us now, because he's going to be involved in events in New York City today on the anniversary of September 11th, joining us is Richard Gage, AIA, an architect of 30 years from

the San Francisco Bay Area, a member of the American Institute of Architects, founder and former CEO of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth. He's now independent. He, along with his courageous wife and assistant, Gail, continues to lead the charge toward a real investigation into the destruction of all three, three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9-11. You can find him at richardgage911.org. Mr. Gage became interested in researching the destruction of the World Trade Center high-rises after hearing

the startling conclusions of the reluctant 9-11 researcher david ray griffin on the radio in 2006 which launched which launched his own unyielding quest for the truth about 9-11 the organization he founded ae 9-11 truth now numbers more than 3 500 architects and engineers demanding a new investigation into the destruction of all three World Trade Center high-rise buildings on 9-11. As an architect, he's worked on most types of building construction, including numerous fire-proofed steel-framed buildings. Most recently, he worked on the construction documents for a $400 million mixed-use urban project with 1.2 million square feet of retail parking structure and mid-rise office space. Altogether, about 1,200 tons of steel framing. Please welcome

Richard Gage, AIA architect. Thank you so much, sir. Thank you, David. It's an honor to be here with you. Well, thank you. Let's talk a little bit about the key thing. You know, over my shoulder here is a picture of 9-11 New York City, the commemoration that they put up where they have two beams that are shining up into the sky. Interesting that they didn't do a third one. Let's talk about that third one. Yeah, we did do a third one about, what was it, 10 years ago now. We actually rented four searchlights, put them on the back of a pickup truck and then uh from where we were it looked like three beams it was all designed to to be that way and we we

called the media in downtown uh well around new york and said there's a third beam in the sky and we showed it to them and tried to create a thing out of it. The third beam is about Building 7. Building 7, most architects and engineers don't even know about the third worst structural failure in modern history. And most people in New York knew about Building 7. They didn't know it came down. And most of them didn't know that it went back up again. It was rebuilt. So it's quite a story.

On the afternoon of 9-11, about 5-20, witnesses heard explosions. Then, this building drops like a rock, straight down, uniformly, symmetrically, into its own footprint, in under seven seconds. So, this is exactly like the old hotels in Las Vegas when they bring them down with controlled demolition.

You know, there's explosions first and then the building drops. Well, the building drops at free fall, David, straight down, but free fall means as fast as a bowling ball falling from the sky. So what does that mean? That means that not one of the 81 columns in this building gave any resistance to this seven-second-long fall. Well, where did they go?

There's 40,000 tons of structural steel framing in this building. Well, NIST says that it came down due to normal office fires. Wait a minute. We have never in history lost a steel frame fire-protected building, type 1 construction, ever due to fires. I mean, we've had dozens of much hotter, larger, and longer-lasting fires in these buildings. So not one of them, and we've had many fully engulfed fires in these kind of structures after 9-11. But no, not one of those came down either.

So we've got to have a real investigation. And in fact, FEMA did that investigation for us. And others have done it since. But right away in 2002, FEMA finds in the metallurgical sampling of the steel, a hot corrosion attack on the steel. Its author, Jonathan Barn barnett a fire protection engineer says the ends of the beams were partly evaporated and extraordinarily like temperatures well what does that mean i'll stop and let you i'll take a breath and you tell an ordinary office fire and you know i would just say to the people because because I've done this and I think everybody needs to do this,

just go to YouTube and look up building demolitions. And you can watch. You've got so many videos that have been put up. They just chain one after the other. Watch all those and ask yourself if this is something that just happened out of ordinary office fires. Just not possible that this type of thing would have happened. I remember you mentioned that it was 2006 when you saw an interview of the researcher talking about this that got you interested in it.

This happened, my recollection, we didn't have any television. And so I didn't see any video of it we had horrible internet as well at the time in 2001 we were living out in the woods it wasn't we weren't doing some kind of homesteading thing we were just in an area where it was dead in terms of broadcast signals in terms of internet and all the rest of stuff so i was relying on friends and family calling because we had family in new y York we actually had a family member who was in one of the buildings and then got out and so I'm listening to this and it's like these planes are hitting the building then they call back later and they say one of them just collapsed and in my mind I saw this thing going down at an angle taking out a large part

of Manhattan it wasn't until years later that I really saw these things going right down into the footprint it's like what What's going on with that? You know, they said, well, it didn't hit any other buildings. I'm thinking, how in the world did that happen? And then when I saw it in free fall, that was, you know, when it's like, okay, okay. I know I was mainly concerned with how they were using this event to take away our liberties. But then I saw what that was. And it's like, oh, yeah, that perfectly fits.

Exactly does. It really does and the evidence that they just give it to us i mean hot sulfur corrosion attack on the steel well uh guess what fire especially normal office fires do not corrode steel with silver dollar size holes uh it just doesn't happen uh steel is not flammable and yet out of the towers wow ejected at 80 miles an hour laterally clocked by physicists so these these sections are freely flying you can see them in the videos of them, and they are on fire. Well, steel is not flammable in office fire conditions. So, here's yet another of the dozens of pieces of evidence we're going to talk about that

gives us absolutely, this is not a classic progressive collapse, as NIST claims. They claim that the upper part of the North Tower and the South Tower drove the rest of the building down to the ground and then destroyed itself. Well, that violates Newton's third law of physics. There's an equal and opposite destruction when two bodies collide. Though the top part is the lightest it's the weakest it would have crushed it it destroyed itself even coming into contact with the first part of the cold hard heavy steel intact um and not hot uh so uh that that gives it away but what really gives it away is the videos they don't show in these towers either um of any of the videos a a a top section driving the rest of the building down to

the ground uh at all that's right it would have to be a little bit of a delay it had to be a little bit of delay as one section hits the next one you You know, it would go down. It would have jolted. But it's a sudden, smooth transition. The upper part is destroying itself. Actually, it's not driving the rest of the building down to the ground. It's telescoping in on itself, disintegrating its internal cohesive structure. And you see these squibs coming out, particularly the South Tower. Dozens of them, squibs, are isolated explosive ejections.

And they're emerging simultaneously out of the South Tower. And you're going, what's that? You have to kind of look for some of these videos, but they're everywhere to find. Well, it begins to tip over the South Tower. But as it's doing that, these explosions are coming off of it, and it then begins to settle back because it lost its internal integrity there. Well, after the first three seconds, it's a very different story because well uh the the then is when we have these belt of explosions down below that the first responders are 156 of them are on record orally in the uh orally record oral recordings they called them by thomas von essen the chief fire commissioner

he he required everybody to be recorded because he didn't want the memory to be reshaped by a collective memory. His words, well, 156 of these first responders talking about explosions, hearing explosions, seeing explosions, being blown around the building by explosions. Like a belt, all these explosions going all the way around the building. Others further away said, like a train running under my feet. Like you wanted to grab onto something. The firefighters said, like, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. Like they wanted to take down a building. These are all on record

some of them or at least and more uh just on video it's incredible but then uh the building comes down in just 12 seconds both of them identically i mean these are very different um uh damage patterns to these buildings through the fires and the planes, the columns breaking, but they all come down symmetrically, uniformly. And you can see the belts of explosions advancing rapidly down the face of the building, individual explosions, 12 of them. You can actually count them in the close-up. You can't. But don't believe your lying eyes. Just listen to the government. It's crazy. And, you know, as you pointed out, it's not just the free-fall collapse. We've had a lot of fires before and even since.

We have steel buildings that will burn for days. And I've shown those when they happen. You see a twisted metal skeleton, but it doesn't collapse. You know, it might be bent over a little bit and everything but it's still there because of that steel frame even though the thing burned for days and so nothing makes sense out of this as an architect you know when you look at this one of the big smoking guns about this as well is why haven't there been any changes in the way that they do firefighting why haven't there been any changes

in architectural rules why there haven't there been any lawsuits against the people who designed this building or against the uh you know the new york where they had the code and they did the inspection on this because they had already had a plane that hit the empire state building way back when and uh so they they knew that was a possibility. That was something that they designed for, right? Yep, they did. John Skilling said this plane could take two hits from a 707, which when they were built in 73 was the largest building to a plane of its kind.

But the problem would be, he said, that the fuel would dump into the building, but the building would still be there. it's fireproofed uh yes it should have still been there um but if we look we can get a clue david if we actually look at the uh in in the dust in the aftermath what does the u.s geological survey find in every sample previously molten iron microspheres billions of them all the samples up to six percent of some of these samples all of them are molten iron microspheres what does that mean iron we haven't used iron in our skyscrapers for 100 years this is elemental iron not steel it's molten meaning it achieved 2800 degree temperatures which fires don't even get a quarter that hot typically these fires were probably less than that because they're indicated by the thick black smoke they were going out at the time of of the uh collapse their oxygen starved so we the usgs

finds these microspheres spheres because aerosolized liquids form themselves into spheres that by surface tension that's just what they do the epa says we don't know what these molten iron microspheres are or where they came from but they're a signature component of the world trade center dust in other words it's not even world trade center dust unless it has these billions of microspheres in them rj lee an environmental concern uh confirmed doing work on the this dust says these are formed not before when the building was being built by the welders, not afterward by the iron workers taking it apart, but during the event. Well, wait a minute. What does that mean?

Iron, molten iron, is the byproduct of thermite. Thermite is an incendiary used by the military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter. So we have all the dust giving us exactly what happened here. We're talking about thermite, the residue of thermite everywhere in the dust, every sample. In fact, a team of eight international scientists, led by Niels Herrad in Copenhagen, find all of those, and they confirm that, but they also confirm something that others have not found, and this is little chips of red gray material. They thought it was paint, but it's attracted to

a magnet, so it has a high iron content well they go well this is interesting why does it have a high iron content they do xeds analysis x-ray energy dispersal spectroscopy what do they find aluminum and iron the key ingredients of thermite in the red layer of these dual-layered red-gray chips. They go, whoa, we got to get to the bottom of this. They zoom in 50,000 times and they find nanoparticles of iron oxide and aluminum powder. Now we're talking about super thermite, nanothermite. They identify it as thermite because not only do they know the key ingredients, they put it in a heater, a differential scanning calorimeter, and it ignites. What does it do when

it ignites? It makes all of these molten iron microspheres with the same chemical signature as the molten iron microspheres found in the dust by the u.s geological survey rj lee and others so we know exactly where those molten iron microspheres came from they came from these red gray chips so we have unignited uh evidence of unignited thermite in the molten iron microspheres and evidence of ignited thermite i got it backwards ignited thermite of the molten iron microspheres unignited thermite in these red gray chips which are ubiquitous in all the seven samples that they had independently collected all over manhattan wow from all over manhattan that they were sent to them so uh this is pretty incredible because when you reduce the size of these particles in these chips to nano, that's a thousand times smaller than the diameter of a human hair, the surface volume increases exponentially.

So the chemical reaction is virtually instantaneous. You've engineered an incendiary, which works by means of massive heat, to become more explosive, which works by knocking things over. In fact, it does that. Let me interject and say it's kind of like what we see when we'll see a grain elevator explode or something. It's because the fine particles there can ignite because of the increase in the surface area. This is something that is already set up to ignite in the first place well you mean the grain elevator uh yeah i mean it's not a great it's small particles of grain but you know when you talk about that's a small particles of thermite right well where does it come from uh right thermite is made only in the most advanced

defense contracting laboratories excuse me nano thermite this is very special lawrence livermore exposed this to us before 19 uh before 2001. they developed the peer-reviewed literature on it they called it super thermite uh they did these tests on it and yeah it ignites at 758 degrees in the differential scanning calorimeter. And that's exactly what these seven independent samples did. So we know exactly what this stuff is. They put out a 24-page peer-reviewed paper on this in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal in 2009 and uh it it's literal proof uh now we've had for you know more than 10 years of this material yet nobody's submitted their own peer-reviewed paper to challenge these uh results

it stands uncontested so i mean people will say oh that's just paint but it's been proven six ways from sunday that these are extremely exotic materials and responsible for the destruction of all three world trade center skyscrapers on 9-11 if we got it into a court of law david they would put uh the real perpetrators away for mass murder and treason yes yeah it reminds me of what happened a week after 9-11 that's the anthrax attacks at first they said well this is coming from Iraq. And then they said, well, no, it's a special kind of anthrax. And then as they look further, as they tried to found a patsy they wanted to blame it on, turns out that the delivery mechanism, just like you're talking about how this is not just ordinary thermite, it's super thermite. They found that the delivery mechanism for this anthrax was also something that was limited to just two labs in the United States.

And, of course, this guy that they'd picked for the Patsy didn't work at one of those two labs. The bottom line is that the technology is very advanced. It allows them to get away with this stuff, but it also points directly to them at the same time. Yes, it's a blessing that they've left us with. They do make mistakes. I mean, they're big. They've got lots of money. They've got evil intentions, it seems, that they're murdering 3,000 of their own people here. since in the in the latest uh uh false flag operation in the last three years with the

disease that's going around it's false disease with its false solution um they've got a lot of power and influence obviously yeah but we capitalize on and they just had this last week just before the anniversary they said that they used d DNA to identify two more victims of this, and they seem to find the victims just before the anniversaries, you know, when this starts to happen. And there's still over a thousand people that disappeared on that day that they have not identified, they said, with DNA. Let's talk a little bit about the symmetry in the pile and the destruction of evidence. Well, in the pile, first of of all you brought this up this is extremely important there's more than a 1100 people for which there was no trace found i mean six thousand pieces

they did find were small enough to fit into a test tube wow and they were distributed six to eight hundred feet outside each of the towers so the explosive mechanism was incredible i mean yes we found 300 whole bodies we should have found 3 300 um there are seven hundred um a lot of people just literally blown to bits absolutely in fact there were bone fragments a half an inch long uh found on top of the the uh roof of the deutsche bank building across the street from the south tower uh how did they get there uh we're talking these bodies should have been trapped between 110 floors, each of which is made of four and eight inch thick concrete, and none of which are found at the base of the tower. We don't have an acre in size, these floors. we don't have 50 of them we don't have 10 of them we don't have one

of them what we do have at the base is a four five story pile of twisted steel where's the concrete it's been pulverized in midair all the photos all the videos show just that and it's been laid like a blanket of 100 micron average size dust across lower Manhattan from river to river. Three square miles of dust. That's where the concrete is. Which means what? That the concrete is not available to crush the building. If it's been distributed and pulverized in midair, well, neither is the steel. About 95% or more of the steel has been ejected laterally, like we talked about, outside the building's footprint.

That's 100,000 tons of steel that's not available to crush the building either. And yet that's the whole theory of mist it's there's so many ways to take apart that that story they said it drove the building down to the ground it wasn't there yeah to drive the building down to the ground and yes the North Tower particularly came down almost symmetrical which means all of those columns had to give way at once. Otherwise, it would have tipped over. Like you said, no jolt. It would have hit the cold hard intact steel. It might have fallen over if it was to be that badly damaged. But in reality, the initiation of collapse never would have started. And if it did, it would have slowed down and stopped. That's been proven by physicists as well.

But we don't have the platform that we need to prove these things. Yes, yes. So much for the domino theory of NIST, right? I mean, we've had domino theories that lied us into a Vietnam War, and now we have this domino theory about the collapse of the buildings. It absolutely is amazing. Yeah, much of that, you're very thorough in terms of this. And of course, you've been on this for a very, very long time.

What about the destruction of the evidence? I remember a lot of people that are still suffering after all these years was because they were so bent on getting this stuff removed, as much of it as they could, and subjecting people to the dust because at that point in time, they didn't care about masks. They care all about masks now, but they didn't then. And so it was a mad rush to remove a lot of this evidence, a lot of stuff that was still burning, right?

Yeah, within two weeks after 9-11. This evidence is taken out from under the noses of those who would investigate it, like structural engineer Abul Hazan Astani Azal from UC Berkeley, given a National Science Foundation grant to study the steel. He said they're taking all the steel to China to put in a melting pot for 15 cents a pound. That's nothing. That's what he says. And others couldn't get their hands on it to do a proper forensic investigation. 400 truckloads per day were lined up, starting just two weeks after 9-11, taking this to put it, steel, and putting it on barges sent to China for recycling. I mean, and prompting Bill Manning, editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering Magazine, to cry out on his magazine, the magazine that ties all the fire protection engineers together in this

country. Crucial evidence, he says, is on the slow boat to China, showing an astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough scientific investigation. The destruction of evidence must stop. It didn't, of course. It continued at an incredible pace. This is the illegal destruction of evidence in a crime scene, but guess what?

This was an act of war because of the attack on the panagon so they were not bound they they said or imagined uh by the rules of preservation of evidence wow yeah it was an attack of war wasn't it but not from the people that they identified and that's the key thing when you look at this the government's story regardless of what happened the government's story is just not even close to being possible and that's why you got involved in this uh investigating it uh talk talk about the jet planes themselves and information that you found from that well we know the planes hit the towers but we don't know what planes hit the towers there's all kinds of problems matching serial

numbers i do have firefighters that were picking up plane parts. There's some people who say there's no planes, but we have lots of evidence of planes. They're picking them up. They're putting them in the bin. The FBI is supervising that part of it so they can control it, certainly, because they don't want those parts getting out. They got the wrong serial. What does that mean? Well, if you were going to execute a plan to bring down the tallest buildings in the world,

at least in 1973, and one of the largest in Manhattan, each floor of this building was the size of a football field, would you trust, and this one wasn't hit by a plane, of course, it came down anyway, but for these two, would you trust hijackers who failed Cessna Flying School to bring those planes to their targets? Probably not. In fact, there remotely guided uh aircraft technology in those planes at the time though it was not well known and this has been researched by several others including

Captain Dan Hanley who runs uh pilot whistleblowers and uh 911pil pilots.org you can learn more about that um but yeah there's there's some real problems with these with these planes where they switched out were more uh refined military craft used with the same fuselage and wings, which they had. And some people actually said they saw a gray plane. So were they even, did they have time to paint it? I don't even know. Now, when you say the different serial numbers, where did the different serial numbers come from?

That's got to be. Or what? Well, I don't have the details on that david um there's some things i research and there's some things i i i hear that have been researched that research does exist sure i'm not the source of it and on top of my head i i can't take you there oh that's fine yeah that's not you you focus more on the architectural stuff in the buildings you know i find it interesting and i've said this before that there really wasn't even I can't take you there. Yeah, that's not you. You focus more on the architectural stuff in the buildings. You know, I find it interesting, and I've said this before, that there really wasn't even though we knew that there was remote control capability for, you know, commercial jets and things like that, because they had used remote control to crash them as they would look to see what happened to occupants inside during a crash. Just like you got crash test dummies for cars they did that for airplanes for years and um and then immediately after this

you you've got the war in afghanistan uh the stars of the war were the autonomous uh drones and things like that and so you know they come out here oh by the way you know it's uh we got this fleet of these things now you know they kind of kept it under wraps in terms of doing that but even going back uh back into the 1960s they'd even talked about an operation northwards that uh they would do exactly this type of thing in order to create public opinion around a an attack on cuba so we could fly these planes into buildings we could take them out and and fake the fact that that there are people on board and say it was blown up over the sea. We could even use it to attack military stations. And we could use all that then and identify Cuba as the people doing it in a false flag operation. That was what Operation Northwoods was all about. They had

proposed that. JFK shut it down. but they had already proposed that back in the early 1960s. And so for the longest time, they'd had the capability of doing remote control commercial jets. You know, it was nothing new, even though it seemed new to the public, it was not in the public eye. And in fact, remote control goes all the way back to World War II, where we even had remote control. We didn't have to use kamikazes. But there's a plane in Florida, in an air museum, Air Force Museum, that is noted specifically for its remote control capability back in World War II. So this is not some kind of sci-fi thing, futuristic. Talk about, did you get involved, were you primarily involved with the three buildings in New York?

And of course, that's a key part of it. You know, everybody says, well, you know, it was hit by a plane and then it caught on fire in the plane. But, you know, the airplane fuel and everything, they that that would do that and you've you've addressed that but the building seven was a key thing because it was not hit by an airplane it wasn't loaded with airplane fuel and all the rest of stuff is why they don't like to talk about building seven uh well even this yeah this this says in the case of the planes that did hit these 90 percent of the fuel was burned up outside the building this is the national institute of standards and technology was tasked by congress to explain these collapses to the american people uh they said the rest was gone burned up in just 10 minutes so we didn't have

any jet fuel in these buildings uh for about an hour while they were burning almost an hour less than the south town um so yeah you're right but you know the public perception is well you know of course they collapsed they were hit by jets and all this kind of but building seven was not hit by a jet you know the key thing is three buildings but only two planes you know and that that's the key do the math yeah exactly it's like two plus two equals five. And you've got witnesses that hear explosions here. Kevin McPatten says, like, boom, like you wanted to grab onto something. I knew that was an explosion, you know, because people who tell the truth around these matters, they get ridiculed. And so they try to be very specific. The first responders

were extremely specific with regard to their quotes before the towers came down. And then many of them saw flashes of light. But Daryl, a medical student in the case of Building 7, says we were watching the building and there was a clap clap of thunder uh and uh then the building came down crashing down yeah yeah that's very specific wow bill rizzotti says there's a flash of light in this building uh and uh and a loud explosion wow well give us all the evidence we need have you uh been focused on the Pentagon and what happened there? Or are you primarily focused on the New York buildings? Yeah, I am focused on the New York buildings.

But at the Pentagon, while there's controversy among 9-11 truth researchers about what did or didn't hit it, all of us agree that we need a new investigation. For instance, we have Honey Honjer, who failed Cessna Flying School himself, who is said to have maneuvered this 757 coming into the Pentagon, not dropping through the vulnerable roof structure to donald rumsfeld's office no that could have been done uh a dive bomb but a a 270 degree turn and dropping 3 000 feet per minute in what's more of a fighter jet type maneuver, coming straight in and level with the ground, hitting what? The Naval Intelligence Department,

who was tasked with locating and accounting for the $2.3 trillion that Donald Rumsfeld had announced the day before 9-11 was missing from the panagon budget or unaccountable uh in it so uh that that's that's really suspicious oh yeah yeah i had a had a friend who uh was in the military went to west point he was telling me you know years before that talking about cruise missiles and stuff he said you know we can they're so accurate. We can pick which window of the Kremlin we want to fly them through. I know.

And then I had a personal experience, which I, I was caught between Karen and I, my wife were in this, um, uh, tourist shop in an area in Texas and, um, down in Wimberley. And there was a lady there and she and her husband had retired from the military. And it was a slow season. And my wife is looking through and I'm just kind of standing there. And she was desperate to talk to somebody. She just starts monologuing about their career and how they came here. She said, you know, when I used to work for the Pentagon,

we were finding trillions of dollars that were missing. And we had all kinds of people taking early retirement to avoid being incriminated and everything she goes and then my husband retired and i followed him we came here and did this she said you know it was really a blessing because it was in my very office where that thing flew and she could not connect the dots it's just amazing you know she did not connect the dots i said who do you listen to for news some fox and stuff like that it's like okay okay she's never heard anybody question that i imagine if she heard it it would all of a sudden it would click with her like that but it didn't and and you know i'm sitting there i'm thinking i need to get my phone out start recording this but i was afraid she was going to stop talking so

i just you need to stick me on her everybody who sees this evidence and we're just talking about it right david but when i i have a a 30 minute an hour and a two hour presentation that i do on these subjects and it is overwhelming to watch this building seven dropping as fast as a bowling ball falling out of the sky we've all seen the old hotel so we know immediately what it is yeah we know it was taken out therefore we know it was part of the 911 conspiracy i mean uh there's they had to it takes months of planning to execute these controlled demolitions so in building seven they say nobody died in this building although there's one witness barry jennings who says he was crawling over dead bodies to get out of that building.

Regardless, the public is more open to Building 7 because it doesn't have the trauma associated with all of those deaths and the incredible jumping out of the plane out of the building and then the planes hitting uh the buildings so we start with building seven and people go oh of course that's a controlled demolition that's what we do at the uh american institute of architects conventions before they kicked us out we've gone to five of these conventions and architects stop we're the busiest booth there they come around and they just look conventions. Before they kicked us out, we had gone to five of these conventions. And architects stopped. We're the busiest booth there. They come around and they just look at this controlled demolition. We say, do you know when this happened? Because they say it's a controlled demolition on the monitor in front of them.

And we go, they go, no, I don't know when that happened. Well, that happened on 9-11. What? That's not a twin tower. No, it's not. This is the the third tower we tell them what happened and uh then they're open to looking at the towers and all of the incredible uh evidence that we have there just like a geometry of fireworks freely flying structural steel sections uh laterally distributed trailing thick white smoke clouds on fire, which is the thermite, of course, and can only be that. It looks more like a volcanic eruption in the Tongan Sea in 2009. We show them that and compare the two.

You can't tell the difference. Wow. Wow. That's amazing. What about, you know know the uh what was it shell silverstein was that his name they had buildings same place silverstein okay yeah yeah well let me say because that's that's really important a year later larry silverstein's interviewed on america rebuilds and uh he's talking about building seven he's asked about

it as well uh there's been such terrible loss of life i was talking to the fire commander maybe the smartest thing to do was pull yeah and so they gave the order to pull and we watched the building come down that's that's the owner who built this building here he says later oh i didn't mean pull the building. I meant pull the firefighters out of the building. Well, guess what? They weren't in the building. They were told not to fight the fire. They were told it was going to come down because the structure was weakened.

It could come down on its own. So we're just going to wait. So hundreds of firefighters were nearby watching the building with these few small scattered fires that were in it, and they're waiting for it to come down. And sure enough, after these mysterious construction workers walking away from Building 7, hearing an explosion over their shoulder in the late afternoon of 9-11 looking back at the building and then looking straight into the cnn camera and saying this you hear that that building's coming down a flame of debris coming down yeah it's gonna blow up wow wow it's amazing it has a few small scattered fires

yeah it is yeah and and it's uh so so what is the status of 9-11 i mean many of us have looked at this the evidence that you have given is just astounding and it demands an answer and and yet everybody seems to turn a blind eye to it for the most part in official circles what is the status of any investigation what is the hope of any investigation with this? They're on notice. All 435 members of Congress, or is it 535? We've given them our petition every third year or so we go to Washington, D.C. We give them the latest DVD, the latest book, the latest efforts we're making.

We talk to their staffers. They're very interested. They said, I'm going to get this in to the congressperson. This is really important. But nothing ever happens. So they're going to be held accountable one way or another. The media, of course, won't even talk to us. won't we we've given well it's not completely true Geraldo Rivera had one of the family members one of the engineers on and he said oh this looks looks suspicious to me particularly building seven uh now I know why there's 1350 architects and engineers demanding a new investigation. Well, there's 3,600 now, right? I'm separated from the organization, architects and engineers for 9-11 Truth,

but they continue focusing on getting the engineers going. I work on the public and the media where where where i can get in but the way we're going to get a real investigation uh is by educating the public and getting a grand jury investigation which is why we've submitted this evidence in 60 exhibits to the u.s attorney for a special grand jury investigation now he's done nothing with it, and so we've sued him. And that's gone through the legal process, and now we're going to be taking the evidence to a federal judge to be given directly to a special grand jury, and we're making a film, 9-11, Crime Scene to Courtroom.

And that is a series of two dozen episodes with myself and 24 experts giving the evidence in a boardroom jury, a grand jury setting with our stand-in grand jurors. We present all the evidence and Mick Harrison, the litigation director for the Lawyers Committee for 9-11 Inquiry inquiry whose board i sit on also we're partnering and making this film he's going to be educating the grand jury and the public about what are the implications of each different type of evidence that we're going to be presenting eyewitness testimony forensic evidence etc and he'll give them their opportunities to subpoena people who might they subpoena for more information about this what are their duties their obligations so uh it's it's an extraordinary film we filmed it already in washington dc we're raising funds for the completion of it in post-production

and so people can actually get this film uh produced by becoming a co-producer and your name's on the credits with a $500 donation. So all of that can be done here at richardgage911.org. So we encourage you guys to help us. That's great. Yeah. And so, yeah, richardgage911.org and people can help to crowdfund that and to complete it because you've already as you said you filmed a great deal of it i just need to get that together that would be very important to do

you know richard i was um i was talking to jay warner wallace a couple of weeks ago he is a cold case detective and they would go back and look at um at murder scenes where all they've got is the evidence and the people the witnesses to the crime or whatever have long since died the detectives have died but they've got that stuff there that's why what you're doing is so important and of course he he eventually became a christian then he applied those same types of investigation to looking at the veracity of the biblical account christian account but the key is what we're looking at here is we've got over 3 000 murders just in new york this is something

that is not going to go away and just as we see with jfk situation there's a lot of people who have maybe not yet come forward but you have collected so much information that ought to be damning in and of itself and this is something that may be done by future generations, but the truth will eventually be discovered. And I think it'll happen when the people who have a vested interest in the lies have been removed from the scene. I think that the most important thing to do, certainly we need to raise the awareness of people to ask for an investigation but by collecting this information as you've done and you continue to do it is going to be a body of evidence that is eventually going to show what the truth is about 9 11 i believe yeah i do too

david and that's why i'm still at it 18 years later i got really angry when i heard about this in 2006 and i have it's been fueling me ever since uh that this justice for the 9-11 victims family members is my primary motivation that's right yeah it's hard to get your head around the death of that many people and you know we looked at the beginning i came at this from look at how they're using this right how they're using this to destroy the constitution and they've laid so many authoritarian foundations for our government by using this event uh and that in and of itself is is criminal by itself uh and and that's another angle of attack to this but the deaths of these people i think this is going to continue to go on i think people are going to demand an answer to this stuff and the evidence

that you guys have put together continues to expand uh you know people are still looking at this and it is going to continue to expand because there is so much evidence there uh people can continue to investigate that and the investigation is going to continue till we get to the end of this again you know when you look at these architects and engineers and they does to me another smoking gun about this is just the fact that they haven't changed any firefighting procedures. They haven't changed any building codes based on this. They want us to believe that this is an ordinary fire that took down Building 7, but no building code changes. Is that correct?

Are you aware of any? There's no changes to the structural codes at all. They've added some fireproofing. They've added some stairs, get people out faster, but nothing to keep a building from free falling due to a few small scattered fires. So that's telling. It's extremely telling. And the firefighting policies, they're still going into burning buildings without fear of them coming down because they don't know about building seven it wasn't the big controversy in architecture or in firefighting manuals the

nfpa doesn't even discuss it and yet is the third worst structural failure in modern history due to fires and the national fire protection association is is it, which is why we went to their convention in Las Vegas this summer and before that, Boston. Oh, good. Last year. Good. And we had a booth and we had firefighters there with us. Eric Lawyer of Firefighters for 9-11 Truth and I and others were educating fire protection engineers. We had the monitor up.

They come by. Did you know when this building came down? Oh, no. Again, the whole story, they're just blown away because we go in. They say we go into skyscrapers routinely to put out fires, big fires, much bigger than the few small uh fires they had in building seven yeah so uh their policies have not changed because and i'm one of 90 000 members of the american institute of architects and we have not received one bulletin on this major disaster of a collapse uh it it wasn't it was just completely swept under the rug oh yeah yeah absolutely i remember years ago i talked to tony rick of the uk and they were

trying to get firefighters together there to ask these same questions you know because they're using the same kind of rules as as we do the same kind of uh guidelines for the building of that do you realize building seven wasn't hit by a plane it burned down ordinary fire supposedly according to why aren't we changing anything that we do and um so this is this is a concern that um beyond this country in terms of people looking at these rules tell us what you're doing today in new york i know you're there for a special event yep it's an exciting day uh for uh those of us who have the passion in our hearts to reach the public um i know it's it's it's a it's a it's a it's a very sorrowful day too because we lost so many yes but this is the opportunity for us to tell them the truth about those who died and how and why. Some people get into the why,

I don't as much. But we'll be at Ground Zero on Veazey Street near Building 7 all day. And we brought hundreds and hundreds of brochures to hand out we're going to be telling people that right there stood uh building seven uh 47 stories it came down to it wasn't hit by a plane did you hear about it i heard something about it is fairly typical but then you give them the facts and they just wake up and give them the the brochure which has a complete outline of all the information we discussed, which is, by the way, available, our brochure, our DVDs. The documentary, 9-11 Explosive Evidence Experts Speak Out, is on our website, richardgage911.org. But we tell them all of this, and there's some people who can't hear it, David. They'll get angry.

And we give them love. were there too i was i wanted to go into afghanistan and iraq and get those you know what's that did this to us i was a flag waving reagan republic and when i heard david ray griffin on the radio in the san francisco bay area um 29th, my world turned upside down as I was hearing this evidence and went to see Kim speak the next night. They were sold out. 600 people packed in the Grand Lake Theater. I had to go home and watch on live stream. I had to prove this. So I made a PowerPoint. I took it to the firm I worked for, 14 architects, because they had thought I was kind of nuts. But over the next couple of months, I assembled this research. I took it to them.

I bought them pizza. I made them come in and thrived them. 45 minutes of visual technical evidence. All of them agreed. Oh, my God, you're right. These are controlled demolitions. We've got to have a real investigation. Now there's 3,600 architects and engineers demanding just that.

Well, thank you so much for caring about the truth and your consistent holding to it and pushing for it. You know, that's the key thing. If you've got the truth, it's the other people who run away from this. The other people don't want to debate it. The other people who don't want to show what is there. You've got the truth. You're not worried about debating it.

Now, the documentary you mentioned, Explosive Evidence, that's at RichardGage911.org. That is not the one that is currently under crowdsourcing, right? There's already one that's finished. Is that correct? No. Yeah. that is currently under crowdsourcing, right? There's already one that's finished, is that correct? No, yeah, that one combined experts and that was made 10 years ago, 9-11 explosive evidence. Now we're propelling it into a new dimension, 9-11 crime scene to courtroom. That's the one that we're finishing up. We've already filmed it.

It's been filmed in Washington, D.C. at the Supreme Court and at our venue for a special grand jury investigation. It's extraordinary. It's the most comprehensive body of evidence we've ever compiled also, which is why it's 24 episodes, but they range from 10 minutes to 20 minutes each. That's great. Well, you know, that's the key thing. And again, I just want to thank you because I know that it's difficult to swim against the tide. And, you know, when you tell somebody something that they don't want to believe, they've

already heard something else and the government is pushing and all the authorities and the experts are pushing in a different direction. And this is settled. You know, we hear that we got settled science about climate we've got settled science about the pandemic and all the rest of stuff and when the experts in the government are all telling you this and you come out with it you know then they've got these uh pejorative terms that they throw at you conspiracy theorists and all the rest of stuff you're a lunatic your tinfoil hat and the rest of this so kudos to you for standing by what you know to be true for so many years and for pushing this it is making a difference the truth is eventually going to be

understood by the wide majority of people and the people who are going to be um tart and feathered uh by future generations uh in retrospect are the people who lied to us and who continue to cover this stuff up. So thank you so much for doing that. Again, it is richardgage911.org. And I even had someone, Richard, contact me. We'd already set up the interview, and he said, I hope you cover 9-11 on Monday. I'm in New York. So that listener, you can find Richard there at the site of Building 7, and he'll be there all day, right?

Is that correct? Yep. You bet. Good. Thank you so much for what you're doing. A tireless pursuit of truth. We'll be right back, folks. Stay with us.

Thank 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. © BF-WATCH TV 2021 You're listening to The David Knight Show. Hear news now at apsradionews.com or get the APS Radio app and never miss another story.

I'm delighted to present something born from my love for music and the Christmas season. Christmas night is a perfect accompaniment for anything from family gatherings to moments of peaceful reflection. A help is to provide a fresh take to the soundtrack of Christmas. This collection of twenty instrumental songs brings new life to timeless Christmas classics. with original orchestrations alongside lesser-known yet equally enchanting carols. For the listeners of The David Knight Show, this is more than music. It's part of our shared journey. Christmas Night is available at thedavidknightshow.com. May it bring a little extra joy and peace to your Christmas season. Thank you for your unwavering support and for joining me in this new musical adventure.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good Christmas night. Joining us now is Davis Yontz. And I was just asking him his website. It is yontzlaw.com. That's Y-O-U-N-T-S, yontzlaw.com. And we got so many things that have happened legally that I would like to talk to him about. Uh,

he contacted me and said, he'd like to talk about, uh, Trump's indictment and the, uh, GOP debate. But of course, uh,

there's been a lot of things that have happened, Mr. Yachts, since we last talked about the military, um, mandates. Uh, what,

what is the current status as far as you know, on that? Have they, uh, made anybody whole on this? We just had some whistleblowers talking about the DMED database and how many conditions have escalated, even after they went back and said,

oh, well, you're comparing this to the previous five years. Oh, the previous five years are all wrong. Even after they went back and manipulated the data, it's still a huge increase. What is happening in terms of the military and this vaccine? Yeah, so unfortunately, not a lot has changed when we look at trying to make military members whole, as well as trying to get really solid military members back into the service. So you still have more than 12,000 military members that were kicked out. They were alleged to have committed misconduct because they had a religious accommodation that was unlawfully denied. Those individuals are still out there, still struggling with a negative service connotation on their DD 214. And unfortunately, the decimation that

happened, remember at one point there were 264,000 members of the military that were not fully vaccinated. Many, many of those, and no one has accurate data on it, and there's reasons why they don't, I'm sure, but many, many thousands simply left the military. They either retired, retired early, didn't reenlist or otherwise. So those folks are still out there. So a lot of the work I'm doing now is going to be based on trying to restore rights to military members who were persecuted for their religious faith, try to make them whole, as well as try to get others back into military service that were either kicked out or sidelined in some other way.

And unfortunately, what we're hearing right now, what I've been hearing over the last couple of days is that the mandate may be coming back. There's a lot of chatter about a new vaccine for the new COVID variant that's out there and the military whistleblowers that I work with. Some of my clients are telling me there's a lot of chatter from commanders from the Pentagon talking about what it would look like to bring a new mandate back. Yeah. We just had Biden saying, yeah, we're going to have a new vaccine and this one's going to work. So yeah, they're going to try, they're going to try and of course

they can force the people. Yeah. And the military, they can try to force the people without it. Jason Barker is a listener who was in the military at the time. And he wrote a great letter that we had on a website for quite some time, uh, outlining his religious objections to it a lot of people use that uh that were in the military but even people who were uh nurses and other things who were they were having that dictated by their employer um he hung in until he got up to his 20 years he was getting pretty close to it he's one of those people who left as he got

to that point. And he's now a commentator with Knights of the Storm. So he's out there still doing good work telling people about this stuff. But yeah, they've pushed so many people out. And as you pointed out last time we were talking, people who managed to remain in now that they've kind of paused this mandate, if you're still there, they're saying, well, you can't do this and you can't do that. And that's going to essentially drive them out of their career if they're blocked from being able to do certain things that they have to do in order to get a promotion, right? That's absolutely right. So the impact is still exists. It's still there. It's still a problem. And again, nothing Congress has done so far prevents the DOD from issuing a new mandate.

So if we look at the leadership in the White House, we look at the mentality of senior military leadership, we're looking at a real issue. Now, I think there's also a possibility of a budget fight, right? So if Congress does engage in a budget fight and starts talking about funding for the military and those things, it's possible they will hold off until some sort of a budget agreement is reached. But I am concerned we're going to see increasing chatter in September. And then if there's some sort of a budget deal that happens, I fear if there's going to be a new mandate, it will follow shortly on the heels of that. And since we've established with warp speed that they don't have to test any vaccines or anything like that anymore, this quote unquote new vaccine that could appear any day now as well. I don't have to do any testing whatsoever. We've established that as a precedent that's going to

stick with us. It's already sticking with one type of medication after the other, isn't it? Absolutely right. And remember still to this day, they're not manufacturing the FDA-approved version of these vaccines for COVID. They're still not manufacturing the FDA-approved version, which is still an unresolved legal issue when we talk about the military and others. So tons of issues, and unfortunately, they're going to continue for our military members as well as anyone else, particularly those that work for liberal state governments or the federal government. And you're talking about the label specifically, right? The Corbinati issue. Is that correct? That's absolutely right.

That's absolutely right. Which the FDA said, look, these products are identical, but they're legally distinct. Well, if they're legally distinct and you haven't approved the one that's available in the United States, then how can you legally try to require people to have this? That's the fundamental issue. It's just this kind of double talk that we see happening all the time with all of these issues. That's what the government has become, isn't it? That's right. Yeah. It's become more about political will than the rule of law, unfortunately. That's right. That's right. Well, when we talk about political will than the rule of law, unfortunately. That's right. That's right. Well, when we talk about political will versus the rule of law, you want to talk about the indictments happening in Georgia. That is truly amazing. I think that

many people have talked about how this has criminalized free speech and the practice of law. What's your opinion of that? Yeah, I think that's the biggest concern I have as we try to look at this indictment, right? So Georgia is using sort of a very robust RICO statute, the Racketeer Influence Corrupt Organizations Act. This is something used to go after the mafia. And why the reason that it's attractive to prosecutors is you can essentially group people together, say 20 people, 19 people are part of a conspiracy, and then try to hold each individual member responsible for all of the actions of everyone else in the conspiracy, right? So this is what was used to take down the mob. It's important to understand that. You don't have to get someone for murder. You just have to say that a murder

happened and it was part of the organization. Well, now what's interesting about what's happening in Georgia is they're bringing all of these other individuals in and they're arguing that things that were done after the election that dealt with trying to investigate and try to understand whether or not there was election fraud or election interference, and that's being charged as a conspiracy. Yeah. So imagine, I mean, things like phone calls, things like phone calls. where election interference, and that's being charged as a conspiracy. Yeah, it is amazing. So imagine, I mean, things like phone calls, things like phone calls to individuals responsible for ensuring a free and fair election and saying, hey, we're hearing concerns.

We're hearing problems with drop boxes. We're hearing things like people are coming in the middle of the night and putting hundreds of ballots in a drop box. Can we look that are you seeing these same concerns is there anything we can do to try to understand what happened right so i haven't seen anything yet and i'm a former federal prosecutor i'm a former defense counsel i still practice criminal law i haven't seen anything that goes to this idea what we are going to do is change the outcome of the election our intent is to change the outcome of the election you don't see that what you see is we don't agree with the outcome we have concerns about the outcome we

think there may have been fraud but the narrative that you hear in all of the media continues to be there was no fraud it was a fair election right but but i mean look at 2016 the same media was saying there was russian interference it wasn't a federal election you can see multiple times where former presidential candidates like hillary clinton said hey the election was stolen right unproven interference there so again my big concern about what's happening in georgia is you are using a county that is very, very heavily Democrat, right? 70, 75% of the voters in that county are registered Democrats. You're using an elected official, a DA, to bring a conspiracy charge against individuals who were, at worst, trying to determine whether or not there was fraud and based on their belief that there was

fraud in the election figure out legal means legal means with which to challenge the election and the outcome of the election very very dangerous precedent now there may be things that were done that were illegal but it it's very, very dangerous precedent to do that because now you're creating a scenario where, I mean, frankly, if we take morality out of it, we take ethics out of it or anything else, you're creating more and more incentive for politicians to cheat in elections because if you lose, you're going to be criminally prosecuted. I mean, is that really what we want going forward? Again, those are some of the things that I have concerns about when we look at these cases yeah I covered an op-ed pieces on brownstone from a lawyer and and he was essentially saying same thing he said you know when you I've been amazed he said to see how mainstream media would

just let Julian Assange twist in the wind for doing investigative journalism and wouldn't do anything about that do they realize that that's not going to come back to them and goes and now when I look at what is happening here, he says, you don't have to agree with what they were saying. He says, I've looked at the legal briefs and I thought they were garbage, but he says they were still investigating this thing. If you're going to criminalize the practice of law, and he says, most lawyers are being silent about this.

Just like most of the journalists are being silent about Julian Assange. If you're going to criminalize the practice of law and investigation around these cases and stuff like that. And he says that that's an amazing precedent that's being set. And you know, the mainstream media and the mainstream of the legal profession are not worried about these types of things. This really is the ground shifting under our feet,

isn't it? It is. And one of the concerns I have is you know what attorney is going to want to go and work for President Trump in a future White House or is going to want to work with him when most of the attorneys that have worked with him it seems more and more are getting criminally charged yeah right so I mean that's a very that's a very scary thing when we think about the practice of law. We want attorneys. We want a society where attorneys will represent individuals and advocate for a fair trial for anyone, regardless of their political affiliation, regardless of what they're alleged with doing or their background.

Everyone deserves a fair trial. But if we continue a process where we've decided we don't like President Trump we're going to go after him by any means and included in that is going to be coming after these attorneys and here's let me just imagine this these attorneys these attorneys that that were just involved in exploring and trying to figure out can we file litigation is there something we can do within the legal process to challenge this election? Those attorneys are now being criminally charged. They're facing half a million dollars in legal fees just to defend themselves in a case like this. And quite frankly, I'm also hearing there are attorneys that are afraid to represent them. There are attorneys that are saying, I'm risking my license, my entire legal career in order to defend you. So it's going to be a half a million dollars

or a million dollar bill because I'm risking everything. I'm risking my ability to make a living by doing this. And that bothers me much like it bothered me doctors that are losing their license because they recommended alternative treatments for COVID or they approved religious accommodations or recommended medical exemptions. So I just, again, I think those are the big picture concerns we have to recognize and deal with. Or you're not in a situation like journalism, for example. You know how I get kicked off all these, I've had PayPal ban me and so forth because they

don't like what I talk about. And so this is happening everywhere in our society. You know, this is taking it to a new level in terms of coming after the lawyers, and we should all be very concerned about that. But this is just in general, the new totalitarian rules that they're imposing on everybody. Everybody feels the lash when it comes to social media to one degree or the other, don't they? No, they absolutely do. And I think, you know, we have to, we have to be wise. We have to be careful in how we evaluate this. And the last thing I'll say about these criminal cases is this, you know, there was, there's

a subtle shift that's happened over, I would say over the last hundred years in our legal system. Most people outside the legal system wouldn't recognize that it happened, but it's really important because there's a concept called jury nullification. So the concept called jury nullification was part of our system. It was part of our system when our nation was founded, it was understood as critical. And jury nullification is this idea that when we take a criminal case and we put it in the hands of a jury, those 12 citizens can make a decision that say, we know that the law was violated technically here, but

the right outcome is to find this individual not guilty and move on. The government's wrong to persecute this person for this violation of the law. This concept of jury nullification, that has fallen completely out of favor. Many states have laws on the books that you can't even argue for jury notification as an attorney that you can't stand up and say, this is not the right thing to do in this case. I believe there's only one new England state that even has jury notification as a possibility on it.

No, no. Why do I bring that up? It's just something to pay attention to and think about. Ultimately, the jury is supposed to be supposed to be something critical in our system. Thomas Jefferson said the jury was the only anchor yet imagined by the mind of man through which a government could be held to the principles of its constitution. I mean, think about that. So I pray,

especially given what I do, but even for any case, I pray for juries, for citizens who are wise, who are discerning, who are clear-minded and are willing to push back against totalitarianism and tyranny from the government. But I do think that concept of jury nullification is something we need to figure out how to bring back, whether it's through legislation or otherwise. It needs to be a part of our system because in some cases, and I have tried cases where we have won, my clients have been acquitted because of jury nullification and we weren't allowed to argue it as you have the authority to do this under the law, but we were allowed to argue the right thing, the fair thing, the just thing is to acquit in this case. So that's just an important principle

we've lost sight of in the law. It needs to come back. Yes. So that's how I got hired at InfoWars. I was doing reports about Fully Informed Jury Association and some people who are standing up for it. And if you just hand out general literature about jury nullification downtown in front of the courthouse, not about any particular case or anything, they would come after them and try to get them in jail for jury tampering. That's how serious it was in terms of challenge. But it has always been a very important part.

Trial by jury had Gilbert and Sullivan writing an opera about trial by jury because it was understood to be such a bedrock of a society that was going to have rule of law and individual liberty. And it goes back to William Penn's trial. I've talked about that many times, establishing jury nullification as well as habeas corpus. And so this is something that's always been there. But the way that they get around this is in many cases, you have the judge just lie to the jury and say, you're not here to judge the law or the punishment. You're here to just judge the facts of the case. And nothing could be further from the truth. I had one person that I interviewed, uh, out of New Jersey and he, he

called himself New Jersey weed man. He had Rastafarian dreadlocks and stuff, and he smoked pot a lot and he got, uh, they, they, um, arrested him. He had quite a bit of marijuana for his own personal use. And if you, uh, talk to him, you'd realize that it really was for his own personal use. But he, he actually lit up when I was doing the interview with him, uh, over zoom, but, uh, he looked at it and he said, I couldn't get a lawyer to argue this case, but I knew it was in the New Jersey constitution. So I printed up that part of the constitution. And when I was

representing myself, he said, I knew that the majority of people did not support, uh, criminalization of marijuana in New Jersey. So I thought I knew that the majority of people did not support criminalization of marijuana in New Jersey. So I thought I could get off with jury nullification. So he puts up the sign and the judge immediately says, take that down. I'm going to hold you in contempt, throw you in jail. He said, but the problem is that the jury had already seen it, that it was in the New Jersey constitution. And so they voted seven to five to acquit him, uh, but, uh, with a hung jury. So the, the, uh, DA came back after him again and the next trial had a different judge and he did the same thing. And that judge allowed him to put that up, you know, the show, the New Jersey

constitution. And that time they acquitted him 12 to nothing. And, but we don't usually have jury trials anymore because they play this game. And this is another thing we've seen in these charges against Trump. They come in with so many trumped up charges that they try to get you to plea bargain out of it. That's the other issue. It seems to me like that's the really big issue, Davis, that how do we break this cycle of people who, A, don't believe that their fellow citizens are really going to take a stand and are really going to judge the law or whatever and the fact that they're so overcharged with the stuff because the game is they add all these additional charges and then

say well we'll drop the additional charges if you plead guilty to what we really wanted to get you for in the first place they don't present it that way but that's essentially what's happening how do we break that cycle you know it's it's a, it's a hard challenge to break that cycle cycle. But the reality is just look at federal courts, 98% of federal cases results in a plea agreement, 98%, right. And you know, there's this joke, we hear it all the time. It's become a trope, but it's scary to me how, how much of a trope it's become that we all violate. We all commit violations of federal law unknowingly every day, right? Each citizen does that.

There's something to that. So what happens is, especially with the way the federal guidelines work and sentencing is all in the hands of the judge, not in the hands of the jury. So federal judges, appointed federal judges are in charge of sentencing. And the issue is the way the guidelines work, you know, many individuals face, you know, dozens and dozens, sometimes hundreds of years in prison over the allegations. So they're sitting there going, okay, I'm, I'm looking at, you know, 25, 30, 50, $200,000 worth of legal fees, number one. And number two, I'm looking at the possibility, if this goes poorly of doing decades in prison, or I can take a deal, I can do two years of probation, I can save a lot of money on attorney's fees, and I can try and move past this. But there's no thought to the coercive nature

of these charging decisions. So one answer is to take a hard look at how we pick, how we select, and how we use United States attorneys. That's on the federal level. On the state level, I would encourage people to be very, very cautious. If you have the ability to vote in an election for a district attorney in your county at the state and local level, take that very, very seriously. Look hard at those people and try to find other people that are willing to run for that office at that local level that have some control and discretion and can do the right things because these DAs and these US attorneys do have a great deal of discretion in charging and that would be a great step. So there are political solutions to it. Unfortunately, we've just, we've created

a system where there are so many people going through the process. They can't prop, they can't properly give everyone a jury trial. The system breaks down. And so the system is built on, on plea bargain. And, you know, it was, um, I remember in the transition period before Trump, after he got elected in 2016, before he's sworn in 2017. Obama and Eric Holder talked about how they were going to focus on district attorney races and on state attorneys general. And they had a lot of money from Soros, as we've seen. And so we've seen that type of thing being done in all these different places. With Trump, we see it being put into practice. And I don't support Trump since he did what he did in 2020 with the lockdowns and the vaccines.

But I think it's an outrage what is happening. This weaponization, as you're pointing out, is setting up some very, very dangerous precedents for so many different things. And people can see what this strategy of district attorneys and state attorneys generals, they can see how dangerous that is and why that was so important to radical leftists like Obama, Eric Holder, and George Soros to spend lavishly on these races to put people on. I mean, they're spending millions of dollars on local district attorney races. So that tells you how important it is to them and that they're going to use this for something. So what you said is absolutely true. We have to look at the sheriff very carefully. We have to look at the local district attorney. We have to look at the state attorney general.

Those are races that I think in many ways are far more important than even the president because the president is so insular from all these different concerns. And it really is the people who are closest to you that are going to have the biggest effect on you. They can make things better or they can make things much worse than whoever's in Washington, can't they? That's absolutely right. And whether or not you support, you know, President Trump running again, you have to look at the reality of the plan that was put in place with these prosecutors, with these DAs, with these elections, the importance of these U.S. attorneys, you know, and now you have situations where, you know, the federal judge that the D.C. case, that judge has set the trial date for March 4th. That's the day before Super Tuesday. The D.A. in Georgia wants to set the trial for the same date the day before Super Tuesday. So, so again, you know, we should all just take pause, whether, whether we are a

Trump apologist or not. And I'm, I'm with you. I have grave concerns about how COVID was handled and what happened there. But the reality is this is partiality. This is using, using the criminal justice system to political advantage. And when you start looking at trial dates, you just have to roll your eyes and goes, wow, this, this feels a lot like election interference, doesn't it? They're doing that in our face, and they're doing it deliberately, and they're trying to escalate things into a civil war. And the thing that concerns me, I didn't get to the clips today to play them, but we've got people now openly talking about civil war and assassination, Tucker talking about the assassination of Trump. You got John Voight, the actor,

saying this is a civil war and everybody, Trump is becoming the Mason Dixon line. Uh, he, he, he pushes this stuff and, and because he makes money from this stuff. And so he, you know, he, he's taking the indictments to the bank and, and his poll numbers are going up, but the other people are doing the types of things like you talked about the fact they're going to put the trial date the day before super Tuesday and all the rest of this stuff. And, and it really is polarizing the country into a civil war i think that is a very very dangerous thing and it looks like both sides want that to happen seems like to me i mean again we we have to go there we we we have to be wise we have to be discerning and we have to

have those concerns and then we have to look to things like what will Congress do? Congress, the Republicans in Congress can vote to defund the DOJ, right? They can restrict the powers of the person. So there are political things that can be done, but if they're not done and we're not seeking political solutions, then the divide gets greater. The differences get greater and we reach into some very, very dangerous times. I pray that's not the direction this goes, but if political solutions aren't being sought, I agree with you. I have the same kind of concerns.

Yeah. When we look at this too, as soon as I saw the RICO statutes and I saw Rudy there, and he actually talked about this in his statements, the fact that he had used RICO so extensively as a prosecutor before he became mayor in New York. And, you know, when you look at the RICO statutes themselves, I've always had a big problem with the way they were organized. And it really was kind of an evolutionary path into civil asset forfeiture because the whole point of a big part of the Rico statute, besides, you know, making the prosecutor's job easier to come after organized crime, it was also to take away the money. So they wouldn't have the money to hire the best lawyers and defend themselves and get off on technicalities and things like that.

And so that gradually evolved over a period of time with people like Rudy and ironically with people like Joe Biden and to civil asset forfeiture, where they come in, they confiscate property from people and never even charge you with a crime, let alone find you guilty. And so I thought it was kind of ironic that Rudy is getting charged with the RICO statutes. What do you think about the RICO statutes in general? Yeah, I have grave concerns with them. You know, I'm a big believer in looking to the Bible as a foundation for how we approach our legal system. And one of the concerns I have with RICO statutes is just fundamentally it was designed to make prosecutions and getting convictions easier. That troubles me. Just notionally, whether it's my time

as a prosecutor or as a defense attorney, anytime we're changing the law to try to get more convictions or make prosecution easier, I'm troubled by that because that's not supposed to be the point of our legal system. Our legal system is supposed to be designed to punish the evil and protect the innocent. It's not about numbers, prosecutions, or anything else. So RICO statutes have a troubled history. They were used with some effect against the mob, and you could see how you could bring down an organization by doing that. At the same time, whenever you have a conspiracy like that, whenever you have a RICO statute,

the problem is I represent individuals. Sometimes I do court appointed work in the federal system. So you'll have a very low level drug dealer, right? So not the greatest human being in the world. I understand that, but very, very low level, minimally involved. But because they're charged under a conspiracy or under a RICO type statute, all of a sudden, they're responsible for millions of dollars worth of drug trafficking over an entire region when all they were was a bag man or something else on a very low level, right? A user that sold a little bit and they're responsible for anything else. So one of the

things that bothers me about it is it does lead often to what I would consider unfair outcomes and really escalates the criminal liability for individuals who are just, you know, bit players in something or even just didn't fully understand the scope of what they were getting involved with when they did. Yeah, yeah. This whole civil asset forfeiture thing, I talked about a case that's getting some publicity now. It's several years old, about six years old, up in Muskegee, Oklahoma. And just, you know, pulling a guy over, going through his car, you know, he's got a taillight out or something like that and just finding cash and taking all the cash.

And it was cash that they'd been doing as a Christian band concerts they were doing for people. And, um, and so it was their pay as well as donations that they had picked up cash donations for an orphanage and all the rest of the stuff. And, but this has become kind of standard operating procedure. And the, the police have been corrupted by this heavily because they get to participate in the booty,

but it's, you know, just taking the stuff, never even charging the person, but charging the object, the inanimate object, you know, they make a,

it's like, you know, the, the government versus, uh, this car serial number, this or a jet or a house or a stack of cash or whatever. They don't even bother to charge the person, let alone find them guilty. That's the

thing that I see just so amazing to me. And it's kind of another one with Trump when he said about the red flag laws, you just take the gun and do the due process later. I said, well, that's not due process if you don't do it when it's due, right, it's going to be done beforehand. And, and, but this is a really dangerous thing that's happening. And it's been happening to ordinary people for a very long time. I was talking about civil asset forfeiture back in the nineties. And, and yet, um, now, uh, you know, that it is, is getting gotten to the point where they're coming after their political opponents using this type of tactic, Rico and civil asset forfeiture,

that's still not really being talked about by either the left or the right press. They're still not talking about these injustices. It's still strictly about Trump versus Biden. They're not looking at the overarching issues and the precedents that are being set here, I'm afraid. Yeah, I agree with you. I think that's a grave concern and that's why we have to, we have to stay engaged. We have to stay alert. That's why I appreciate the work that you do in trying to help people understand and educate people because we have to pay attention to these things and we need to remember the law should be the law. It shouldn't matter.

There shouldn't be partiality. There shouldn't be concerns. Justice is supposed to be blind for a reason. That's what we should fight for. We should live in a society and a system where it doesn't matter who is on trial or where in the nation there are, we should be able to count on our fellow citizens to do the right thing. We should be able to count on district attorneys. Now we live in a fallen world. That's never going to happen. But if we go back to, and we understand why we had things like jury nullification, that's never going to happen but if we go back to and we understand why we had things like jury nullification yes that's that's a critically important thing why we why we gave Congress why

the founders gave Congress the power of the purse they don't exercise it anymore because everybody feeds into the system but there is so much power that comes from the ability of Congress to work on funding I mean look, look at simple things like what Senator Tuberville is doing in Alabama. I know very little about Senator Tuberville. I wasn't necessarily optimistic about him as a senator, but he has done so much to protect the military from woke ideology, as well as to push back against the abortion policy by simply saying, I'm going to object to unanimous consent to these military nominees we can either go and have a full hearing and have a floor vote or i'm gonna

i'm gonna keep my block in place and i'm gonna object to this unless you change your illegal policy on funding abortions and unless you give us an opportunity to understand who it is are these communists or not that you're appointing to senior senior military positions um that's a really good example of our country in mind or not that's right it's a really good example of what one person can do if they're committed to this uh you can really be a fly in the ointment and there's things that you can do to to stop that instead of just rubber stamping everything that's going along and that's typically what we have seen with Congress. You know, the other part of it is let's just kick it over to the bureaucracy and let them have the hot potato.

And then if they get really wrong, we can come in like we're the saviors on, you know, on a white horse and we can, you know, fix this thing and blame it all on the bureaucracy, which never has to answer to the public at all. So we have this system of taxation without representation and now regulation without representation as well from these people. I'm so glad that you talked about a fully informed jury association, and that is not the association, but, but, uh, an informed jury. That is, um, a key thing, I think. And it is something that is so vital that we have lost. And just to state it again, everybody needs to

understand that if you're a juror, you're there to judge not just the facts of the case, but you're there to judge the law and the penalties that will be applied. And if you think that the law is unjust or the penalties are going to be excessive, it is your right and your duty as a juror to oppose that. But you're told exactly the opposite by almost all these judges. And I guess, you know, what I've heard is that if you start talking about it to your fellow jurors, they'll kick you out of there and put in an alternate, right? Is that typically what happens? That has happened. There's been documented cases of that happening. Absolutely. Truly amazing. Well, you know, when you look at these other cases, just real quickly,

not just the one in Georgia, that's particularly egregious in terms of its politics. And before we leave it, let me just ask you your opinion about this. As I've looked at this and other people have looked at it, it looks like another part of this strategy is to have so many people that are there that they can get the lawyers to turn on Trump. And by charging the lawyers, she can break the attorney-client privilege. That's another important precedent that they're trying the lawyers to turn on Trump. And by charging the lawyers, she can break the attorney-client privilege. That's another important precedent that they're trying to get rid of. So by charging the lawyers, then that breaks that, makes them co-defendants,

and then hoping that they will turn on Trump. And then Trump is not paying for anybody's big legal fees. And that's kind of a dangerous thing for him as well. Even one guy who had to sit in jail for over a week because he couldn't make bail and couldn't afford a lawyer. He's now got online fundraising, uh, gifts and go or something like that.

Uh, but, um, it is, um, yeah. What do you think about that strategy? You think that's going to,

uh, backfire on Trump and that some of these lawyers are going to flip? Is that what her ultimate strategy is, you think? Yeah, I, you know, the reason, in my opinion, the reason don't know how much of it is true, but I heard yesterday that in the, the Mar-a-Lago case, the classified documents case in Florida, that someone is already flipping, someone's already cooperating, at least with regard to like the obstruction, the destruction of video charges, things like that. So, you know, it's a very common practice for prosecutors to use that, you know, as

far as what Trump does and how he approaches it, I do think there is a feeling among many that they can't possibly afford, many people associated with him, they can't possibly afford the legal fees that this requires to fight this. And he is raising unprecedented amounts of money for his campaign or through his campaign. And his legal defense fund money isn't hurting so you know there probably are some concerns about whether or not he can provide money to co-defendants and and what that does if that looks like obstruction because they're not cooperating but he could certainly go out and say these people are patriots you need to support them

and help them just like you're supporting and helping me. I do think there are things he could do to do that. It's dangerous. It's unprecedented legal issues we're dealing with. This idea of trying to appear Pierce attorney client privilege, very, very dangerous. But I do think he should be doing at least to the extent he possibly can, everything he can for these other co-defendants because they're just caught up in issues um that many of them have no control over they're just trying to do do the job do a job the best of their ability that's right yeah and it's not good optics even for the politics to let these other guys go to jail uh because they can't afford a lawyer or bail you know that that's something that's not very wise you know when you talk about the documents case, I don't know, what is your general take on this? I'll tell you, I look at the documents case. To me, that seems like the

only one where they have a clear violation. And yet again, you know, why it is selective prosecution. They don't appear to be interested in anybody else violating these laws. I mean, technically he appears to have violated. I haven't seen any lawyers that came up with a plausible defense for it. Dershowitz, as hard as he tried, said, well, maybe the documents were already declassified and maybe he didn't know it. That's the best he could come up with. But, you know, what everybody sees is the fact that, no, they haven't come after Biden or Hillary or anybody else about these things. And so they still see it as a lawfare against, um, him, you know, weaponized, uh, legal, uh, attack against him, uh, even if he technically, uh, did violate it.

But what is it from, from your position? Because you've been involved with, uh, military, uh, trials and things like that. I'm sure that, you know, uh, uh, classified, uh, security and things like that have come up in the past what is your opinion about that particular case you know my i think my frustration with that case is it is an example i think of you know politically targeted and selective prosecution because here's the issue you're really dealing with two different laws you're dealing with the espionage act that goes all the way back to world war one, Woodrow Wilson, which is really what

they're charging him under. But it was never designed, it was never intended to go after the president of the United States. There's another law called the Presidential Records Act, right? The Presidential Records Act, which really is what's supposed to apply to presidential documents and the requirement to archive these documents for historical purposes, but there are no criminal penalties in the Presidential Records Act. So in the past, with other presidents, everything's been handled. They've had to turn over documents under the Presidential Records Act, but they were allowed to keep things, again, under that act for personal historical reasons. So it really is a selective prosecution issue. So yes, technically,

if things that President Trump believed were covered under the Presidential Record Act or believed that he was allowed to take, even maybe his attorneys advising him thought it was okay for him to take, but they weren't technically declassified yet, yeah, there could be some technical violations to the law. But that, again, goes back to one of those issues of what was the intent of the law when Congress passed it? And is a prosecutor twisting the intent of the law and using essentially a technicality to try to come after a political opponent? And I think the answer to that is yes. Yes. And you go back to that

espionage act that you talk about, Woodrow Wilson, I think the 1917 espionage act. And I remember very clearly talking about how the Obama cohorts, which are essentially, you know, what's around Biden at this point in time running his administration. But during the Obama administration, they charged more people in his eight years. They charged more people with the 1917 Espionage Act than all of the previous administrations combined. And so it is a favorite tactic of theirs to use the 1917 Espionage Act. So it's got his fingerprints and that whole group all over that thing. But yeah, it truly is amazing that it's gotten to this point. But my big concern with it, again, as you point out,

there's some very dangerous precedents that are being established. And it is also being used to intensify this tribalization and this polarization and everybody's getting ready to fight over this stuff and and it is coming up to um i don't know if you pay attention to the fourth turning or not but it's something strauss and how talked about in the early 90s the guys who came up with the names millenn millennial and everything, they looked at a cycle of about, um, every 80 years, about every fourth generation, there'll be a turning in society where there would be a major restructuring of all the different institutions, usually accompanied by a financial crisis or, and or war, you know, and, and the previous ones were world war two and the great depression.

And prior to that civil war, prior to that, the American Revolutionary War. They went back 500 years in American and British history. And so we're at a time where the people are really kind of primed for this. And this seems to be the flashpoint, in my opinion, what they're doing here with Trump. It truly is amazing. But I don't know. It's great to talk to you. And is there anything else on your mind you'd like to talk about? Homeschooling, anything like that that's

happening? Well, you know, I think one of the things that I think you would be interested in being aware of, and I think something we need to keep an eye on, is a trend we're seeing with regard to, it affects all parental rights, but it particular can affect homeschoolers. It's this, there was a story that came out this week where Pennsylvania, that's where I live, where I practice local law, they engaged in a training program. So the state of Pennsylvania created a training program in partnership with the University of Pittsburgh. And what they did is they put out training materials that say, essentially, if the parents are homophobic, if the parents are opposed to their child transitioning, um, that could be a danger. They could be a threat and you should

consider whether or not it's appropriate to remove a child from the home in Pennsylvania. Wow. Okay. So it's big news that I want people to see because there was a lot of attention that was paid to states on the West Coast like Washington who came out with laws that specifically had legislation on the books that says that's a reason not allowing a child to get an abortion or opposing an abortion or opposing medical treatment, so-called medical transgender treatment, child mutilation, puberty blockers, those things, that that could be a threat to the child. Well, other states now, and we're seeing this in Pennsylvania, the training materials have now been released.

They're publicly available. Just no one was paying attention. You have your local county social workers being trained to look for people who have religious beliefs that talks about traditional religious beliefs that oppose this and the danger and threat that may make to a child. So when we talk big picture about homeschooling, the biggest, you know, continued, uh, drum that I will beat is homeschool your children or get them into a really good, small Christian private school. Do everything you can to do that because the cases we have seen in Pennsylvania,

the cases we'll continue to see in Pennsylvania will usually involve some sort of an interaction with a public school counselor, teacher, otherwise that starts a child down the path of confusion that these individuals will play into their, their mental illness. Um, they will drum that up and, and then you will see this. And then all of a sudden, you know, the County is knocking at your door and removing your children. So I'm not trying to be alarmist on that, but it's something we have to pay attention to. Yeah. As a matter of fact, that's another level up. I just talked about, uh, this week about Massachusetts where they had, I think it was yesterday I talked about it. Uh, they had

a couple who, uh, wanted to adopt. And so they were going to get into the foster care program and adoption program. And as part of that, they realized that they were Christians and, uh, that they were not going to go along with the LGBT agenda and that type of thing. So they kicked them out of the program. So there's a lawsuit happening there, but what you're talking about there and Pennsylvania is even worse. That's coming after people who are parents and taking the kids away from them simply because they don't go along with the LGBT agenda. And as you point out, it's going to be the schools that are going to kind of act like the Stasi

informants, you know, saying, well, this is what we see, you know, sending a child protective services, so-called, and to attack the parents, isn't it? Wow. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. So homeschool your kids, get them in a good private school, a good Christian school, a small one that you know what's being taught, that you understand what's happening.

The other thing I tell parents all the time, particularly homeschool parents, is pay very careful attention to who your doctor is. Your primary care physician. People miss this completely, but your primary care physician, your doctor has a critical role in all of this because you have progressive doctors. You have clinics that won't take you as a patient if your kids don't get every single vaccine as soon as they're born or otherwise. But you also have these clinics that will push this medical mutilation of children and feed into these things. And so you need a really good primary care physician that at least understands and is sympathetic to your religious beliefs and basic parental rights. And that's a good buffer against the county, against the state, or otherwise when it comes to protecting your children and protecting your

family. So that's the other note of encouragement I would have for folks that are out there is pay attention to who your doctor is. Be very careful about that. That's real important advice. Yeah, because they can become the informant to get you into trouble if you don't do the vaccines and that type of thing. And that is something a lot of people don't think about. And it's getting harder and harder to find doctors like that because they're setting up the, you know, they've taken over the institutions and they're the gatekeepers and they're looking for people who are going to, you know, go into their political side of things. And then they heavily push this as part of the medical curriculum as well. It has always been about parental rights. I don't know if you saw the article about Michael

Ferris, the Homeschool Legal Defense Association. Washington posted a detailed article about him, and they focus on parental rights because he's understood that parental rights is at the essence of all this stuff, homeschooling and everything else. And so that is really going to be where the fight is going to be. It's going to be about parental rights. Well, it's always great talking to you. Again, Davis Yontz and his website is yontzlaw.com. And it's great to have somebody talk about not just doctors, but to talk about lawyers who look at things from a Christian moral perspective, and therefore they're going to try to uphold the law as it is written. It is great to talk to you. Thank you so much for coming on. Hey, thank you, brother. God bless you.

Thank you. God bless you. We're going to take a quick break, and we'll be right back, folks. Using free speech to free minds. It's the David Knight Show. 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 listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. TheDavidKnightShow.com. Terima kasih telah menonton! Thank you. You're listening to The David Knight Show.

Sometimes your day needs a little smoothing. Check out the Jazz Channel at APSradio.com and the APS Radio app and leave the stress behind. I'm delighted to present something born from my love for music and the Christmas season. Christmas night is a perfect accompaniment for anything from family take to the soundtrack of Christmas. This collection of 20 instrumental songs brings new life to timeless Christmas classics, with original orchestrations alongside lesser-known, yet equally enchanting carols. For the listeners of The David Knight Show, this is more than music. It's part of our shared journey. Christmas night is available at thedavidknightshow.com.

May it bring a little extra joy and peace to your Christmas season. Thank you for your unwavering support and for joining me in this new musical adventure. Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good Christmas night. So the Pentagon has launched what they call Operation Prosperity Guardian. And the question is, whose prosperity are they guarding? I think they're guarding the prosperity of the military-industrial complex. Because this ever-escalating war is not about our prosperity. It's about the prosperity of the war machine.

Wars make countries poor. And they kill us as well. The operation will be within the framework of the existing combined maritime force 153, a partnership of 39 nations focusing on countering this. Do these other countries, do they have missiles that are capable of defending themselves against drones at sea? Just asking for a friend. Or are they going to be sitting ducks out there? You know?

Oh, well look, you know, we had the Albanian Navy naval ship or the, uh, Argentine general Bill Grodd. It just got taken out by, you know, they've got some world war two vintage thing.

They take out a moth balls and put it in as part of the coalition. It gets taken out by an train and Iranian drone. Now we've got an excuse to go to the next level of war, right? Is that what this is really about? I mean, you've got the American ships, you've got the British, maybe the French or whatever. These other countries, do they have the ability to take out these drones? We'll see.

Or maybe this is just another setup to get us further in. Australia does. Australia has bought some of these ships from America. They're reportedly in talks with the Pentagon over a U.S. request to send Australian warship to the Red Sea to assist. This is, folks, this is a training exercise, I think, for the most part. Are the U.S. media failing to report all the current cyber attacks that are happening everywhere? Well, you know, Goat Tree told me me we talked to goat tree last week and um he uh contacted me at the end of the week he said you know i said holidays are going to be a busy time in terms of

cyber attacks because you got the core people are taking time off and so you're going to have um uh you know people who um may not be as quick to respond to some of this stuff, put into jobs that they don't necessarily typically do. And, uh, but he said at the end of the week, he contacted me and he said, boy, uh, the cyber attacks have just lit up. Never seen anything like it going to be a busy holiday. He said, well, there's many reports of cyber attacks on the news right now, but there's many, many more that are not being talked about. As a matter of fact, they actively discourage that and they give companies when they have been attacked, they give them protection. So they don't have to disclose

that necessarily. But when we talk about Operation Prosperity, as I said before, who is this prosperity for? Well, it's for our guardians who get us into wars, the military industrial complex, because as I mentioned at the top of the program, we're going to be taking out their $2,000 drones with our $2 million missiles. We spend a thousand times more on that to take those things out. And so the question is, you know, can the feds continue to print money faster than the hoodies can manufacture these drones when you look at this as i said this is like asymmetric warfare but it's now gone to the sea asymmetric warfare you come in massive shock and awe your advanced

tanks and your advanced planes everything and you just wipe out an area and then you occupy it and that's when the asymmetric warfare begins that's when they have the improvised uh explosive devices on the roads and the sniper attacks and the suicide bombs and all the rest of the stuff that just goes on and on and on just drones on and on well now they've got drones that they're sending against the naval ships very cheap drones in the same way, very unsophisticated drones, uh, from Yemen, from the hoodies. I mean, they're probably provided by Iran. You know, we're paying a thousand dollars more for these things than they are. Uh, they said they've got some other things, you know, they could take them out with guns at a closer range, but they don't

want to take that risk. So they use a longer range missiles and that's what, you know, the Pentagon is not going to tell you exactly what they're doing, but the people who are in the business know these things cost 2.1 million. They've got some other ones that cost only 1.8 million, but we don't have anything that's cheap like those people do besides the money that's involved there. What about the manufacturing process? Is it a lot, lot easier to make these crude drones than it is for us to make these very expensive missiles? I would imagine there are a lot of mission-critical electronics in there that may not be readily available.

Destroyers are limited in how many missiles they've got. They've got about 90 or so missile tubes that they've got to go back and get more. But then, you know, they've got a lot more destroyers that they're putting in there to minimize that but um when you look at um the cost again you know we're using these two million dollar missiles to take out two thousand dollar drones uh go back to the asymmetric nature of reagan's attacks on qaddafi you know when when Gaddafi was a terrorist before he calmed down, and then later they killed him after he no longer attacking people. But when he was a terrorist and, you know, they had the Lockerbie,

Scotland terrorist attack, killing all those people on that plane. Reagan unleashed a bunch of cruise missiles, blowing up Gaddafi's tents in the desert. You know, that was a good example of this. But when you look at the cost of a lot of the stuff that we have, yes, it's very sophisticated. However, because we have in the military industrial complex, we used to have about 50 contractors not that long ago.

Now we're down to five. Same type of consolidation that you've seen in the banks. Same type of consolidation that you've seen in entertainment and news and all the rest of this stuff. And what does that come with? Well, that comes with price gouging and corruption. And so you have Boeing, which had been selling a trash can for $300 to the AWACS. These are the big planes that are basically you know, basically doing reconnaissance and feeding all that back.

So the AWACS plane was based on a civilian plane that they, so they couldn't charge more than they would charge for the same part on a civilian plane. And they were charging $300 for a cash trash can. Well, I don't know about you, but I've never bought a $300 trash can. I can't imagine how fancy that thing would be. What is it about a three? How in the world could you justify a $300 trash can even for commercial flight usage, right? But then after they retired its commercial usage and they said,

well, now we only make this plane for the military. Then Boeing was able to raise the price to whatever they wanted to. And they raised the price from $300, which is outrageous to $52,000 for a trash can. These are the types of things we've always seen all of our life, you know, the $600 toilet seat and stuff like that. Well, now we've got a $52,000 trash can. And they're not the only ones to do it. You know, Lockheed Martin and some electrical conduit that they were,

they just raised the price on that by 1,400% increase. So this is the corruption that is part of the guardians of our prosperity. I think they're guarding their own prosperity, don't you? I think that we need to rethink this whole American empire thing. I'm delighted to present something born from my love for music and the Christmas season. Christmas night is a perfect accompaniment for anything from family gatherings to moments of peaceful reflection. My hope is to provide a fresh take to the soundtrack of Christmas. This collection of 20 instrumental songs brings new life to timeless Christmas classics, with original orchestrations alongside lesser-known, yet equally enchanting carols.

For the listeners of The David Knight Show, this is more than music. It's part of our shared journey. Christmas Night is available at thedavidknightshow.com. May it bring a little extra joy and peace to your Christmas season. Thank you for your unwavering support and for joining me in this new musical adventure. Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good Christmas night. Ere sed non sop, mih te rene, Ere sop, sop, sop, mih te rene, Ere sop, sop, mih te rene, Ere sop, sop, mih te rene, Ere sop, sop, mih te rene, La voce di Dio, la voce di Dio, la voce di Dio, la voce di Dio. You're listening to The David Knight Show.

Whether you're feeling like the blues or bluegrass, APS Radio has you covered. Check out a wide variety of channels on our app at apsradio.com. Terima kasih telah menonton! ¶¶ You're listening to The David Knight Show.