The David Knight Show - Thu Episode #2293: — The Military Industrial Complex Now Runs Every Part of America

Episode Date: June 25, 2026

────────────────────────────────────────[00:02:09]Trump Commandeers Ford and GM to Make Missiles — Same Defense Production Act Used for VentilatorsAmid depleted stockpiles, Trump issued an emergency order pulling automakers into weapons production; Knight: at least missiles are understood to be for killing.────────────────────────────────────────[00:09:14]Hegseth Says Under-Investment Is America's Greatest Threat — Knight: The Pentagon Budget Is the ThreatHegseth demands Congress pass a 1.5 trillion dollar defense budget; Knight: the military-industrial complex pushing wars for profit is the real danger.────────────────────────────────────────[00:14:48]Factory Layoffs Hit Pandemic Levels — Trump's Tariffs Destroyed the Manufacturing He Promised to SaveEmployment fell for the second straight month; raw material and energy costs are the driver; Knight: we never recovered from what Trump did in 2020.────────────────────────────────────────[00:18:06]Trump Signs Quantum Computing Orders — Family Positioned to Profit Through 1789 CapitalTwo orders direct agencies to build a quantum computer by 2028 and crack current encryption; Trump Jr.'s firm is already invested in nine of the targeted quantum companies.────────────────────────────────────────[00:25:09]Musk Compares SpaceX to Union Pacific — The Original Was a Corrupt Government Monopoly That Bribed CongressUnion Pacific pocketed $1.2B before the 1872 scandal; Stanford historian called it a mess of self-dealing; Knight: that is the Trump regime in total.────────────────────────────────────────[00:56:33]NSA's Stellar Wind Was Illegal From Day One — Section 702 Was Passed to Retroactively Legalize ItHayden committed a felony on September 12, 2001; the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 was Congress's effort to make the illegal program facially lawful.────────────────────────────────────────[01:00:21]FBI Interrogated Cato Analyst, Told Him to Think About American Freedom Before Writing AgainTwo agents questioned him on writings, travel, and associations; when he resumed writing, an agent called again.────────────────────────────────────────[01:13:59]TSA's Real ID Is a Population Control Measure — Right to Travel Without Molestation Is ConstitutionalTSA wants to retain biometric data indefinitely just as NSA retains 702 data; Eddington: enough precedent exists to challenge Real ID.────────────────────────────────────────[01:20:46]NSA Rejected Binney's Privacy-Preserving System, Spent $700M on a Boondoggle That Never WorkedBinney's team had a working solution by 1999 quarantining US data pending a warrant; NSA chose Trailblazer instead, which produced no working prototype.────────────────────────────────────────[02:12:11]Canadian Researcher Massey: No Signed Orders Were Ever Produced — COVID Policy Was Pure Martial LawPolice enforced lockdowns without written authorization; Canadian criminal code Section 229C makes deaths from unlawful injections culpable homicide and murder. ──────────────────────────────────────── Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code “KNIGHT” For high quality made in America products go to HomeSteadProducts.shop and use promo code “Knight” for 10% off your purchases Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act it's the david night show as the clock strikes 13 it's thursday the 25th of june year of our lord 2006 well today we're going to begin by talking about the creeping fascism of trump and i'm not talking about the labels that the marxist left see everybody is a fascist i'm talking about the real economic definition of fascism trump is heavily into this idea, just like China, where the government is going to partner and joint ownership with businesses. It's going to pick the winners and the losers, and guess what? The winners are going to be also owned by the people in government, that kind of creeping corruption, that merger between the state and corporations. And we also have interviews with Patrick Eddington of the

Cato Institute. We're going to talk about FISA and the creeping surveillance state on that side of it. And we're going to talk about with Christine Massey about virology and the basis of the fraud. There was a basis of the lies about this pandemic. We'll be right back. Well, President Trump is meeting with major defense contractors. He's working with them. He's very concerned about the stockpiles of munitions because we have depleted so much in support of Israel's cause, their war that they caused. And what he is saying is very much like what he's been saying about the war from the very beginning. Remember how he talked about, boasted about the fact that they were winning so hugely, right?

And yet at the same time, he is demanding help. Don't beat your chest and tell me how big your win is and then get angry with people because they're not helping you. And I really got to have your help, but you're not helping me. And he's doing the same thing now. He's saying, well, we don't really need to add this stuff up, but I'm going to spend tens of billions of dollars on this stuff. And I'm going to have an executive order that's going to pull in Ford and General Motors as well. So amid concerns of America's dwindling stockpile of sophisticated munitions, Trump has summoned top military contractors, along with senior Pentagon officials to the White House, to talk about increasing production in an emergency basis.

He said we're building plants all over the country, noting that GM and Ford will begin to help to produce weapons. Same thing that he did with the ventilators, right? I mentioned this briefly yesterday. Yeah, he got Peter Navarro to lean on GM and Ford and say, stop making cars. You know, we're not going to let people have cars anymore. We need you to make ventilators. The difference is, at least now, people understand that this emergency product is about killing. That's what the missiles are really for.

The ventilators were as well. People didn't understand that. He said some of the car companies, if they have any excess capacity, oh, you made sure that didn't you? You got all kinds of regulations and you've got all kinds of taxes and tariffs that have raised the price of cars to the extent people can't afford to get a new car anymore. Most people can't. So, yeah, they've got excess capacity, that's for sure.

They want to make a deal to build missiles. So this is the government comes along and breaks your leg and then tells you what heroes they are for giving you a crutch. He's destroyed the free market with all this stuff. As a matter of fact, what he's going to do is he's going to put the general and general motors. And he's going to take the Ford out of affordability. That is the plan for the federal government in a nutshell, folks. The president last met with major defense contractors in March, the beginning of March, after he declared that they had agreed to quadruple. production of what he called the exquisite class of weaponry. We will pay exquisitely for this

privilege as well, dearly for it. Trump has insisted the weapons stockpiles are just fine, but nevertheless, I'm going to have an emergency executive order. He said, but the defense analysts have warned that the U.S. military has a finite number of interceptors, and they cannot be replenished in short order. Patriot interceptors or Tomahawk cruise missiles that have been used to shut down. drones and missiles in the war already were in short supply before the conflict because of what was happening with Ukraine. You know, it's too bad that Trump doesn't read because one book that I would recommend that he reads is the mythical manmoth.

This is something that was required reading for us as engineers. And the bottom line is that so many times people think, well, you know, we have this project. And so what we need to do is we need to add a lot more. people onto this project. We need more engineers, more programmers, or whatever. And it doesn't really work that way. What happens is you wind up with this unwieldy thing and the overhead for managing all the extra people really doesn't buy you anything at all in terms of speed. In many cases, what does is it slows things down. And so they look at it and they calculate out, well, you know, we need, this is this many men months of work. So let's just add more men. It doesn't work that way. Or women.

Right. Trump earlier this month invoked the infamous Defense Production Act. This is what he invokes all the time when he wants to take over control of the economy. Do we really want to have this kind of central control of the economy? Do we want him taking an ownership share? You know, this has gone way beyond the bailouts that we've had in the past. And, of course, there's no constitutional authority for a bailout. We all understand that there's horrible economics. It messes up the marketplace.

It messes up supply and demand and, you know, having the invisible hand of competition and choice that is there when you have the government coming in and picking the winners and losers and saying, well, because these people have done a poor job for whatever, we're not going to let them collapse. We're going to prop them up. They're too big to fail. Well, that is a failing attitude. But even worse, Trump has taken it to the logical next step. Well, let's become partners with them. and my sons and I can get stock in this thing as well. That's the kind of corruption that we're looking at with this.

But it's also a central planning, a command control economy, like we see out of the likes of the Chinese communists. Let me tell you, this is a surefire way to make sure that you lose in any competition to the communists. Our advantage is the fact that we operated off of freedom and free markets. And they're making sure that that doesn't take place. So the issues, as they're pointing out, that they're falling behind on the military side, limited production capacity, and fragile supply chains.

Why would that be fragile? Who was it that's messed with our supply chains more than anybody in history? Trump. Going back to the lockdowns of 2020, going back to his tariffs, interjecting himself into the law? He's the one who did that. Yeah, I really did do that. that. You can get the sticker for that. It's not just the price of oil, but it's messing with supply chains, and he's doing it yet again. And a lot of these companies are paying too much for the supplies

that they used to be able to get, whether you're talking about metals like aluminum or other things like that. He's made that extremely expensive. Companies can't receive full funding for any of the new munitions contracts Trump is touting until lawmakers agreed to pass a defense spending bill. But he wants an historic one and a half trillion dollar defense budget. That's what the president is demanding. The president king, we should call him. Congress appears have no appetite for such a high military spending. Well, don't kid yourself. They'll go in for it. They really will. There's a lot of arm twisting that'll happen, but they will get their money. They hit a record of a trillion dollars. Then immediately, he and War Pete come around and want to boost that by another 50%.

The Pentagon has also requested nearly $53 billion to increase production of what they call critical munitions, like the Patriot and Thad interceptors. Hegg Seth is set to sell the House Republicans on military funding goals Wednesday. Don't know how that went. On the Republican Study Committee's weekly members-only lunch. In an op-ed piece in New York Post that ran on Tuesday, Heg Seth pressed Congress to pass Trump's defense budget. He argued, quote, the single greatest threat to America's national security today is under investment in military spending.

Let me tell you, as usual, Hexeth is lying and he is 100% wrong. The single greatest threat to America is this enthronement of national security because they can put anything they want under national security. And the single greatest threat to America is this bloated Pentagon budget and the military industrial complex that pushes us into wars for profit. You know, they create these budgets, just like Trump said, he said, why would I spend so much money on the military if I wasn't going to go to war? Right. So when they have that there, it is a temptation to people of low intellect and no character like Trump. It's an invitation to war to use those powers. And of course, there's more than just a temptation. There's a tremendous push against him.

So Trump is saying the U.S. carmakers could produce missiles. Yeah, they've had a lot of experience making cars that bomb in the marketplace, haven't they? Thanks to the government designing the cars and mandating what they'll look like. And so I guess the question is, if they're going to make these missiles, are the missiles going to be electric so they don't have a carbon footprint? got to make them nice and clean so that when they blow up,

they don't put any extra heat out there to melt down the planet. This is just another one of these examples. I mean, talking about all the time the fraud of this carbon footprint stuff. It's just some aguffin to make sure that they control what you eat,

what you do, where you go. They don't care about their missiles. They don't care about their bombs. They don't care about their rockets that put up their satellites, they don't care about any of that stuff. And they don't care about the power and the heat

from this massive buildout of data surveillance centers. They don't care about any of that stuff. They want their wars. They want their surveillance. They don't care about the energy that is used to do those things. So, again, he says, they're dealing with General Motors. They're dealing with Ford. I know General Motors is all excited about building weapons now.

Yeah, they can make money. So you're going to take these people that in the past used to make consumer goods that people wanted. Now you're going to pay them exorbitant amounts of money to make bombs and missiles for wars that nobody wants, except these people at the top. And it's going to make them a lot of money. So again, they're expected to be converted into military production because, hey, we're not going to make cars anymore. Let's bring these guys over. Is they going to phase out the cars? And is they're making them unaffordable and unwontable?

We can have them make other things that we don't want and can't afford. And that's also going to try the prices of cars up. If the plants or manufacturing things that were doing some small amount of manufacturing in the U.S., that's now going to end as they're turning that over to missiles. And he taxes anything that isn't made in the U.S., whereas the U.S. plants are going to be busy. That's right. Yeah, war Pete is absolutely obsessed with war. Let's know what he has to say. He comes in and says, we've got to put the country on wartime footing. Why? We don't want a war. You didn't declare a war. You didn't go through the constitutional process of having a war.

We shouldn't be on a wartime footing. Wait a minute. I thought this was a de-escalation action. Are we on de-escalation footing? No, this kind of obsession with war, with killing people, this kind of glee and delight that he takes in doing it, folks, that is disqualifying in and of itself, even if he were competent, which he isn't. Trump has downplayed the shortage concerns again, you know, so why the desperation? He keeps telling everybody, oh, we've got quite a few missiles. Don't really need it, but, hey, we've got to drop everything and commandeer the car companies

because I'm desperate to get this stuff through. It's just like he said about the war. Hey, we're winning. We've destroyed everything they've got. but I need help. Come on, you're not going to help me? Well, I'm going to punish you if you don't help me. It's this type of thing.

So a shock report shows the factory layoffs at financial crisis and pandemic levels. Yeah, manufacturing is going down the tubes. We can't make anything anymore except war. Yeah, let's make bombs and blow up the world. Latest S&P Global Report shows worrisome news for manufacturing in the United States. Remember, wasn't that it supposed to be what terrorists were all about? we're going to bring manufacturing home. Now, what you did was you brought higher cost to our manufacturers

so that you handicap them and they can't sell their products abroad. It is a tax on the consumer. It's a tax on production and shutting it down. Trump's policies are doing exactly the opposite of what he says they're going to do, whether he knows it or not. He may be stupid enough that he doesn't know what he's doing, or this could just be the overall deception. Yeah, Lance?

Just a good way of putting it. It's at pandemic levels. What is the common factor between the pandemic economy crash and this one? That's right. Factory job cuts are approaching the highest levels since Trump was last in office in 2020. That's the way you put it. Employment fell for the second month in a row. And quite frankly, we've never recovered from what Trump did in 2020.

and you had a brownstone article from Jeremy Tucker who talked about that. Manufacturing jobs were cut at the fastest rate since the pandemic lockdowns of 2020, which is what he did. Further falling employment, notably in the manufacturing sector. One of the key things to this is the escalating cost of raw materials, the escalating cost of energy. You know, this is one of the tail-tale things that happened with China. When they put together the Paris Climate Accord, they ensured that cost of energy was going to skyrocket in the United States and in Europe,

and that it was going to remain low in China and India because they were going to be given a pass on their pollution, right? Just like they're given a pass on launching rockets, on launching satellites, on creating data spy centers, spy on us. Those things don't count. Just like China's cheap and dirty coal plants or India's cheap and dirty coal plants don't count either. So they're allowed to build as many of these cheap and dirty plants as they wish. They can have cheap energy. If you got cheap energy, if you got cheap material cost, you win. You already start out with a huge advantage. And so Trump has handicapped manufacturing in the United States and it is showing. It's showing badly. Takes a while for these things to come together, but they are coming together. Meanwhile,

he has ordered massive amounts of money for the construction of a powerful quantum computer. And of course, he had his Secretary of Energy Wright was talking about, I started to talk about it and said something about Einstein and Trump interrupted him and said, ah, nobody cares. Does he know? does he care? Certainly Trump doesn't care. But the Department of Energy put this out that he's got a quantum aura. Yeah. More Trump idolatry coming from the people who can't do enough to suck up to the guy that they work for. Trump signed a pair of executive orders to drive research into quantum computing industry. Quantum computing is expected to dovetel with advances in AI. So we're going to have very powerful computers.

They can run the AI. Let me tell you, this is a prescription for a horrendous dystopia. Investment in the tech is also going to personally benefit Trump's family. Oh, of course. You'll find that connection everywhere you look. As cases are made against foreign actors who are corrupt, you'll usually see his sons going around to collect the check. I mean, this is the Hunter Biden thing on steroids.

that we're seeing from the Trump family. So he's got two executive orders. The first one directs federal agencies to work with the private sector and academics to build a powerful quantum computer capable of conducting scientific research by 2028. Wait a minute. Steve Pachinich told us that they had quantum blockchain ballots that they had done. And that was back in 2000, or 2020 rather. How did this happen?

How did we lose that technology? We've got to create it again. somebody needs to contact Steve Pachinick and find out where that technology went because he was so certain that we had it. So they need to prove that these quantum machines can have practical applications. They've done some experiments with them, but they haven't done any practical usages for them. So that's really what they're going to focus on with the first executive order. The second executive order is going to direct government agencies to accelerate their post-quantum cryptography. and to develop algorithms that can resist attack from powerful quantum machines,

moving the date to achieve this to 2031, from the previous 2035 target that had been set by the Biden administration. So they're very concerned that these quantum computers, that people are talking about it, when they come in, they could easily break our current encryption system because they could run through so many different combinations so quickly. They could brute force break the, encryption stuff that's there. So they want to make sure that they've got the ability to break all of our

encryption. But at the same time, they want to make sure that they develop some kind of quantum cryptography so that we can't break their secrets. You see, that's the key operative posture of the federal government. Everything that we do must be open to them. We must not be allowed to see anything that they do. And so they're looking for how they can crack our cryptography and the meantime make theirs withstand a quantum attack. Early this year, Google, a leader in the space, moved up its date that it needs to develop post-quantam cryptography to 2029. So they have a more aggressive timeline than Trump does. The order also instructs the Pentagon to deploy so-called quantum sensors by 2028, devices designed to detect extremely subtle changes in the physical

environment as an alternative to traditional GPS systems. Now, I don't understand anything about how this works, quite frankly. I don't understand anything about quantum mechanics. So I mean, had Michael Glenn on. He was talking about how quantum mechanics really kind of opened up his mind to the supernatural. And it's like, hey, physics is a lot different than Newtonian physics that we have focused on for so long. Anyway, I have no idea what they're doing, but this is some kind of a quantum sensors to replace GPS. Because remember, GPS originally began as a way for them to guide their cruise missiles and

other things like that. And it became something that everybody used. So now they've got to have something that's even more powerful and something that they can still get around, a completely different system, so they can destroy. destroy our GPS if they need to and then still navigate their way around. The new executive orders come a month after the Commerce Department announced that it would buy $2 billion worth of stakes and nine different quantum computing firms. This is Lucky Lutnik.

You want to look up chronic capitalism and corruption. You'll find his picture right there. And, of course, one of the investors in these nine quantum quantum, computing firms is 1789 capital, the venture capital firm that Donald Trump Jr. is a partner ran. Trump, for his part, did not appear personally compelled by the quantum research, as I pointed out at the beginning. His energy secretary, Chris Wright, stumbled in his speech. He began by introducing a landmark Einstein paper, and Trump interrupted him and said, ah, nobody cares. Yeah, forget about it. Humiliated him. So that's the way it goes. Elon,

meanwhile, when we talk about crony capitalism, Elon Musk is talking about SpaceX as if it were Union Pacific. And Futurism said, this is extremely funny if you know what actually happened to Union Pacific. And it is an example, one of the worst examples, of crony capitalism and government directed investment that we have. And of course, it goes back to the Civil War. Goes back to Lincoln. Lincoln was a hardcore central planning, centralized power type of guy.

He was a socialist. Union Pacific was a railroad company that built the first transcontinental railroad. The tracks that connected the east and the west coast for the U.S. for the first time in the 1860s. Union Pacific laid track to fuel industry and mass migration across North America. Musk's reasoning seems to go,

well, SpaceX is creating the rocket that will allow humanity to tap the market potential of outer space. And yet, perhaps knowingly, perhaps not knowingly, there are other parallels that are even more interesting with Union Pacific. It couldn't have laid a single mile of track, writes Futurism, without generous taxpayer handouts. It was founded as a private corporation by the U.S. government in 1862, while Lincoln was there.

And again, it's his socialism, his corruption, carried on into the Grant administration as well. It was founded as a private corporation with U.S. money. The express purpose of completing the Transcontinental Railroad. It got millions of dollars in bonds, millions of acres of free land, as well as plenty of help from the U.S. military. Well, you know, Musk must be fully aware of this

because that's basically his business model. Though it was technically organized as a for-profit company, it operated more like a government-backed monopoly, which makes the comparison to SpaceX actually spot on, says Futurism. So it looks like a for-profit company, but it's really a government-backed monopoly. Then in 1872, it only took 10 years this massive corruption to manifest itself, there was a scandal. A couple of journalists discovered that the tycoons in charge of Union Pacific had dramatically overstated the cost of the project, essentially fleecing U.S. taxpayers for a handout, while bribing members of Congress to keep the gravy train running. This is such a familiar pattern, and we see it over and over again.

As a matter of fact, when I was interviewing a couple of weeks ago, and I forget his name, the author, of the book about space capitalism. He said, well, you know, the thing that Elon Must did was, and it made him a lot of money, he gave him a price and said, we'll do it for X amount of dollars. And then if he could do it for less than that, he made more profit. He said, prior to that, the model was always a cost plus. You know, they'd say, well, you give us whatever it costs, we'll show you our receipts, and you cover our costs, and then you give us a profit margin over that.

That is an incentive to waste. because, you know, if you could have done it for $100,000 and you're very wasteful in it and you do it for $200,000, well, guess what? You know, your 20 or 25% profit that gets added on that just doubled as well. And so it's an incentive for them to waste money, yes. It's even worse than this. Elon Musk just went back to the previous system of,

give me a whole bunch of money, I'll keep some of it and give you back some and then use some for what we actually want. That's right. That's right. Slightly less corrupt than what we had before. So by the time Union Pacific was caught in this scam, where they were bribing members of Congress or the excess money that they got, you know, it's kind of what Israel does, right? The top brass had already pocketed $44 million in taxpayer money, which in today's dollar is in the ballpark of $1.2 billion. To compare SpaceX to Union Pacific is to say the entire project is, quote, too big to fail.

as we see over and over again. A get-rich-quick scheme dressed up as an historic infrastructure project that will be subsidized by the public. Richard White, American professor emeritus at Stanford University, said that the Union Pacific was, quote, a mess of self-dealing and corruption. Well, I think that applies to the Trump regime in total, don't you? It is a mess of self-dealing and corruption.

He said to use that as your model of what your corporation is going to be plays on the immense ignorance of the history of this country and ignorance of financial markets and the ignorance of most Americans. He said the only difference is that the Union Pacific Railroad did eventually deliver the railroad, whereas when you're talking about what Tesla is doing or Musk is doing, he may not really be delivering on that. And then we have the Trump administration announcing $17.5 billion in loans for 10 new large nuclear reactors. Now, understand, this is not something that is designed to help you and I. This is not a modernization of the grid. This is not making the grid more robust. It's not about fixing our infrastructure. It's not about increasing its capacity.

Now, this is about his crony capitalist friends. And if you remember how Trump began, his administration, he began by talking about Stargate. And he dropped this little nugget when he was talking about how people are going to power things. I told them that what I want you to do is build your electric generating plant right next to your plant as a separate building connected. And they said, wow, you're kidding. And I said, no, no, I'm not kidding. You don't have to hook into the grid, which is old, and, you know, could be taken out. If it's taken out, they wouldn't have any way to get any electricity.

So we are going to allow them to go on a very rapid basis to build their plant, build the electric generating plant. They can fuel it with anything they want, and they may have coal as a backup, good, clean coal. You know, if there were a problem with a pipe coming in, as an example, you're going with gas, oil or gas, and a pipe gets blown up or for some reason does it work, there are some companies in the U.S. that have coal sitting right by the plant so that if there's an emergency, they can go to that short-term basis and use our very clean coal. So that's something else that a lot of people didn't even know about, but nothing can destroy coal. not the weather, not a bomb, nothing. It might make it a little smaller, might make it a little different. Yeah, and of course, you don't have to store coal for a thousand years and worry about that. But he's not talking about coal now.

That's what people wanted to hear, right? But he's not talking about that. Now, he's talking about tens of billions of dollars for nuclear reactors. And creating what they said is going to be an infrastructure so they can roll this out even more rapidly. And they still don't have a good end game for this. There's some people who are doing some breeder reactors to try to squeeze more out of the used uranium, but that's not, that technology is not there right now. And look at how he began this thing.

He said, yeah, I'm telling my crony capitalist buddies out there, a fellow billionaires, you know, when you build your corporations and your factories and everything, you need to have your own power plant setting right there. Because guess what? Our infrastructure is decaying. It's rotting. It's falling apart. And I'm not going to do anything to fix it.

and we're not going to do anything to protect it. You know, you heard from Matt Trolley yesterday, actually two days ago, and he was saying, yeah, when you look up surveillance for these data centers, what they're talking about is surveillance of risks to them. What happens if we're under attack or whatever? Well, they wanted to defend those data centers and their power supply, because those data centers are going to be the power supply for the government's politics. but they're not going to try to defend the grid.

They never took any measures to defend us against electromagnetic pulse, which would be one of the easiest things to do. They don't care at all about the grid. They'll probably be the ones who take it down and then blame it on somebody. They can take us to war with that. But he has no intention of protecting the grid. He has no intention of reconstructing the grid or modernizing it or improving it. He's not going to do that at all.

So he's telling them, hey, you need to do your. own power supply. And of course, let's tell everybody we can use coal. Everybody wants to hear about coal. No, he's going to go with nuclear. So, development of 10 large nuclear reactors to power the demand from massive data centers. Because the electrical power for the data centers is going to be the political power for the government, as I said before. Just understand that Washington, D.C. is going to be basically Washington Data Center. So Trump, will throw unlimited money towards these people. And we have to oppose this stuff, folks, on the matter of principle,

not just on what it costs, because they'll always print up some more monopoly money and start dropping that out of helicopters. Now, we're going to move with the players that are ready to stand up and move quickly. Most U.S. nuclear power plants, of course, are built between 1970 and 1990. Two new large reactors have been built from scratch in the U.S. in the recent decades. Those two reactors were completed. Years late, billions of dollars over budget, and guess what, they're going to go with the same

exact design because we're not going to learn anything about anything, right? They said, well, this is because of supply chain problems and the COVID pandemic and so forth. But now we think this is a great design in spite of what we have seen. Trump has set a goal of quadrupling domestic power production by nuclear power within the next 25 years, he has signed executive orders to speed the development. Critics of building more nuclear reactors say they're too expensive and they're riskier than low carbon energy sources. A lot riskier than coal. You know, you can clean the smoke that comes out of the coal plants. It costs a little bit more money, but you can clean it. It doesn't represent a threat to anybody.

We're not going to go with that. We're going to go with the more threatening, more expensive stuff, right? And so the Director of Energy and Environmental Policy at the Cato Institute says he doesn't think the executive branch should be so heavily involved in the electricity sector. I don't either. He said the next administration is going to use similar authorities to favor a different set of energy resources, remove the state barriers and federal favoritism, and let companies build the power plants to pass the market test, he said. And of course, it's going to be this whipsaw back and forth. It's going to be corruption, taking care of their bus. buddies, making sure they've got profits and so forth.

That's how it's going to go from regime to regime. Data centers used about 4% of the nation's total electricity in 2024. That could triple by 2028. Analyst predict nationwide electricity used to rise as much as 20% in the next decade because of the data centers. But of course, the answer to all this is going to be that you're going to pay more electricity. You're going to give up your appliances. They're going to force you to buy all kinds of expensive, unnecessary things. Give up your car, give up your air conditioning.

Because we were told from Obama, hey, you can't all have air conditioning. We'll burn up the planet, right? We've got to reserve all of this extra heat for our missiles, our rockets, our data centers, and on and on. Well, we're going to take a quick break. And when we come back, we're going to have some interesting interviews. We've got someone from the Kato Institute, Patrick Eddington. He's going to be talking to us about FISA and the surveillance state, what Trump as well as Biden have been doing, and the real threat to our freedom that is coming down the road with these data centers.

And then we're also going to have Christine Massey joining us. And we're going to take a look at the so-called science. It's actually a pseudoscience, a virology, and what she was able to find out with her freedom of information request about the vice. that they never even isolated, but they locked down the world and we're still suffering the consequences of it. Say with us, we'll be right back. You're listening to the David Knight Show. If you like the Eagles, on a dark desert highway, the cars, and Huey Lewis in the news,

you'll love the classic hits channel at APS Radio. Download our app or listen now at APSRadio.com. Joining us now is Patrick Eddinger. He is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He focuses on Homeland Security and Civil Liberty. I guess it is the classic case, Patrick, of the promise of security versus the reality of taking away our liberty. But we're going to be specifically talking about the reauthorization of Section 702. What is it?

How does it affect us? How are they gaming the system and the law here? And what is the current status of it? Because I've seen this up and down and up and down. I thought they're just going to rubber stamp it. But let's begin with that, Patrick. As of today, and we're talking about June, this is going to air on the 26th.

What is the current status of the Section 702 reauthorization? Well, at this stage, David, it is pretty well stalled in Congress. The politics of this have become quite interesting, frankly. I think, to some degree, share your concern that this was simply going to be ultimately railroated through by surveillance hawks. But we've run into a very interesting situation where this whole 702 authority, which we can talk about in more detail as we go along here, has kind of been caught up in some of the larger politics here in the D.C. area in our nation's capital. And it's revolving around a couple of things that are clearly on Mr. Trump's mind.

The first of which is the Save America Act, which folks may know by its author, has been designed essentially to try to deal with allegations or actual incidents of voter fraud, things of that nature. And the president has made that a priority. Senator Mike Lee of Utah, of course, has been the principal sponsor of it in the Senate and the biggest booster. And so what Mr. Trump started doing a few weeks ago was basically saying, you know, once it became clear that the Congress was not going to get to some kind of immediate resolution

on reauthorizing Section 702, he wanted to do. see to it first that any 702 reauthorization was attached to the SAVE Act and through the Congress. And Senate Majority Leader John Thune has made it clear both publicly and privately to the president that the votes are simply not there to do that. And so what Mr. Thune has been proposing essentially is to try to have the Senate move some kind of standalone version. Now, all of this is still wrapped up in the larger controversy surrounding the fact that the Section 702 program, which has been law since July of 2008, does not currently require a warrant for the FBI to go into what's known as the 702 database

to search for information on American citizens. And there have been repeated decisions by the FISA court since 2015, which have basically said, you know, once the information has been, quote, lawfully acquired, end quote, searches of the 702 database do not constitute a separate search under the, Fourth Amendment. I and I think almost every privacy and civil liberties expert in the country have disagreed with that interpretation over and over and over again because the plain language of the Fourth Amendment, when you really boil it down to, it goes like this. No probable cause,

no warrants, no exceptions. That's how it's supposed to work. And in a criminal, in Article III, criminal court, that is how it works. So we have this bifurcated system of justice effectively, were this intelligence program, which may or may not be as effective as its proponents claim, this particular intelligence program is allowed to collect data on Americans without having to go through a normal, you know, Article III court process. And I think that's a problem. Senator Rand Paul has always believed it's a problem. Others have believed it's a problem.

So that's kind of where we're at right now overall. And, of course, this goes back. We look at 2013 and Ron Wyden is a part of this again and I really don't agree with Ron Wyden on pretty much anything except this but he has kind of focused on this

and I remember in 2013 when he said to James Clapper you collecting information on Americans on a search warrant? No, Senator. Not intentionally. Then we found out right away with Ed Snowden. Yeah, they are doing it. It wasn't any question about it

and you even had Michael Hayden come back and say, well, I blame Ron Wyden. He knew what we were doing, and so did all of his staff and all the other centers there. And they didn't have any problem with it. He was the only one who pointed it out, and he got a finger of blame pointed at him by Michael Hayden, who has been ahead of the NSA and CIA in the past. And it's like, how dare you point out we're violating the Fourth Amendment? And yet nobody ever came after him, not Rand Paul.

Nobody came after him for perjury for lying to Congress, even though it was shown that he was lying to Congress. Yeah, no, no, absolutely. you know, and I'll say that, you know, Senator Wyden, a senior Democrat from Oregon, is the longest serving member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I have tremendous respect for him and his staff. He has some of the very best committee staff on Capitol Hill, you know, working these kinds of issues.

And, you know, Wyden has really kind of become kind of diogenes, you know, last honest man. When it comes to this issue, yeah. Yeah, certainly when it comes to this particular. issue. And I do think kind of the overarching politics surrounding not just this particular surveillance authority, David, but an awful lot of different surveillance problems we have biometrics and automated license plates readers, you name it. It's a very interesting coalition of people on the political right, people that, you know, tend to be more libertarian

essentially in their outlook. You know, Thomas Massey, Kentucky, basically my favorite member of Congress at this stage of the game. I regret that he's not going to be there next year. But you get people like Thomas Massey on the one hand. And then Congressman Zoe Lofgren, Democratic California, who literally represents a good chunk of Silicon Valley, when they agree that this kind of stuff needs to end, everybody really ought to be kind of paying attention, you know, to the implications of all of this. But it's, it has, I will just tell you, it has astounded me. And I've been in Washington now for almost 40 years, you know, kind of hard for me to believe, frankly. But I have seen and, you know, watch these battles and participate in these battles since I went to Capitol Hill in August in 2004.

And I've never, I've never, I've never get over the fact that that people who support these authorities will resort to almost any tactic imaginable to try to, you know, to try to keep them in place. I mean, it comes down, it comes down, you know, to leave. linguistic slate of hand or to just outright lying, as you pointed out, when General Clapper was in front of that particular committee. So it's, it is a deep, deep, deep, deep-seated problem that we have here in the Capitol. And quite frankly, if, I'll just give you an example, because I worked in the House of Representatives for over 10 years. And if the, if the Speaker's office was reduced to a much more ceremonial role and the individual members and, And the committee chairs and the ranking members actually had the real power.

This 702 authority and probably several others simply wouldn't exist. That's right. They simply wouldn't exist. It's become a dictatorship. You know, it really has. Well, I mean, it, we, I certainly believe that a lot of very bad decisions have been made by successive Congresses, presidents, and especially the courts that have allowed the basics of the Bill of Rights to be eroded. And it doesn't, you know, it doesn't just apply to the Fourth Amendment here. It absolutely applies to the Second Amendment.

You know, right now I have the misfortune of living in the Commonwealth of Virginia. And you may be aware that our elections here off year. And in last year, the people of the Commonwealth made a very bad choice, in my opinion. They elected former House member Abigail Spanberger to be our governor. and she and her fellow anti-second Amendment Confederates have succeeded in passing yet another state-level ban on modern sporting rifles like the AR-15. And former CIA, I should point out as well. And I will tell you, there's a big difference between Patrick Gettington, former CIA analyst,

and Abigail Spanberger, who in every respect of the word, I think, is a full-fledged member of the Deep State. I mean, this is somebody who's really bought in, you know, to the program. My wife and I, of course, in 1996 were front-page New York Times whistleblowers with respect to CIA misconduct in a particular episode related to operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. But I think the point that I'm making here is that multiple components of the Bill of Rights are under attack. That's right. And you wrote an article about that, how this impinges really on Second Amendment. And, of course, Dudley Brown at the National Association of Gun Rights was pushing back against this.

I did some work for Dudley when they were trying to push through the UN Arms Trade Treaty that was happening. And he was on top of that as well. But talk a little bit about that because that's a good example of how they can use this to entrap a lot of people and start spying on people. Talk about how these international shooting organizations, how they overlap and how if you're going to correspond to foreign. corporations and things like that, as, you know, these various gun manufacturers are, how that get you caught up in the web? Well, and, you know, that's one of the things, quite frankly, David, that was not really in the conversation about FISA Section 702.

And to just make sure that the folks that are listening or watching this program ultimately have an opportunity to kind of really get their hands around this, when FISA Section 7, or I should say Title VII of FISA, of which FISA is Section 702, two as a part, when that was passed in July of 2008, the rationale went something like this. We, the United States government, need to be able to collect intelligence on foreign targets of interest, who may be involved in espionage, may be involved, potentially in terrorism, things of that nature. Now, on the surface, I think most Americans would probably agree that that is a necessary

activity. The problem, of course, comes in when we have ultimately, when this law begins to get challenged a few years in, we have the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret court that oversees this particular program, issue rulings from 2015 all the way up through, I think, 2023 or 2024 even, basically claiming that, okay, well, once the National Security Agency, which of course is America's Big Signal Intelligence Collection outfit at Fort Meade, Maryland, with facilities all over the world. Once they collect this data, whether it is flowing over the internet backbone, I mean, where they're literally plugging into the telecom infrastructure and just kind of think of it like a Hoover vacuum cleaner,

but the digital version of it, if you will. Jagger Hoover vacuum cleaner. Yes, yes. Well, I mean, that mentality certainly figures into all of this, right? So they wind up, you know, scooping up all this stuff, and they get to store it. They keep this stuff for like five years, right? And so, you know, they assert the authority to go in and search for information on Americans if they believe that a particular foreign entity or agent of a foreign power is in contact with this American. Well, in a normal, you know, Fourth Amendment context in an Article III court, they would have to have probable cause on the front end of this before any judge would then say, okay, I'll authorize a wiretap so you can get the information you need to confirm or deny whether or not there's a real there and there.

And so this program literally inverts the process. And that has always been, you know, my problem with it. Now, to kind of look at the at the U.S. to foreign angle here and where it can ensnare an enormous number of Americans, first off, you know, we can talk about the millions of Americans who simply live overseas, right? Their communications are just getting swept up in this. So they could be communicating with family members, anybody else. And that digital vacuum clear that NSA runs that goes against the Internet backbone, what they call upstream. collection. Your stuff, my stuff, anybody's stuff.

If we're talking anybody overseas, essentially, that stuff is almost certainly getting swept up in all of this. Now, if you are a gun owner like I am, and let's say, you know, you own weapons that have been, you know, produced by overseas manufacturers, let's say Barretta in Italy, or CZ in Czechoslovakia. Or Glock. Or Glock, of course, you know, in Austria. Right.

Those foreign foreign firearms manufacturers, they have American subsidiaries here in the United States, you know, the act as the interface between the American gun owning and Second Amendment supporting public and the manufacturers. So if you need additional parts from Glock, things of that nature, you're oftentimes going through that American subsidiary of Glock in order to get there. Well, what does that mean? It means that when that American subsidiary, when the employees of that American subsidiary, American voters who work for that foreign subsidiary.

When they're communicating with the Glock head office in Austria or the Beretta head office over in Gardeau in Italy, or, you know, you fill in the blank, you know, on this, those communications are almost certainly getting swept up in this process, right? And there's no reason under the sun, ultimately, for that kind of thing to be happening, right? That's right. So that's one of the Second Amendment infringement angles that we see here. you kind of alluded to, which is if you are engaged in competitive shooting sports, particularly in the international arena, and these kinds of matches take place literally all over the world, right? If you are communicating, if you're a competitor here in the United States and you want to go to a foreign match, well, you're going to have to make phone calls or emails in order to get the hotel accommodations taken care of, your airline taking care of, all the rest of

that kind of stuff. That's additional information on you, an American citizen, engaged in the shooting sports that's getting swept up, you know, under this program. So there are some members of Congress, Mr. Burleson, you know, has definitely picked up on this. Ms. Bober to Colorado, she's picked up on this. There are others who've begun to finally, you know, kind of pick up on this. But this thing that we've been talking about, David, in the Second Amendment context, this U.S. to foreign aspect of it, it would apply to every industry in this country that has a foreign parent corporation with whom they need to communicate. Right.

So, you know, I own an Azuzu in present, right? So, excuse me, a Subaru in present. So, you know, if my local dealership here or whatever, you know, needs to communicate, you know, with the Subaru main office, you know, over in Japan, that kind of stuff is getting swept up. So when you start taking all of these industries, and there may be, there are circumstances where American exporters are simply dealing with markets overseas, right? All that kind of thing can get swept up in to this program, ultimately.

And that's what, to my mind, makes it absolutely crazy, totally overboard, and something that is crying out, you know, for some bona fide changes to the program that actually make it genuinely, I mean, as close to Fourth Amendment compliant as you can possibly get. Well, we're basically talking about the six degrees of separation of Kevin Bacon, right? You know, the game that everybody would play, you know, so Kevin Bacon was in this movie, but who else is in this movie? And then you take it from that person or that person doing these hops. And I remember years ago, I talked to William Benny, former global technical head of the NSA,

and he said, yeah. You know, they're saying you can do like three hops or whatever. Well, you know, if you go with six hops, you basically got everybody in Hollywood connected to Kevin Bacon. And so that's essentially what they're doing with this. Now, I've got a question. when they passed FISA after the Church Committee hearings and things like that and created the FISA court, it was my understanding that what I'm foggy on is where this Section 702 comes in recently because it was my understanding that as part of that they were going to forbid the surveillance of Americans without a search warrant

and they were going to forbid the surveillance of foreigners in America without a search warrant. So the only people they were allowed to look at, I thought, were foreigners in foreign countries. countries. And so, did 702 change that? The original 1978 version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was designed essentially to operate the way that you have described it. Now, if you've had Bill Benny on your program, and Bill is a friend of mine, and I've been a big supporter of him and the other guys who were NSA whistleblowers about how 9-11 could actually been prevented. And we can talk about that if you'd like.

But, you know, once 9-11 happened, and we, again, we can thank Edward Snowden for this, I think primarily. Within hours of the attacks on 9-11, General Michael Hayden, who at the time was the director of the National Security Agency, instructed his personnel to begin collecting every last bit of information flowing between the United States and Afghanistan. when he did that he committed a felony violation the foreign intelligence surveillance act he was never prosecuted for it and of course anybody else who followed that order would have been guilty of felonies as well in that respect

but but what happened of course is that in that period from basically September 12th up until December 2005 what people didn't know was that that program the Hayden started would ultimately get the code name Stellar Wind. And that program would only be exposed by the New York Times in December 2005, Jim Risen and Eric Luceblow with the two reporters that blew the lid off of it. And this is when President Bush comes out and says, well, this is the President's surveillance program. Now, that should have been everybody's clue that when the President says that he has a surveillance program,

we're way off the ramp. Well, when the President does it, it's not illegal. What Nixon told us? Yeah, one of Mr. Bush's predecessor said that, and it didn't work out real well for him either. But yeah, and so, you know, they make this decision to conduct this completely secret Stellar Win program. The FISA court was completely cut out of it because they knew that what they were doing was not lawful. It was not lawful. So once the New York Times exposed this, and this is when I was up on the hill, so I kind of witnessed this whole battle in real time,

they put the Congress on basically a two and a half year odyssey to try to take this illegal stellar win program and try to find some way to make it at least facially lawful right so it goes through some iterations and we finally get this thing called the foreign intelligence surveillance amendments act right and that's how we get this entire title seven of fisa added to it whereby they now turn FISA essentially into, under this Title VII, a mass electronic surveillance program that ostensibly is only supposed to go after foreigners, right? But because of the very nature of the structure of the global telecommunications system, they automatically sweep up the communications of Americans. They try to refer to this as incidental collection, but that's a misnomer. There's nothing incidental about it. It is inevitable collection, the way that this program has been operated. So that's how we went from a relatively cabined and narrowly structured FISA of 1978 to this monstrosity of Title VII of FISA now with this mass electronic surveillance insanity.

That really, I appreciate you going through that history because that really does connect the dots with me. I've seen, I've played many times a clip of Michael Hathen's like, oh, Section 702, that's such a safe haven for us. Most thing about that. because they got that past kind of in retrospect to cover his felonies. So now he's safe. He's got 702 covering up his felonies there. My son, Lance, who's doing the board here, says, yeah, this whole six degrees of separation thing is an understatement. You can get 99% of the global population with just four degrees of separation.

Five degrees you get you at 100%. They say six to be on the safe side. And that's basically what William Benny was saying at that point in time as well. And he was saying they give themselves three. So it's a, it really is a scam. And, you know, when you're looking at this, of course, you've, you've been fighting, this has been going on a long time. And that's why I asked you, you know, what is the current status of this?

And you guys were fighting this stuff back in March and April. Tell us what happened with the FBI when you had this FOIA request. Well, you know, it's really interesting because, as I think I mentioned earlier, there are an awful lot of these surveillance authorities or capabilities that are out there that most Americans are not aware of. Some of them tend to be kind of arcane. And, you know, one of the most interesting things that I discovered when I got to Cato, this was when I'd been there for, I guess, maybe a year, year and a half, something like that. I actually had a then colleague come to me and say, hey, I was actually interviewed by the FBI. They were upset about some things that I was writing about a particular foreign country,

which at this particular point, I cannot identify because we're trying to keep this person's, you know, name out of the headlines. And it will become clear why here in a second. And so I debrief this individual and got a lot of details out of this person. And it was really clear after my conversations with this person that they had been interrogated by two FBI agents from the Washington Field Office. This took place in the fall of 2012. So this is under Obama.

And this person was questioned about their writings. They were questioned about their travel. They were questioned about their associations, all the rest of that. And they were also basically told in so many words that, you know, those of you at Cato really enjoy the benefits of American freedom. And you should think about that, you know, when you're writing about, you know, some of these topics. So it was a very, very, very odious, you know, kind of like, you know, you better shut up and play ball or there are going to be problems. You're talking the price of that as eternal vigilance, right? Yeah.

Well, this individual was so shaken by their experience that they stopped writing on this particular topic for a while. But they finally got their gumption back and they wrote another piece in early 2013, which elicited another phone call from one of the FBI agents. who had interrogated them. And this time that then colleague made the right decision, did not return the phone call, did not have any other contact with the FBI. But that put me on the path, essentially, of trying to find out just exactly, you know, what the FBI was doing with respect to Kato. So at the institute, I run Kato's Freedom Information Act or FOIA program, essentially.

So I basically kind of oversee the litigation, litigation strategy. I'm not a lawyer myself, but I oversee the litigation strategy. Our counsel of record for this is Lovian, Lovia of Chicago. They've been absolutely fantastic. We've been working with them for almost a decade now in multiple cases. And this one involving a particular FOIA that I put in on Cato, the initial response I got in 2019 was no records on anybody at Cato, no records dealing with Cato.

And I thought that's just not believable. within a few months, when I appealed that on a search adequacy basis, we got a follow-up from DOJ's Office of Information Policy saying, not only did the FBI give you the right response, but we refuse to confirm or deny we have any records on the Cato Institute. That's what's known as a Glomar response. So I waited a few months, and then I submitted a new request. And to make a very long story short,

where in 2019, the FBI was claiming they had nothing on Cato, and then we're not going to confirm or deny. We are today at a place where we have a thousand pages of material on Cato that's been turned over to us. The FBI has admitted that they were, in fact, investigating Cato and Cato employees for activities at this point they've not specified. and they're continuing to withhold information from public release having to do with Cato, claiming that under a FOIA exemption called B7A, Section B7A or exemption B7A, that there is a perspective or ongoing legal case, possible legal action, which is, you know, beyond anything that I'm aware of. They certainly have never been indicted, the Institute,

has never been involved in any kind of prosecution at the hands of the federal government during its, you know, basically almost 50-year existence at this point. So there's no question. There are a lot of shenanigans going on. And the thing that I want to make clear to everybody is that this is how the FBI has operated since it was created basically in July of 1908. Yeah. I mean, this kind of stuff goes back.

This kind of stuff goes back over 100 years at this point. And you mentioned the guy that really kind of gave us this mentality. and that was Jayager Hoover, who to this day, remains the longest serving government bureaucrat in U.S. history, and certainly one of the most malign government bureaucrats. Rightfully so, I think, yeah. If they want to reform, the first thing they do is take his name off the building. That show that maybe they're serious. They've had a moment of reflection here. Yes. Yeah, exactly. But I think, you know, what's important to understand for our folks out there, you know, you might think that, well, you know, the FBI's got to have some kind of criminal basis to open an investigation on me. Well, if you believe that, friend, you would be wrong.

I need to talk to you to see if I can get a four request for information about me. I'm sure they got a long dossier of me for a lot of different things. Well, in the very last quarter of the Bush 43 administration, the then-attorney General Michael Mukasey updated the attorney general, general guidelines for domestic FBI investigations. And when he did that, he created this new category of de facto investigation called an assessment. Now, under an assessment, this is a good one, let me tell you. Under an assessment, they can open one on you, me, the Cato Institute, you name it, with no criminal predicate, right? They just have to have an authorized purpose. Well, guess who gets to decide who the authorized or what the authorized purpose is?

the FBI agent deciding whether or not he's going to open an assessment. So it's a great gig if you can get it, you know. You get to make up your work and get paid for it. So under these assessments, they can search classified databases like the 702 database. They can utilize every commercial database imaginable, right? They can task confidential informants to run against you, me, the Cato Institute, fill in the blank. They can conduct fiscal surveillance. And they can do all of this without ever having to go before a judge.

Wow. Yeah. That's amazing. And we've been suing on this issue. I've got probably several hundred pages, maybe getting closer to a few thousand now, on a lot of these closed assessments. And I will tell you that thanks to Cato's efforts, a few years ago, we managed to convince Nancy Mace, the outgoing member from South Carolina in the House. And Jamie Raskin, the current ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. We managed to get them to ask the government accountability offices, which is Congress's primary watchdog. They asked them to have them take a look at these assessments and report back. So in January of this year, they finally released that report, except they didn't release it.

GAO classified it as restricted, clearly under pressure from the FBI. So one of my journalist friends, Ryan Lovelace over at Rackett News, he worked his sources and he got a copy of that thing. And what GAO found was that over a thousand organizations and individuals had assessments opened on them for clearly First Amendment protected activity. So this assessment authority is as out of control as the FISA Section 702 authority. and in an assessment, I'm sure they're actually able to get into the 702 database, you know, and searches and all the rest of that. So we've just talked about only two examples so far in our time together here, David, two surveillance examples that show just exactly how far off the rails the federal government is when it comes to using this kind of stuff, especially in a predicate-free or a warrant-free environment. It's just absolutely nuts. It's totally nuts.

And it begins with one or two organizations, one organization that metastasizes throughout government because we had, as part of what was being done with ICE, I remember I've played the clip many times, Mike Johnson saying, we can't be bothered with warrants? Can you imagine how long that would take us to do that? And so now this has become the operating principle. We didn't have to do warrants over there, and it's so nice when we don't have to go through and do that paperwork or whatever and have to prove anything. So let's just dispense with that all together.

it's an inconvenient thing. Well, it was designed to be inconvenient, wasn't it? Yeah, absolutely. You know, I mean, are people who founded our country, the people who gave us the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and especially the Fourth Amendment, a lot of these guys like Jefferson, Washington, some of the other key players, they used back in the day what we today call encryption, but what they call codes and ciphers back in the 18th and 19th century. And they used these codes and ciphers to communicate with each other before, during, and after the revolution. So what does that tell us about them when they were drafting the Fourth Amendment in Philadelphia, when they were bringing the Constitution together? If those men had felt that the Fourth Amendment

required some kind of so-called national security exception, they would have put it in there. Yeah, you know, there's one of my favorite programs about the revolution was one called Turn, and it was about that very thing. It was about the intelligence agencies and the, and in the American Revolution, an excellent series, if nobody has seen that. But, and that got to the encryption and the rest of the stuff that was about that. They understood exactly what that was about.

They understood the nature of government. They understood the nature of man. And that's why they have this division here. And this is the thing, Patrick, that concerns me. Because we're seeing across the board, we're seeing a contempt for the Bill of Rights. We're seeing a contempt for privacy, contempt for freedom of speech from both the left and the right.

and at the same time that is happening, and I kind of get the sense that, you know, artificial intelligence and the data centers are on their way. They're going to have information about everybody. They'll be able to deep dives and audits, as we saw with Bill Pulte, when he was just housing and, you know, on the housing side that Trump put him in there.

He used artificial intelligence to go do deep dives on Trump's enemies, his enemy list. And, of course, he was able to find some process crimes that people have committed, perhaps. That's the type of thing that's going to happen to everybody that they don't like. That creates a vulnerability. And it's artificial intelligence that's going to be able to do that. So, of course, Trump is going to promote him to be, I mean, D&I.

That's exactly where they want to go. Everything that they look at, the solution, whether you're talking about voter fraud or the rest of this stuff, well, we have to have some kind of a global government ID number, right? Global biometric ID, that's always a solution to everything. And I look at it and it's like, well, I used to live in North Carolina. and we had a real problem there because they did not require any picture ID, right, to vote. And a friend of my brother-in-law's wouldn't come on my program and talk about it. He didn't want to make it public.

But he told my friend, he said, I went to vote the other day. And you would just walk in, you'd give them a name and an address. And that's all you'd need to vote. And he said, I went in to vote, and they said, you've already voted. And so there's this other person that you're addressing goes, that's my mother. She's been dead for years. And so it is a real issue and it is a real problem. But their solution in terms of having this kind of biometric digital ID for everything is like burning your house down to kill a fly.

It's crazy what they're doing. Well, it puts us on the kind of path that communist China has been on for a very, very, very long time. And that is the antithesis, the absolute opposite of what the founders intended. And so, you know, I think anything that we as citizens can do to throw a wrench in that works on this stuff and to find a way to raise these issues and try to reverse them, I think any of that kind of thing is absolutely necessary and it's always laudable because at the end of the day, you know, this notion, and I'll just talk about one of the thing that I really just absolutely detest. And that's this whole real ID thing. Yeah. The notion, and they've pushed it now where if you don't get a so-called real ID compliant ID, you either won't be able to apply or you'll have to pay a special $45, I refer to this as an extortion fee, through some kind of additional screening in order to allow you on the plane. So this is another example, essentially, of treating American citizens as suspects first. Oh, yeah.

and citizens a very, very distant second. And I'll also say that, you know, there's more than enough case law at this point from the Supreme Court, I think, you know, for someone to probably be able to successfully mount a challenge to this kind of stuff. Because the right to travel from state to state without molestation by officials of government is literally a basic constitutional right. And, you know, and the Supreme Court I know is weighed in on these kinds of issues previously. But if I had my way, Real ID would be repealed tomorrow. None of this kind of thing would be allowed to go on. And the notion, again, that, you know, when you're having to show up and they do this one-to-one match, you know, against their database and all the rest of that, they want to go. TSA wants to go much further than that.

You know, they want to be able to do essentially what NSA has been doing in the 702 program, which is get your days and keep it for as long as they want it. And, you know, this whole aspect of trying to control the population. I view these as population control measures, you know, whether it's a 702 program or whether it's real ID or some of these other things. At base, these are population control measures. And that's what the communists do. That's not what we're supposed to be doing. Absolutely.

And I'm seeing this coming from Republicans, Marshall Blackburn, who I live in Tennessee, she'll likely be our next governor, but she is at the epicenter of all this stuff. She's introduced one bill after the other to essentially pull together artificial intelligence, cryptography and kids online and all the rest of the stuff, always about creating IDs and a permission-based society to take what were fundamental rights of privacy and free speech and make them privileges granted by government if you do everything they want. I'm very concerned about what's happening with that. And you look at this explosion of data centers, as I was saying earlier this week.

Yeah, data centers are going to raise our price of electricity. It's going to raise taxes. It's going to be something that is a noise disturbance and an environmental aspect. You can oppose it on all those things, but you're not going to stop it on any of those things. You have to oppose it on the basis of the attack on liberty that it presents and the surveillance state that is funding it and putting it together. Again, when you look at the Trump administration and Marsha Blackburn, they basically wanted to override the 10th Amendment, say there's not going to be any state regulation of what we do with artificial intelligence. They want absolute, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, godlike powers over all of us. Nothing else will satisfy them.

And, you know, this is not my Republican Party. No, mine either. I mean, yeah, I mean, when I was 17 years old in 1980, I went door to door for Ronald Reagan. Mm-hmm. And President Reagan would never, in a billion years, sanction any of this kind of stuff. Yeah. Not a billion years. And the other disappointment, you know, that I see here is, I was born in Missouri.

And one of our prior senators was a guy by the name of Thomas Hennings during the 1950s and 60s. And he was an absolute bulldog on the Fourth Amendment. I mean, this guy held hearings, did everything he could, essentially, to try to shut down, you know, any kind of warrantless surveillance, things of that nature. And, you know, what do we see now? You know, we see guys like Justin Amash, you know, you got, you want to. wound up having to leave Congress. He was one of the leaders essentially in trying to fight this stuff. Thomas, Thomas Massey, now has become a casualty, all the rest of that. So it really bothers me, you know, when I see the Republican Party kind of going in this particular direction.

And then, you know, the other aspect of this, you know, there are plenty of Democrats out there, unfortunately, that do not embrace, you know, most aspects of the Bill of Rights. I mean, there are some, you know, that have been halfway decent on it, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, you know, is one of them. But, you know, as a party, you know, Democrats were willing to give Barack Obama a pass, you know, on a lot of the stuff that he did. And when you go back in time and you look at this stuff as I have, you see that pattern over and over again, you know, particularly in the post-church committee era, you know, where you get red team in the White House and red team in control of Congress. And it's like, well, you know, it won't be that bad.

won't go over the line, yada, yada, yada. They always do. I mean, I just don't, you know, I consider myself at this stage in life to be a 21st century anti-federalist. So my political ancestors, unfortunately, are the ones who lost at the constitutional convention. And I believe to this day that if they had won, if the anti-federalist position on a lot of these kinds of issues had prevailed, you and I wouldn't have to talk about this stuff. That's right.

You know, it wouldn't be necessary to do. But that's a measure of how far in two and a half centuries, you know, we've gone down this road away from this concept of rights that are inherent to us because we exist. Right? And I had that, I had a lot of people criticize me because I said, you know, they do need to have a warrant for some of the things that they're doing, even if they're coming after somebody, for committing the crime of coming here illegally. I said, you know, we give that kind of protection to everybody, and we do it not on the basis of citizenship. We do it on the basis that we are created in the image of God and endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. And once you get away from that concept, and you start saying, well, because somebody is a citizen, now they get this or that. Now you're going down the route of a privilege, not a basic human right.

And that is a very dangerous precedent. Yeah, well, I mean, it just reminds me at commies again. That's right. this is what you get. Well, let's talk a little bit about the excuse that they use, because they do have a technical excuse. And you talked about that, and you dismantled that completely. They say, well, you know, we imagine how complicated this is.

We got our, we got our ear to the internet cable here, right? And we're listening to all of the conversations that are happening on the Internet. And they're all packets. And we don't know where these packets come from. So, of course, we're going to scoop up this stuff. And we can't do anything about it. It's an engineering problem. It's a technical problem, and it can't be solved with that.

So get off our back about it. It's basically what they're saying. But you dismantled that pretty effectively in your article at cato.org, didn't you? Well, it's really interesting because I had a former very, very senior executive for one of the top three financial services institutions in the country reach out to me at one point. Because I had mentioned this kind of this concept kind of previously that the notion that NSA. ultimately doesn't have the ability to kind of distinguish foreign traffic from American traffic really didn't ring true to me. And it didn't ring true to me for, you know, for several reasons. One of those reasons is your friend, our mutual friend, Bill Binney.

Yeah. You know, when Bill and his team at the Signal Automation Research Center or Sark at the National Security Agency, by the fall in 1999, Bill and his team had developed a capability, essentially, to go out in kind of a vacuum. cleaner way against the internet, against all this digital traffic, but sort the traffic into foreign versus U.S. or suspected U.S. And then quarantine, essentially, literally quarantine, anything that was U.S. related or that it was believed to potentially be U.S. related for further analysis, but only after they had gone to wait for it, a federal judge to get a warrant to examine the data, right?

And they didn't want his solution. No, they did not. They wanted 702, yeah. Well, what they wanted was this other inside the Beltway banded boondoggle called Trailblazer, which wound up squandering, well, the official figure that we have in writing as a result of our foil litigation is north of $700 million. But I think the actual figure is probably four to five times that. And it never produced a working prototype and all the rest of that. But the long story short here is that even the Privacy and Civil Rights Oversight Board has been saying, at least until unfortunately President Trump basically destroyed it, saying that NSA needs to be forced to do this research in order to find ways to absolutely minimize the amount of stuff they actually ingest that's actually genuine intel on genuine threats.

and that simply hasn't happened. And so you're absolutely right. That's what folks at Fort Meade have basically been kind of, you know, treading water on for the last 18 years. It's like, oh, it's too hard. It's too hard. It's too hard. This is the United States of America. We invented the airplane.

We invented the personal computer. We sent people to the moon and back repeatedly, right? Don't tell me it can't be done. Because the banking industry, in many respects, has solved a lot of these problems already. and they had to because of the passage of the Bank Secrecy Act. That's another particular piece of legislation that probably needs to be seriously dismantled in a lot of respects. That is a true black hole that my colleague Nick Anthony, and I'd encourage you to have him on your program because he can talk about that chapter and verse.

But, you know, when Bill Benny and his team met with me and they talked about this thin thread program they developed, and then the privacy and civilry was oversight board, and the other hand saying, no, no, no, no, no, NSA needs to be pushed on this. That's why we need to get to that place. I will give you this hopeful note, though. The day after President Trump was in office for the second time in January 2025, Judge Hall in the Eastern District of New York released a previously sealed opinion she had in a 702-related case where the government essentially had conducted database searches on somebody and lied about it and then only fessed up to it later. And the question that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals asked her to look at on remand was, does going into the 702 database constitute a separate Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant? And she said emphatically, yes.

Now, the Trump administration has appealed that. The Second Circuit heard that case on April 22nd of this year. So I am hoping, I am hoping, that before this whole 702 thing, you know, finally place. lays itself out. It will actually get a ruling from the Second Circuit affirming that you have to have a probable cause-based warrant to go into that database. And then things will get really fun. Well, that'd be good. But I think the key thing is Americans need to understand what this is. And even though I hang out in this, I looked at it and it's like, well, you know, 702. But I thought that was what was originally done with the FISA Act. And so that little bit of history that you gave us there connects it in my mind. But there's a tremendous amount of ignorance,

if you will, and people just don't understand what this truly is about and how serious it is and how it's going to be abused and how we are on the cusp of handing these people who have no respect for our rights or liberties or the Constitution. We're on the cusp of handing them the most powerful tools to violate all of these things that they've ever had. And I think that's the reason we're seeing all these things start to come together. They're chopping out the bit waiting to turn AI loose on every single one of us. As Harvey Silverglade pointed out, we all commit three felonies a day without even knowing it.

So we're all sitting there like Lisa Cook wondering, you know, well, is there something in my past that are going to come after me for a process crime or something. But I think, you know, when you laid this out in your article at Cato, misdirection and misinformation, the FISA reauthorization fight intensifies. In that you talk about the fact that the banks are already doing this, you know, they come out and say, this is technically not capable. of being done. And yet you point out all the banks are doing this and they have to do it because all these different jurisdictions that they're dealing with internationally. Europe's got one. Was it Singapore had another one? The U.S. has got different rules and everything. So they have to, when this stuff is coming in for them to handle it in accordance with the law

of these different jurisdictions, they have to put these packets in the appropriate buckets to know they're handling them the appropriate way. And you point out, I think it was Bank of America had something like 7,000 patents. to do this. And that's not including the other major banks who also have thousands of patents each in order to do this type of stuff. So this is something that has been solved. It's been used for years in the private sector. And yet the federal government and these people who are doing this stuff deliberately, I think, are telling us, no, it's just impossible. They can't be solved. Yeah. Yeah. And that's why, you know, I gave my little homily about, you know, the technological prowess

of our country over the course of the last two and a half centuries, the notion that it is. not technologically possible for Americans to solve a given problem has been refuted over and over and over and over again. And that's why NSA needs to be held to the highest standard when it comes to this kind of stuff. And, you know, look, David, the truth of matter is they don't want to do it because it's just easier to vacuum this stuff up and then just go back and search it at their leisure. I mean, it comes down to laziness at the end of the day. And there's a certain amount of maliciousness as well because when you talked about your fight on this FOIA stuff, you were talking about how finally when you got these, the judge gave the order said,

no, you got to release this information. You file a FOIA request and they don't want to give you any information. And usually it always ends up in a lawsuit. That's why I've never done it from myself because I'm not going to get involved in a lawsuit to try to get this. So now they know if I put it out in public, I'm not interested in so on them. So they'll never give me any information. But the bottom line is that even after you won and the judge gave them a deadline, they refused to send it to you by email, they put it in a FedEx. And so you didn't get it and finally didn't get it and contacted them.

They could have, they mailed it out on the day of the deadline. You would have gotten it the next day, but you didn't get the next day. So then they take their time and like three or four days later, they send you the packet that's heavily redacted, of course, you know, going to cover up most information. and yet in that packet, they emailed it three or four days after the fact. There's just a contempt that is there with these different, I mean, it was there just out of spite that they would do that kind of thing. And, you know, this is the second time in the last, you know, two years that this kind of nonsense has happened, you know, with any of the FOIA litigation we've been engaged in at Cato as it pertains to the FISA Section 702 program. This is just another, it's another form of bureaucratic. legal warfare, you know, that the establishment engages in here to try to, you know,

prevent damaging information being brought to the attention of most members of Congress before a key vote on the program. I mean, that's just really what's happening here. Yeah. And we see the people who are carrying the water for this. Besides Mike Johnson, on the Senate side, you got Tom Cotton, who just put out a bill saying that he wants to merge the U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies together. I mean, how insane is that? And it's not even a merger, is it, Patrick? Because while the U.S. president is compelled to share all the information with Israel, there's not any sister bill that is happening in their country that would require them to do the same thing, right? Yeah. Well, and I think without getting into specific classified examples, what I'll say is this. throughout its history, and certainly during my time at CIA and after, among the top five most aggressive counterintelligence threats to the United States faces are the intelligence

services of the state of Israel. Yeah. Jonathan Pollard. Yes. And so, you know, when people tell me, well, they're an ally and yada, yada, yada, well, that's not how allies treat each other, right? I mean, that, and that's, and that, and that, That's why, you know, I think a fundamental reevaluation of the U.S. relationship with Israel is long overdue. You know, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, you know, wrote their book, you know, about the lobby, you know, APAC and all these other organizations that, you know, essentially act as, in my opinion, de facto agents of a foreign power. Yeah. You know, making arguments on behalf of the government of Israel.

and, you know, look, I support any American citizens' right to petition their government for redress of grievances and, you know, and all the rest of that. But that, to me, that kind of approach is not an America first approach to things, right? I mean, at the end of the day, we need to look out for our own people first, our own interest first. And then if we're in a position to be of help, particularly with, you know, humanitarian aid and things of that nature at other countries, you know, sure, great. You know, I'm certainly for that. But we've got an enormous number of domestic and particularly legal problems in this country when it comes to adherence to the Bill of Rights. And we need to be focused like a laser, essentially, on cleaning up our own government. and purging it of individuals and purging the federal bench, quite frankly, of judges, you know,

who engage in the creation of doctrines that have no constitutional basis whatsoever. You know, the state secrets privilege, the Supreme Court decision in the Reynolds case in 1953. It's just a prime example of that, you know, something like, you know, this judicially invented doctrine of state secrets, which basically grants the executive branch, the ability to keep thing secret, in essence, forever, if they, you know, basically make the assertion of the privilege in the words of the decision. There's no constitutional basis for that. There's no text in the Constitution at all that supports that kind of thing. But when we have judges on the federal

bench that are, and this is where I blame the FISA court, you know, the FISA court essentially inserting a national security exception into the Fourth Amendment that does not exist in the text of the Constitution. That's right. We have a real problem with judges, you know, engaging in that kind of thing. Yeah. And we've got a real problem with people who want to reassess our relationship with Israel. They're reassessing it in the wrong direction. People like Tom Cotton. And so it's like, yeah, let's reassess this and take it in completely the wrong direction. And that's exactly what he's doing. And he's the same type of guy who is then pushing for this Section 702 reauthorization. So to wrap this up at this point is something of a stalemate at this point?

It is. And we'll just have to see, you know, how it plays out because, you know, I think it's very clear to me at least that Mr. Trump is far more interested in the Congress passing the Save America Act than he is in FISA, which is weird, in my view, because it was a different title of FISA, Title I of FISA that was actually used to go after a member or one of his consultants to his first campaign, Carter Page. And that's not just my opinion. That's what the Department of Justice Inspector General itself found, right?

So I just find it really weird that this president who legitimately had his campaign in 2016 victimized by an out-of-control Department of Justice and FBI. I would think this is from a self-interest standpoint. He wanted to make sure there were some real guardrails around this stuff to, you know, to make it, you know, impossible. So it's just really crazy. But, yeah. Well, there may be some other self-interest things that we're not privy to, but we kind of suspect that they got their hooks into them.

Patrick has been so great talking to you. I really do appreciate it. Very informative. And people need to understand where this is headed. We're not going to stop this unless we start to reassert the principles of liberty that were the basis of the Bill of Rights. And it doesn't mean that we're just limited to the Bill of Rights. But, hey, that would be a start if we could get it back, wouldn't it? Yeah, it would, especially coming up on our 250th anniversary.

That's right. Yeah, we could celebrate it and kind of like have a, like some people on their wedding anniversary. Let's take our vows again. Maybe they could take their vows to the Constitution again this time really mean it. Who knows? There we go. Patrick is so great to having you on.

And again, Patrick is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. And Patrick Eddington, thank you so much. Thank you, David. Thank you. Making sense common again. You're listening to the David Knight Show. Whether you're feeling like the blues or blue grass, APS Radio has you covered. Check out a wide variety of channels on our app at APSRadio.com.

Joining us now is Christine Massey, and she had a very important finding. Actually, she didn't find anything. That was what is important. The dog that did not bark or the virus that they could not isolate. And so Christine did all of us a great service by getting people to ask a question. How do they know what they say they know? And that is something that we should all look at how they come up with these rock-solid foundations for virology and these other, quote-unquote, sciences. Do they follow a scientific method that we think that they're actually following?

We just assume that they are because they make this pronouncement. So joining us now is Christine Massey. and I'll just say at the beginning, and we'll mention it again at the end. She does have a website that you can go to, and you can see the FOIA request that she sent out to hundreds of different places asking, have you isolated the COVID virus? And you can see what they said to her. That is a site that is a website, no record found, but you can find that at the URL that we have up for her substack. That's where she updates the articles, and she has links to. all these other websites. So she does have an archive site where you can see the actual data that she got

back from people. Tell us a little bit about this and how you started doing these FOIA requests. And how many of them have you done? Let's start out with that. How many of them did you do? Well, I don't even have an actual number, but I can tell you the number of institutions that we have on record. So we have 225 institutions from 40 different countries on record now. And that is with regards to the supposed SARS-Cove 2, which was said to be the virus that supposedly caused COVID-19. And I had a lot of help from various people around the world. And those were all focused. Most of them were asking, like you said, on isolation, more specifically the way I worded

it was, do you have any record of anyone finding this alleged virus in the bodily fluid or tissue of anyone in the world and actually purifying it? because that is what you would need to do if you wanted to actually sequence a particle in a valid logical manner, and if you want to characterize it, and if you want to perform valid, rigorous, controlled experiments to see if it causes effects. So that's what I was asking for. And yeah, on that topic alone, just on that one topic, we have 225 institutions on record, 40 different countries, multiple institutions from some of them, for example, the CDC, we have eight different responses from different time points, and none of these institutions have any record of anyone actually

finding the alleged particle and purifying it. And, you know, we can talk more, too, about what they actually do do in virology because they're not even typically looking in bodily fluid to find an alleged virus. They don't even come close. They're not even in the right ballpark when it comes to logic and the scientific method, they do completely illogical, nonsensical methodologies. Yes, yes. And I think that's a key thing. So, you know, when we look at it and they come back and say, well, you're talking about isolation, but we're talking about purification, or rather you're talking about purification, but we have this process, and we call it isolation, but it's not really isolated by itself. And so it's not really true isolation. They have a process

that they call the Vincent Rackanielo definition of an isolated virus. And they are playing some games of that definition because they don't have a substance that they have isolated from all other substances. No, and these alleged particles, like they can't even show that they exist as claimed because, like I was saying, first of all, they don't even typically look in the bodily fluid or tissue. So what people need to know is when they're being shown images of a supposed virus. First of all, a lot of them are just computer-generated images or cartoons. But then when you see the electromagnoscope images, they're not actually looking in bodily fluid or tissue in those images. It's almost never, very, very few exceptions.

So what they're looking at is a cell culture where they took the clinical sample. They added it to a foreign cell line. They've added, it's usually monkey kidney cells, which makes it even more absurd. they add cow serum to the mix as a source of nutrition for the cell line. They use a cell line typically that monkey kidney cells are cells that are known to break down readily. And this will become obvious in a minute why they do it, why they use that one. And they add antibiotics and antifungals and a nutrient mix, various things. So that's what they're actually showing in the electron microscope.

So the problem is when they point at something, which is all they do, they just point at something and declare that that's the virus, they haven't actually shown that it is in the bodily fluid or tissue because it could be coming from the monkey cells or the cal serum. And some like Dr. Stefan Lanka, who was trained as a virologist, he would say it's just cellular debris because of the when the cell line breaks down. because what the vrologers do is they put all these stuff together and they lower the nutrition to the monkey cells. So they have a certain amount of nutrition that they would give a cell line to keep it healthy. But when they're doing these experiments to supposedly isolate a virus, they lower the nutrition to the cells. And then they add extra antibiotics and antifungals usually. So they're putting the cell line in the stressed condition. and then when they'll watch it for several days and then if the cells start to break down,

they call it cytopathic effects. And that is what they are passing off as isolation of a virus. It's just indirect evidence. They assume that if there's a virus, it will cause the cells to break down. So when they see the cells break down, they declare that's because of the virus, the virus did it. Meanwhile, they haven't shown that there is a virus. They didn't show that there was one in the bodily fluid. They haven't shown that the particle that they end up pointing at

actually fits the definition of a virus. Like they've literally done nothing whatsoever. They just point at something and say that's the virus and that's why the cells broke down. And like we say it's like saying if Santa exists, I've been good this year. So if Santa exists, when I wake up in the morning, I'll find presents under the Christmas tree.

And then you find the presence under the Christmas tree and you say there, Santa exists and we isolated him right here in the living room. That's literally how ridiculous it is. Absolutely is. It's a circular logic that is there. You know, we see the effect that we say would come from this virus. And so there's the effect. I still don't see the virus that's there, but we see the effect. So that was caused by the virus that I imagined that was out there.

Yeah, exactly. So it's not like sometimes people try to. to make it sound like, oh, we're being, we have these impossible standards, you know, people like myself that say that virology is illogical and that they haven't shown viruses to exist. But we're literally just asking for logical scientific evidence, you know, the scientific method. It's not something we made up. It's based on just simple logic. You know, if you want to do an experiment and demonstrate that something causes an effect,

you need to actually have the thing at the beginning of the experiment and make sure. that it's present in your experimental, you know, whether it's cell dishes, cell lines or people or whatever you're experimenting with. And then you have to have a control group and you don't expose them to the thing of interest and you keep everything else the same. Randomization should be used, you know, to help control for confounding variables. So, you know, that's what ought to be done and what a logical person would do. And then what they do in virology is just completely not even in the, it's not even close. It's, yeah, so it's not even like.

And we just project that onto them. We think, oh, they're scientists. So obviously they follow the scientific method, things that you just mentioned. They've isolated something and then they use that they expose a population to that thing. And then they have a control population that they make sure is not exposed to that thing. So they can see the effect of that thing. Instead, what they're looking at is they're looking at effects. And they're saying, we, we know that there's something that we call a virus that is causing

that. Therefore, since we see that effect, the virus is there. I can't see the virus. I can't find the virus. It truly is amazing when you look at it. And I got to say, you know, that's one of the things I said is I've followed this virology stuff. All of this pandemic stuff, there's so many things like this that just didn't add up. You know, you know, when you create a science fiction world, you have to have a certain consistency there or the movie or the book or whatever. It's really awful. You know, it just doesn't have any logical continuity. And that's what I was seeing with virology all the time. And again, when I got the book from the Bailey's, no more pain, the last pandemic, it all came together. It's like, okay, now I understand why those stuff

didn't make any sense because they're just making it up as they go along. They're making it up. It's, it is logically inconsistent. And it's funny. You mentioned, like, movies or stories made up because that's one of the things they use to condition us to constantly reinforce and there's so many movies out there where there are or television shows where they're slipping in a reference to a virus or a so-called vaccine and you know and we see it in the news lately it seems like every day or two I hear that you know somewhere around the world they're talking about a new supposed outbreak I think now in the United States so they're talking about measles again

right now in Europe they've been and, you know, culling animals over foot and mouth disease. And before that, they're probably still doing it. Supposed sheeppox and goatpox virus. Killing millions of animals. They did it. Well, they were doing it with the bird flu hoax as well in the U.S. Apparently over 100 million birds.

Oh, it's amazing what they did. In terms of driving up the price of food. And the absurdity of going in and saying, well, you know, even with their, if you follow their science fiction world, they've created. How in the world does it make sense to go in when you got one animal that you tested positive? Let's say that, just say that your test is right and that you did find this disease. Why would you kill all the chickens on this farm, even the ones that didn't test positive with all this stuff? It made absolutely no sense. None of this stuff does.

Yeah. And but I think one of the reasons it's so important for people to know the truth that there isn't even a virus is there are people out there they they will argue you know it has to be done it's for the safety because you know they'll say even if well typically they don't even test very many of the birds they'll test a few and if they find get one or two positives that's enough they'll say we have to call them all so yeah I mean but some people believe like yeah we have to because even if you did test more and there are negatives they well you know it could be we could have missed the virus in some cases because the test not perfect. And well, we just can't take the chance and we have these obligations to our trading partners is that's what gets used. You know, there's

many people said though, if you've got a bird that's there and you've got other birds, whether they're contaminated or not, if they survive, you know, a rational approach would be if you if you took this out to its logical conclusion, you believe that the virus, the virology was correct. You would say, let's just isolate this entire group here. And then the ones that survive are going to have a natural immunity to it. And we'll start breeding them. And yet they don't do that. None of it makes any sense.

It's like, I think you've got a different agenda here. Yeah, I agree totally with you. I don't think it makes any sense at all. That's true. Yeah, when you talk about the cytopathic effects, and of course it's got its own little acronym, the CPE. It looks for visible cell damage. But as they point out, when I did research on this,

It could be from cellular stress. It could be from toxicity in the sample. It could be from bacterial contamination because they're not isolating this stuff. So all those things could lead to a false positive because we're just looking for damage. We're not looking for the thing that's causing the damage. We're just looking for an effect. And we haven't isolated a cause. Exactly.

Yeah. And I mean, there have been experiments. Well, the funny thing is from one of the earliest experiments or one of the earliest studies where they started using this approach was in 1954 with John Ender's study on the supposed measles virus. And they in that study, it's really funny because, I mean, they didn't even identify specific particle. They were talking about, you know, using the word virus and making it sound like they had identified an agent. But then they didn't even have an image. They weren't even pointing at a picture of something, anything specific. And they admitted in the study that

they had done, I don't remember if they used the word control, but they did the same or similar experiment where they didn't add any material that they thought was infected, and they still got the cytopathic effects because they stressed the cells, the cell line that they're using. They stress the cells, the cells breakdown, and that's what they use as evidence. So they said that we identified another agent even in our uninfected culture. And they admitted that what they were doing, it wasn't conclusive. But somehow this study, even to this day, will still be cited as though that's, you know, the foundational evidence for the alleged measles virus.

But if you go back and you read it, and we always encourage as many people as possible that are willing to, please go and look at these foundational studies for yourself. You know, I'm not asking anybody to take my word for it. And yet they set themselves up as a priesthood that, you know, you wouldn't understand this. So don't look. You'll just misunderstand it. So trust us. We are the science.

And don't do the investigation yourself. That's also a big red flag, isn't it? Yeah, absolutely. And that's it. So that's the antidotes for as many people as possible to actually go and look at the studies. Or at the very least, you know, review the freedom of information responses and, look at the work of people like Zam and Mark Bailey and Mike Stone and the other people, you know, Dr. Tom Cowan and Andy Kaufman and learn, at least learn about the issue.

But yeah, the studies, some of them are harder to read than others. Some of them are more complicated than others. But I didn't have a background in this when I started out. I had to learn as I went along. And, you know, if you do read them, it's the method section. That's what you have to read. You can't just read what it says in the abstract or. you know, because they'll tell you.

That's their conclusion, yeah. But how did you get to that conclusion? That's the key. It's like abstract art. You know, it's not necessarily an accurate reflection of what is actually going on the study. You have to read the methods. And then you see, okay, what did you actually do?

And then you see there's no logic. They didn't adhere to the scientific method. And when it comes to the supposed genomes, because that's one of the other pieces of evidence, people say, what are you talking about? you know, there's thousands or millions of these, you know, supposed genomes uploaded in databases, computer versions of them. And that's where you find out, too, when you read the methods, that these are just computer models.

And what they do is they'll have tens of thousands or millions of smaller sequences that they supposedly detected in the bodily fluid, sometimes even from the cell culture they take it. but I'll just back up a little. So what they do is they'll add an enzyme to a sample, like if they had some lung fluid, this is what they did when they first came up with the SARS-Cove 2 genome. They had lung fluid from a patient,

and they add an enzyme, and that's to break open any cells, and the idea is that if there were viruses too, would open up the cells so they can release the genetic material, the RNA or the DNA, and then they extract out all the RNA or DNA, depending on what kind of virus they think they're looking for. So you're getting all the RNA or DNA from the patient,

any bacteria or fungi, stuff they might have breathed in. Like, you know, you don't know where it's coming from is the point. And then they detect millions or at least tens of thousands of sequences. In the first study by Fen Wu and her team, It was over 56.5 million sequences that they detected. And then they feed them into software. And in that study, they use two different softwares. And they have the software look for places where sequences will overlap each other

to create longer strings. And so the one software came up with over 1.3 million different longer strings, longer codes. And the other software came up with over 365,000. So they didn't even get the same set of results. And then the researchers chose the longest of all those sequences. And they said, that's our reference. That's our referenced genome for Sarscope 2. That's literally how anybody can go and find the paper by Fanwu.

I forget the exact title right now. But they could always email me. But yeah, that's how they came up. But they can't show that even one of those sequences came from any, any particular particle at all, let alone something showing the, fitting the definition of a virus. It's just a complete, it's just a computer model. Yeah, you need to look at how the sausage is made, you know, and that's about politics as well as science. That's what Ms. Mark said. You don't want to see how the sausage is made.

Well, you do want to see how the sausage is made because they're having us for lunch when you look at this stuff. You know, going back to the inconsistencies, I'm reminded as we're talking about this. they would say, well, you know, the virus particles are unbelievably small. And yet at the same time, they're telling us to wear a cloth mask, right? Any kind of cloth mask? And it was so clear for all of us, this is just a touch point for everybody. If you think that there's real science behind it stuff, remember the mask. That was really where the mask kind of slipped on their virology stuff.

Because at that point, you know, I remember playing over and over again. People put on a mask and then they'd blow smoke. through it. And it's like, okay, you're telling us the viral particles are much smaller than the smoke particles that are there. And you're not really specific about what kind of mask we've got to have. And the mask doesn't have to fit tightly around our face, any of this stuff. It was simply about psychological compliance. That was all it was really about. And it made as much sense as one person came up with an analogy. That's like telling people that you're going to put a hurricane fence up to keep the mosquitoes out, right? And big chain link fence. And that really

was what they were talking about. And folks, when you start digging deeper into it, as Christine has done, you start to see through the methodology that they have. How did they create this genetic sequence that they're testing for? Well, she just explained that to you. Or how do they isolate this stuff? Well, they don't really. And so there's all these, when they push back on all this stuff, they say, well, you know, we don't go through this whole laborious process of doing it in a laboratory, is it takes too long. We've got to have a biosafety level lab that's there. It's very expensive.

And it takes a very long time for that to happen. So we can just do it right away with the PCR and just wave our hands. And, of course, I've talked about the PCR stuff until I'm blue in the face. You know what an absolute fraud that is. And so, of course, when you look at this, there's not any of it that really a true science can hang a hat on. And it's kind of interesting, I think, Christine, we go back and we look in the 1990s, you had some descendants of Louis Pasteur who found his diary, and they found all kinds of fraudulent stuff that was there.

He is the father of microbiology. He is the father of this fraud that we are seeing here. Yeah, back then they were doing, they were always doing very illogical, silly things. So he was using different methodology, and one of the things they would do is take disease tissue from a patient that had something that they thought was an infectious disease. disease and then drill a hole in the head of an animal and inject the disease tissue into their brain. And then if the animal had similar reaction, they would say, oh, there we showed that it's a virus.

I mean, anybody can see that if you do that to an animal, you know, we just call these studies, animal torture studies. And that's what you see. And it's not just phorology. It's also when you look at studies where they're supposedly showing that some sort of bacteria is pathogenic. A lot of them are just horrific animal torture studies where they'll do unnatural things. Often put them to sleep, they inject them. They'll, you know, type them up, gave them and press them. If I'm thinking of Fauci's Beagles, they got called out.

Yeah, exactly. That's exactly this sort of thing that you see throughout the literature, whether it's viruses or bacteria that I don't think anyone's challenging whether they exist, but the issue is that they haven't been shown to be pathogenic to actually cause illness. So they're always doing, there's always glaring problems in all the research throughout the whole history, whether it's with viruses or bacteria. They often won't have any sort of comparison group at all. Like you should have a proper control.

And of course you can't do it in virology because they don't even have. the thing of interest so you can't have a control that has everything but the thing of interest. And with the bacteria, those studies also, though they still have problems because often they won't use purified bacteria or they often just don't have any sort of control group at all. And then like I said, when they go to expose the animal, they typically don't let it happen in a natural way. I mean, sometimes they do, but often you'll see them injecting the animals, sometimes in the chest or the abdomen. Just doing horrific things. It's like, that's not, that doesn't reflect your hypothesis. Your hypothesis is that we just naturally spread these things

to each other, you know, just through normal day-to-day living. We're not going around injecting each other with bacterial cultures. So it's irrelevant. Like, they're just literally irrelevant in valid studies. It doesn't reflect what you claim that you're, you're, you know, what you're studying. That's right. And when you go back to where this all started, again, with Louis Pasteur, there were a lot of unethical things that he's been called out for, many unscientific things that happened. And he was called out on it by people like Robert Koch, who the Germans rally behind

quite a bit there. But also, there was an alternative theory that was put out by Beauchamp, if I'm pronouncing his name correctly, the terrain theory where he said, no. We're not looking at a particular microbiome that is causing this, but rather it's the general environment. He called it the terrain theory. And that really is kind of what they're doing when they look at the cytopatic effects. They're really looking at a mix of a lot of different things. And they're not necessarily the things that are causing the disease, but there are things that are causing cellular damage.

And so what he was doing when he looked at it, he said not necessarily the bacteria. and certainly not the viruses, but this is something that is a mixture of a lot of different factors that are there. And they just simplified it all and said, no, we're looking for a particular microbe or a virus or something like that. And we're going to isolate that and we're going to kill that and that's going to get rid of the disease. And so it's a very, you know, they went with that line of reasoning that Pascal put out there. And then once they decide that's going to be the standard that we're going to pursue, now they

ruthlessly shut out all the alternatives, just like we saw it during the COVID fraud. You're not going to be allowed to try any other treatments other than the vaccine that were lining up for you, and on and on. You know, they have a very narrow and flexible path that they're going to take with all this, and nothing else will be considered. That's not science. That's, yeah, and that was exactly what I had experienced with the public health establishment before the COVID nonsense began,

because I was very focused on water fluoridation at that time. I was, you know, very concerned about they're adding literally hazardous waste to public drinking water, and they're calling it a great public health achievement. And then you find out it has arsenic and lead and all sorts of other contaminants on top of the fluoride itself. And then you find out they don't have any, they never had any randomized controlled trials.

They don't have any human experiments at all. to show that it's safe or effective. I mean, I could go on and on. There's no control of the dosing. Yeah. And the evidence that does. That's what I've said so many times. It's like even if you had proven that this was safe and effective,

there's no control of dosing if you're going to dump it in the water supply. That makes no sense at all. It's like the mess. Yeah. It goes into the environment. Meanwhile, if you read the material safety data sheets for the fluoride additive, it tells you right on it, don't let it go into water supplies. that's one of the things you'll see on some of them

and they're putting it in the drinking water. The workers hate to have to deal with it because it's a very dangerous chemical. And anyway, I'm going off on a tangent about the water fluoridation, but... Let's talk about that for a moment because you're in Canada. What is the situation with that in Canada? Well, so I, for about 10 years before the COVID nonsense began,

that's what I was very focused on. And then when the COVID stuff began, And I put that aside because I decided years ago, I'm just going to focus on one thing at a time just for my mental health. So I'm not the most up-to-date person, but, you know, I can still talk about it. And one of the things that happened in those years was a federal lawsuit occurred against the EPA. So the Floyd Action Network and some other groups sued the EPA. and the focus was on neurological effects. And they won, finally, after a very long battle,

and then the Trump Department of Justice comes in and restarts it and appeals it. Yeah. And so that's really where we are in the U.S. In Canada, is it widely done, I guess, there as well? Flores. The last I've heard, it was somewhere maybe around 45% or so of Canada, of Canadian. were getting fluoridated water because it's a municipal decision in Canada the same way as it is in the states.

And from what I understand of what happened in the lawsuit there in the U.S., and this was like a seven or eight year lawsuit that dragged on, and the federal judge agreed that fluoride poses an unreasonable risk to brains. And the reason, apparently I was listening to Michael Connett, who was the, lawyer and for the Floyd Action Network. He's the son of Paul Conant, who's one of the people who began the Floyd Action Network. He was explaining that what the appeal was based on the fact that the judge, he wanted to have the most up-to-date, the best quality evidence. and they knew there was a federal report that was going to be coming out. So he wanted to put the lawsuit on hold

so that they could finally get the results of that report because they felt that was going to be the best quality evidence, a review that was going to be coming out. So he put it on hold and then made the decision that he agreed that it was an unreasonable risk to brains. And then apparently the grounds for the review, Now, there's the government said, well, that's a problem because neither side had really wanted it. It was the judge that initiated that, that said, hey, I want to put this on hold.

I want to wait until we get that review and get the highest quality evidence for me to make my decision on. And that was the basis. So it wasn't, it wasn't based on the merits. It was more of a procedural thing. They were saying the judge shouldn't have done that because in the U.S. justice system, it's adversarial. and the judge isn't supposed to, you know, he's supposed to let the parties make the arguments and go off of what they say. They're not supposed to project their own wishes or opinions onto things. So that was, it wasn't based on the merits at all.

So now the judge apparently has to go back in time, pretend that years, you know, in this later evidence that he doesn't know about it. And he has to go back in decision based on what had, you know, back several years in time. what he had known at that point. So I don't know what's going to happen next. It's crazy, but it's a typical thing we see with government. You know, what is the EPA? It's supposed to protect the environment. Instead, they're polluting the environment.

The environmental pollution agency, yeah. Literally, I have a memo on my website from the EPA from years ago. It was someone high up in the EPA. And she was admitting to someone that, yeah, you know, we had this problem with this hazardous waste that was really, you know, difficult and expensive to dispose of because it's from the phosphate fertilizer industry and I think other industries as well. They have this chemical called hydrofluor solicic acid. It eats through parking lots. You can find videos, news reports, like in Florida, for example, where it's spilled from a

truck and it's literally eating through the parking lot. That's how corrosive it is. And they would have to come with the hazmat suits. So she's like, yeah, we had this problem, this disposal problem. And now we have a solution. We can put it in the drinking water. It's going to be pre-dental care for poor people is one of the ways they spin it. Yeah, we know, we can't, not everybody can afford dental care and they're just completely obsessed with fluoride, you know, not. Yeah. It's just fluoride, fluoride, fluoride, fluoride, your toothpaste, your mouthwash, or put it on your teeth, you know, professional treatments and. And now it's MRN. And that's what she said. So now we've gone from fluoride to MRNA. And trompons put that everywhere. He began to,

his first day of his new administration this time talking about how they're going to have artificial intelligence design mRNA vaccines for you personally so it's like yeah great here we are this is the new threat AI and he's going to combine it with the old threat yes put him on steroids yeah it's crazy what is happening with this well the key is that they first of all you need to understand that this idea this ethical idea of first do no harm is dead dead. They don't care about that at all. And so knowing that they don't care about harming you, you need to do your own research. And that means even when you get prescribed a pharmaceutical drug, you always need to do your own research on that. Because some of them have some very

nasty side effects that they don't talk about that are hidden. So you need to do your own research. And then in the bigger picture, you know, what we have happening right now, comment a little bit about your take on this, Christine Massey. I've told my audience what I think about what is happening with this focus on Fauci. I think he is a safe scapecoat for them. And what is your take on that? Well, the way I look at it, and I think I can speak for some of my colleagues as well, is it's all, it keeps people in the virus and contagion camp because, you know, it's, oh, gain a function. You know, they're avoiding reality, which is that they haven't even shown that there was a virus. You didn't have a virus to gain function on.

It keeps people in this false dichotomy. Was it a natural virus or did they make a man-made virus or something leaked from a lab? Whatever it is, you're still believing in viruses and contagion. You still believe that there might be a need for vaccines or toxic antiviral drugs or distancing or closing, you know, when there's an emergency, an outbreak and what have you. So it leaves all the foundational lies in place, which have led to unimaginable carnage throughout our lives. And it's not just people. Of course, it's the pets and the livestock and even fish they're vaccinating.

You know, and so if the public catches on to the truth, that all germ theory is just, it's all based on pseudoscience. They don't have any valid scientific experiments at all. There's going to be, you know, it's just a huge. Whole thing collapses. So, yeah, let's come up with this. Here's two false alternatives and let you fight over these two false alternatives, but don't look at the rest of the stuff.

But, of course, it also, I think, gets them off the hook. And you see when they start doing this, there's a tremendous amount of partisan blinders going on here. You know, they will focus on what the other party did and completely hold their people harmless with all this. And yet the response that we see over and over again to this type of thing is, well, it was real. And next time we'll do it sooner and harder and faster than we did this time. And that was our mistake. We just didn't do enough quickly enough. And so they're laying the foundation for the next time they do this to us.

Absolutely. And I mean, the way I look at it, there's people all around the world in every country that are responsible for what happened. None of them did. They either intentionally went along with a hoax or they didn't do their due diligence. It was nobody's job in Canada or the U.S. to make sure, like, there's actually legit evidence. The world just went along with a computer model genome from China. Like, that doesn't make any sense at all. And, you know, I mean, I often say, too, there was no due process because nobody ever came.

We were just ordered over the television, basically, to stay home to this. Don't do that. Nobody came to us with something addressed to us saying, you know, we think this situation's happening and we're asking it to stay home and gave us a chance to look at the evidence and to rebut it and have a trial. There was none of that. It was just some clown on television is saying, you know, this is how it's going to be. And the police enforced it. And meanwhile, yeah, martial law.

Yeah, martial law. And a colleague has been going to police stations and us challenging them, like, show us that you even had a copy of a signed order. It turns out they didn't even have anything in writing. They didn't have anything to show that there was a virus, no evidence there. And they don't even have anything in writing to show that there actually was a signed order. Not that it would have been legitimate anyway. But yeah, we were just basically all treated like slaves and told this is how it's going to be. And to me, well, I can say for one thing.

I'm not familiar with your laws in the United States, but in Canada, in the Criminal Code, there's Section 229C, which says culpable homicide is murder. And it says if you do anything for an unlawful object, for example, injecting people and testing people with fraudulent tests and no informed consent, ignoring all the danger signals, you know, you're getting people injected all based on this fraud. And if people end up dying, even though you didn't try to make people die, but they died as a result, that's called culpable homicide and it's murder according to their. their criminal code. So this is something I've been pointing out to politicians and reminding them like, you guys are so far out of line and people are dead because of you. So there's a lot of people, it's not just Fauci and getting back to the Fauci issue. There's people all around the world that are complicit in this. And when I look at it, a lot of people should, they belong in prison

for a long time. That's right. Because they cost a lot of harm. But if they want to make it about this one guy, and of course, he was given an accommodation, by Trump and he was given a pardon by Biden. And so they're going to kind of inoculate him from that. You know, they get immunity. They get legal immunity from lawsuits and he gets immunity from jail. And we don't get immunity from anything. But this is the way that it's going to go.

And they're just laying the foundation to do it all over again. And so that's the key thing. We need to understand the basis of the fraud. We need to understand how the PCR tests work and how they are abusing that and how they're abusing the entire science of virology and how that has not been, does not have a scientific basis that is based on measurement and clinical testing and any of that stuff.

None of that is happening. And so the key thing that we can do is try to get people to take a look at this. And as you're pointing out, once they go down this road, they say, well, we're not going to bother with informed consent. We're not going to bother with the law. We're just going to declare an emergency into what we want. They get really sloppy.

And it gets worse and worse. As you pointed out, where's the order for this? Well, we don't have an order. We just heard that's what we're supposed to do. So we go do it to people and try to stop us. And it just contingent, if we don't call them out on it, if we don't pull this back, and if people don't understand what was done to them and get angry about it,

they're going to keep doing it. And it's going to get worse every single time. I 100% agree. And I think to laughing at them, too, I see a lot of colleagues. Well, they keep trying. They tried with hantavirus and Ebola virus. They've been trying to people riled up again and telling us, you know, a 40% death rate. And then, you know, then they switched.

I think they say Ebola is 50% death mortality rate. And people just weren't buying into it. And they were, I've seen many people sharing screenshots where like thousands of people are just laughing at them and respond. You know, you see the laughing emoji and people aren't getting scared. And I think that's one of our most powerful weapons. I think there's definitely a place for anger. I definitely get angry. And also just laughing them because I don't think some of these people actually get off when you, when you're upset about what they're doing, it makes them feel more powerful.

But when we laugh at them and just show how stupid, you know, your evidence is, then that just makes them feel, pulls the rug out from under them. Well, Saul Olensky said that in his rules for radicals. He said satire is the most devastating weapon because there's no answer to it. And the best thing you can do is laugh at these emperors who don't have a pair of pants on. And just point that out. And let's start laughing. And so everybody needs to laugh these people off the stage. Yeah, laugh them right out of the news cycle, laugh them off the stage. And again, also, there's a place for trying to hold people accountable.

And maybe even somebody will end up in prison one of these days. Who knows? That's right. I'm not sure how that's going to happen. bit. Well, it's so important, you know, we, so many times we see things, whether it's about cosmology or some other thing, it's like, well, we know this or that. Well, how do you know any of that stuff? Please explain to me. Explain to me like I'm an eight-year-old. Because if we can't explain to somebody like they're an eight-year-old, you don't really understand it yourself, right? If you

really understand it, you can put it in very simple terms and you can demonstrate it to people. But if it's just so complicated, you wouldn't understand is the answer. Well, then I think there's a different agenda that's going on here. So thank you so much for pulling the curtain back and for being the person. The emperor has no clothes. They have no science with any of this stuff. It is just naked tyranny. Thank you so much for doing that, Christine. And tell us before you go, give us again, we've had that up underneath your name, I think, the website that said. But you have a, that'll take people to your substack, that tiny URL. Yeah. Yeah. So from there, if they scroll down in almost any newsletter, they'll find the links to my website and they'll also find articles and videos from my

colleagues who go into a lot more detail than I do about various virus hoaxes and whatnot. Well, thank you for taking point on this and doing that hard work and putting all this together. It is a wealth of information that you have collected for us, and people need to take advantage of that and educate themselves because when we let them get away with these lies, there's no end to it. And they get worse and worse, as we see going along. And they're laying the foundation for even more lies right now, even as they're telling us, oh, look, you know, we've got a document release showing this and showing that. No, you're still playing that game with us.

And that is really where we are at this point in time. People need to question the real science and hold it up to the standard of science. Science never advances without skepticism. We shall always be skeptical about what these people are saying, instead of just accepting it on blind faith. Thank you so much, Christine. Always great talking to you. Thank you.

You too. You as well. Take care. God bless. 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 the Davidnightshow.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. The Davidnightshow.com.