The David Knight Show - Tue Episode #1981: Tariff Chaos, Gold Frenzy, Speech Gestapo and “Transphobic” Toddlers

Episode Date: April 1, 2025

Liberation Day or Taxmageddon? Your Wallet’s Day of ReckoningBrace yourself as taxes skyrocket under a chaotic new regime! One thing’s certain: your income tax isn’t going anywhere, and tariffs are piling on. Gold Rush Frenzy: Cashing in on Chaos     As markets tremble and Trump’s tariff tantrums ignite uncertainty, gold soars to dizzying heights! Investors flee to the shiny safe haven, but many are still heading for paper promises of ETFs.                Beware the blockchain bandits! Stablecoins and tokenized assets promise riches but deliver volatility and vulnerability. Governments and thieves salivate as your wealth goes digital—will this be the ultimate heist of the century?    Will AI Agents add even more volatility? Trump’s Get-Out-of-Jail-Free for White Collar CriminalsHunter Biden’s shady partners walk free, while fraudsters and bond scammers get VIP treatment Will Trump Reduce China Tariff so His Billionaire Buddy Can Buy It?A pro-Trump tycoon’s $47 billion bid to snatch TikTok Border Gestapo: Tourists Shackled, Speech Silenced     Nightmares at the border as tourists face weeks in prison, chains and deportation for paperwork slip-ups!     Meanwhile, private groups hunt student protesters with facial recognition, blurring the line between law and tyranny. Is free speech dead? Multicultural Melting Pot Boils OverForeign wars spill onto American soil as clashing factions fight for dominance Toddler Transphobia: Nursery Nonsense Goes NuclearInsanity reigns as toddlers face suspension for “transphobia” in schools.  But what about the poor kids who are being gaslit and groomed into transgenderism, mutilation and sterilization? Anti-Anti-Semitism: Playing the Race Card for Politics Just Like the LeftOp-eds become terrorism as Trump Administration virtue signals for its paymasters in Israel Australia’s Net Zero Bankrupts the Nation Prices soar, and the West’s industrial heart bleeds out—climate fanatics cheer as civilization crumbles Christ or Chaos: The West’s Soul Hangs in the BalanceFrom Ramadan lights to silenced prayers, foreign faiths muscle in while leaders sell out. Can Christendom rise again, or is this the end of our moral roots?How Globalism Stole Our Jobs, Our Land, and Our Future – Can Tariffs Restore by Reshore?       Spencer Morrison, lawyer, entrepreneur, historian, and author unveils the shocking truth behind America’s economic collapse in his explosive new book, Reshore: How Tariffs Will Bring Our Jobs Home and Revive the American Dream.       Morrison focuses on the trade deficit, now largely forgotten in public debate.  He makes the case for tariffs and critiques the damage done by the free-trade myth (are trade agreements 1,000s of pages long “free”?)     From the sucking sound of NAFTA to the chilling parallels with Britain’s imperial downfall, this is the wake-up call America can’t ignore!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: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHTFor 10% off supplements and books, go to RNCstore.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

The In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. It's The David Knight Show. As the clock strikes 13, it's the 1st of April, April Fool's Day. Year of our Lord 2025. Well, are you going to be fooled by the largest tax increase ever? As Peter Navarro even goes beyond Trump and says it's going to be a larger tax increase than Trump said. Then he comes back and goes, but it's really a tax cut. So we're going to talk about the logic of that.

And we're also going to have a guest who has written a book in praise of tariffs and the necessity for it. He calls it Re-sure. The subtitle is how tariffs will bring our jobs home and revive the American dream. So we're going to talk to him about that. And we're also going to begin with the pardons, more pardons from Trump for various people. Kind of interesting to see this happen. At the same time, gold exploded yesterday, well over $3,100.

People running to it for safety. Unfortunately, they're also buying it as an ETF as a token and the token coins and the stable coins are going through the roof and we'll talk about why that is a dangerous thing for the economy as well. We'll be right back. Well, I want to begin by thanking everybody for their kind generosity yesterday. It truly was amazing to see everybody chip in. We had matching funds from Mary Ellen Moore, and I just wanted to quickly read the names of people who were on Zelle and we had a tremendous response from Zelle and I'm sorry but the very first name on here, the last

person to contribute it was the first name at the top of the list I lost because I deleted that page by accident. But somebody who contributed $10, I don't have your name here so I apologize I'll get that later but I wanted to thank William Daniel W Rogelio J Michael L and hang on I have to get on different pages there Felicia H Scott L J H Kenneth C. Ronald H. Michelle V. Paula C. Michael P. Bobby P. Kimberly C. Charles M. Julie W. Wayne H. Gregory N. Susan F. Susan L. Brian P. Charles Dupre. Susan L. Brian P. Charles Dupre. Robert A. Kevin M. Lisa K. Janice W. Austin, and I like the Austin's little note here. He said, the little squire is adorable. That's what I have to call him. Travis's son. Maraldo P. And I know that's a long list, and it is a long list.

And it really amazed us. And I'm sorry to start this out like it's some kind of an NPR fundraiser. That's not like what I want to do, but we would be remiss if we did not thank people. And on Cash App, we also have Anthony R, Dave B and Ryan who has contributed, he contributed the coins and he contributed yesterday on Rumble in two different ways. He bought subscriptions and he contributed on Rumble, he contributed on

Cash App and he even bought merchandise and so thank you so much for your kind support, all of you. And it really has been humbling to see that. And I would, it would be wrong for us to not recognize that at the beginning of the program. Let's talk, however, though, about news. And nobody really knows what the taxes are going to be tomorrow. But we do know it's going to be a day of liberation. And as I've been saying, liberate your wallet from your possession because I think it's going to be a massive tax increase so does Peter Navarro but now he's spending

it as a tax cut he says well yeah we're gonna raise all this money in taxes but he goes that's going to help to pay for making the tax cuts, the income tax cuts permanent. 2017 tax cuts permanent. So, let me get this straight. Then the income tax is going to remain, right? And that creates... We keep seeing these people spend this. Oh yeah, it's going to be the tariffs, it's another tax, but don't worry, the income tax is going to... They keep telling you it's not going away. How many different ways can they tell you that the income tax is going to stay? This is an additional tax. And we're going to tax our way to prosperity. Well, we're going to have a guest later in the show who's going to make his case for why we should have tariffs. And he's written a book about it. And I've read

a good part of the book, not all of it, but it'll be interesting discussion. So as we're going to be liberated tomorrow and we're going to have these wonderful taxes that are going to make us so prosperous, maybe we can get some more regulations too. I mean, isn't that right? I mean, whatever happened to the understanding that the power to tax is the power to destroy? So the question is going to be what's going to be destroyed and who is going to destroy it and for whose benefit it's going to be destroyed. See, that's a real issue with the tariffs.

It's always there's the stench of central planning about it, isn't there, as to who's going to be the winners and who's going to be losers and nobody knows. And one of the biggest losing issues of this is the chaos and the uncertainty. And I believe that that is deliberate. I really do believe that that is deliberate. Trump is pushing senior advisors to go bigger on tariff policy. So who's setting the policy? The people in the White House are, we don't know what's going to happen. Nobody's responsible for this except Trump. Then other people say, well, Trump is pushing his advisors to go bigger. So they're telling him what he can or cannot do, or he's telling them what they can or cannot do. It's total chaos and confusion. Within the White House, as well as on stock

markets and other things like that, that's one of the reasons why gold is going up so high. You know, when things get crazy, people want to get real. You want to grab something that has been around for millennia as value. You want to grab something that you can physically hold that isn't some ephemeral thing that exists somehow on the internet at a distance, hopefully. Like these tokens. You know when you look at these tokens what they're say, well, it makes everything so easy to trade and they can change value very quickly. So, oh, well, maybe that's good if you're a day trader. But if you're an ordinary person, that's not a good thing. Volatility is not good for us. Volatility is good for them.

Unless you're going to sit there and gamble and then you're going to sit there like Scrooge McDuck reading the ticker tape thing all the time and making a quick trade. And even then you're not going to beat these people who have computers, who have AI, who have, you know, they're going to have wind up having AI agents. It'll be interesting to see when or if or how the SEC will try to regulate AI agents, do you know what those are? That's going to be the big wave of AI You could one good example of a company is about to release this stuff and they've already released it to some people who have done some test cases and

an obvious situation is a real estate agent. And so in one of these cases, they told the AI agent, they said, well, okay, we want to move to this area. Here's our income. Here are some of our requirements. We have kids in school and this and that. And we need this much square footage if possible, any special needs like that. And this thing goes out and basically instantly gives them a report. Way beyond what a real estate agent would do. Another use case was, well, I've got a room and I've got some furniture, but there's some open areas here. And I'm not really sure how to arrange the furniture or

what other suggestions you might make for these other areas. Here are my goals. I would like to have some storage over here, seating for this many. I got a television over here. And it ranges the room for you. It gives you several different possibilities. And not only that, but it gives you, for each of the pieces, it gives you links to several different places where you could buy several alternatives for each of those, just like

that. And so it's going to be kind of interesting to see what happens when these stock traders who are heavily involved in algorithmic trading, the quants as they call them sometimes, when they start to use AI agents to do the trading. It's going to be AI agents talking to other AI agents. You're talking about volatility and stuff. We can crash all the markets in record time. Yeah, they're going to go really fast when they start talking to each other.

All these different AI agents. What other language will they use? Anyway, the speaking in binary. Speaking of binary, so my point being, I got off on that rabbit trail because I was talking about how they're saying, well people are rushing to tokenize real assets. Be careful about that. I gotta say, I'm not telling you what to do with your money. I'm saying that I'm not gonna tokenize anything that I can avoid tokenizing because it makes it accessible to thieves around the world and Governments, I know I'm being redundant here

Governments and thieves, but it also It makes it extremely volatile and volatility is not a good thing And it is surprising even though gold not, I wouldn't call it volatile, it's been responding, it's been going up because of the chaos, because of the volatility, because of the uncertainty, because of things like these tariffs. Wall Street and Capitol Hill have urged the White House to have a cautionary approach. Trump has continued in a conciliatory approach continued press for aggressive measures To transform the US economy transform it to what?

How about we have a discussion on that how about talk about that I mean was this Really what people voted for who voted for him? interesting to have that discussion Did they vote for? Panama Greenland and Canada to be brought in? So we can get 53 states. Anyway, Trump commutes the sentence of Jason Galanis. And this is the second Hunter Biden business partner, quote unquote, we put business in air quotes here.

The second one to receive clemency. Now this is arguably, arguably because he testified to house Republican investigators who were looking into the dirty dealings of the Bidens and there's a lot to see there. That's a target rich environment. Uh, but the other person who was just, um, given a pardon was Devin Archer. And so this guy, Jason Galanis, had been given a prison sentence for defrauding an American Indian tribe.

And he was, but he's now going to be immediately released instead of serving 14 years. And it was pretty significant what he did to them. He pled guilty to $60 million scheme to sell bogus tribal bonds and he was sentenced to 189 months in prison in September of 2020. Maybe he could find a place in the Trump administration. If he's going to sell bogus bonds, I mean, this is the kind of guy that Lucky Lutnik would love to have on his staff there at Commerce. I'm sure there's a place for him.

House Republicans heard testimony from Galanis while behind bars last year after he revealed a 2014 conversation with then Vice President Joe Biden, who had this conversation with his son and the former mayor of Moscow. Joe Biden said, you be good to my boy. Good old boy network here, that of cronyism, nepotism, corruption. He said that to the ex-Moscow mayor Yuri Luzkov and his wife, who was an oligarch, Yelena Batarina. It was not a ballerina, I don't think, she's an oligarch. She had two months earlier transferred three and a half million dollars to a firm controlled by Hunter Biden and his business partner, Devin Archer, who was also involved in the

tribal bond scheme and who also got a full pardon from Trump last week. Both Gelandis and Archer indicted in 2016 for selling phony bonds with Archer receiving a conviction two years later and only getting a one-year prison sentence. This guy got 14 years and he's now been released immediately. At the time of the sales, Hunter Biden was serving as vice chairman of Burnham financial group. It's amazing how talented and diverse were the skills of Hunter Biden. About banking, about energy. He's just an expert on so many things.

Art, you know, I mean, just all over the place. I think he's got a lot of experience with pharmaceuticals as well, but he's evidently worth every penny that they pay him. So Hunter Biden was getting a salary of $200,000, according to testimony. E-mails found on the former first son's abandoned laptop. But, of course, he's been given a full pardon. Now, the interesting thing about this is that this guy who was pardoned by Trump now, again, they had talked to House Republicans who are investigating the corruption of the Bidens. But it seems a lot like what happened with the Clintons. You know, you had these secret deals and technology transfers and skull and dagger corruption,

Johnny Wong and all the rest. And they would give these people, when they would investigate the crimes of the Clintons, they would give these people a plea bargain deal. Tell us what you know and we won't charge you. Now why do you usually do that? You usually do that because you want to get to the person that's above them, right? And yet the people that were above them, the Clintons, they didn't do anything. They just told this guy, �We'll give you a plea bargain if you tell us everything that

you know and everything that you did. And he told him everything he knew and everything he did and they said, thank you very much. You're free to go. And then they did nothing with that information. That's kind of like what the House Republicans are doing with all this stuff with the Bidens. Now, as Biden pardoned his son for virtually everything, a broad pardon over a 10-year period, Trump had pointed out that Biden did not pardon himself, that he made a big mistake. Well, it remains to be seen whether or not anything is going to be done with that. Perhaps it will. We don't know. We'll have to wait and see.

Just remember though that this isn't strictly about letting people go who gave them some information that might be used to come after his political enemies or to clean things up. I mean that would be the ultimate thing you wanted. Trump wants this to be seen as revenge and don't cross me. I'm powerful type of thing What would be good for the country if people were to if you go out of his way to make this look as if he Was reforming the system as if people were going to be charged with their crimes as a deterrent to say that we don't care Who you are you're not above the law. I don't see that happening I think that if he does come after Biden or these other people, I think he will go

out of his way to make sure that people perceive it as revenge, as a personal vendetta. But remember, we also, as I pointed out yesterday, the, uh, the CEO of Nicola, the, uh, the truck company that ran all kinds of fraud. They put their badge on a Ford truck and pass it off as theirs. They let a truck roll down the hill, coasting down the hill, and said it was under electrical power and all the rest of the stuff. And these are big trucks, 18-wheelers. This guy, the CEO, Milton, was convicted, waiting, he was appealing this or whatever. He was not in jail, but he was convicted in 2023 and 2024. He gave nearly $2 million to Trump and now he's walking free.

Don't understand why that is. Has he got some information about the Biden's? Is he going to help with any of that stuff? No, this is just pay to get out of jail. And we have another, some more crony capitalism here. Pro-Trump billionaire Reed Rasner has made a $47 billion bid to buy TikTok, quote, for the American people. It's not for him. It's for you. He's gonna buy TikTok for you. I would say, well, thank you very much, but I don't want it or need it.

You know, I said, when all this, when Trump came out and said, well, I'm adding more tariffs to China and I'll be open to taking those off if they let us buy TikTok and I said, what he's going to do is he's going to sell it to one of his friends. Well here, now we know the name of the friend who wants to buy TikTok. And these tariffs that we're told, are so important financially. They're so important for America. And yet Trump will get rid of them so that his friend can get TikTok.

And why do we need TikTok? Well, we're told that TikTok, just like we, we had concerns about 5G. We didn't want the Chinese to have the 5G circuitry, because they'd listen to everything that we do. They'd see the big board. So we can't let them have control of 5G or 6G. So we're going to keep it under American control, so that the federal government can see your big board, and everything that you do, and everything that you control.

And so the question is, if TikTok is so dangerous, why do we want anybody running this thing? Why do we want people who are connected to the American government, or connected to a political party running this stuff? We don't. America first billionaire entrepreneur is the way he is described by Slay News. Reid Rassner has reportedly made an offer to buy TikTok from China for a whopping 47 billion dollars. He is a pro-Trump Republican, former Senate candidate. He ran in 2024 in the primaries, but he lost to another Republican. He tried to primary another Republican. He lost in that. So he's got political aspirations for sure. He wants to buy the video sharing platform to quote, benefit the American people. And no word as to whether or not

China wants to sell this but now we see the contour of this, the tariffs that are so important, vital to America's national security or economic prosperity. Well, we can let that go if you let my friend buy TikTok. How about that? Folks, that's what's really going on here. And as I said before, the problem with tariffs is that they have the stench of central planning about them, even if done honestly. They also have the stench of crony capitalism and corruption, when it's done to benefit people like Elon Musk.

The Trump administration is prepared to move forward with the offer in an effort to bring in popular short video platform under American control, so that we can be surveilled and propagandized domestically instead of by China. Isn't it better? Actually, I'd rather be surveilled by China. Don't think that China is going to show up in the middle of the night with a SWAT team. Rassner ran for the US Senate 2024 in Wyoming and he did not make it through the primary. Under his proposed plan, TikTok would allow investment tiers

for Americans to buy into the platform as founding members. So you could start with just $280 a year to become a founding member of American tick-tock or you could invest as much as 12,000 per year The investments provide perks like boosts to reach. Oh, okay Pay to speak. There you go Money money bombs so I can get a Verification badge and boosted content on tick-to TikTok. No, we'll not be doing that. So you get the perks or things like boosting your reach and verification badges to quote the treasure of Sierra Madre.

I don't need no stinking badges. You could care less about a badge on TikTok. I had somebody who really had their feelings there because I thought that I was not, uh, and I mentioned something that they sent me last week because I thought it was very good. And when I see it and, uh, you know, I will put it out there, but, um, he was kind of upset and kind of vaguely accused me of, uh, uh, giving short shrift to people that I didn't think were my equal

or whatever. And it's like, look, I don't look at X anymore, hardly ever. Very occasionally, and even to my detriment, I've missed some really good interviews that I would like to have been a participant in and things like that because I didn't check even Twitter or my private messages for over a week. So I should do more with that, but I've just I'm fed up with this social media stuff and I'm not really big on doing promotions, but definitely, you know, they're not big on doing promotions of me either. I've been canceled so many different places. I just I don't have any confidence in any of this stuff.

And so, you know, I was trying to, you know, make it clear that I don't really, you know, it's not a, it's not like I'm ignoring somebody. I just don't even bother to look much anymore. Anyway, how Trump could be president until 2037? According to a simple loophole in the Constitution. Now, this is on the surface over the weekend. I mentioned it yesterday. He said to NBC News, he said, well I'd have a third trial. You're kidding, right? No, I'm not joking. There's ways that we can do this. And she said, oh, so, and this is what Daily Mail is talking about. How about, you

know, 2029, Inauguration Day. I, James, Vance, do solemnly swear, moments later, with a knowing smile the new President of the United States declares, I resign, and his running mate, Donald Trump, gives him a big bear hug and the crowd cheers, and now Donald Trump is President. And so the person at NBC News had referred to this very scenario, and he said, well that's one way to do it, but there's other ways to do it. It wasn't clear what he was, what his other ways are. But this all hinges on the Constitutional Amendments language which says that all hinges on elected. It says no person shall be elected to the

office of president more than twice. They're saying, well, what if somebody else gets elected and hands it to me? There you go. And so that's what they're looking at. And then Daily Mail says, well, you know, maybe he could keep going until 2037, where he'd be 90 years old. You know, just like Diane Feinstein, or I'm not Diane, I'm Feinstein. Or Mitch McConnell freezing in office. Or Joe Biden, who is not that old. But you know, none of us know when our middle faculties are going to disappear. None of us know if we're, how long we're going to live. But these people think they're gonna live forever.

And even after they have checked out for all practical purposes, they still wanna stay in Washington and still wanna stay in power. This is, but this is part of what we see with the Trump administration, the love of power and wanting to remain in power so badly. Well, we're going to take a quick break and when we come back

I'm going to talk about some of the ways that the border is being enforced, some of the nightmare scenarios that are happening there. Very troubling and it's also very troubling to see how the police are being used against some of these people whose crimes are writing an op-ed when they're in college. Seriously. So we're going to take a quick break of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a

little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a The The The making sense. Common again, you're listening to the David Knight show.

Can we have a comment here? Can you pull that up? Travis, uh, DJ mmm dg8 thank you for the tip he says that David the reason they want control of tik-tok is to block the exposure of the genocide in Gaza God bless you and your family I agree and we're gonna talk about that that is the immediate cause but our government and you know it is a foreign government that is demanding that we censor and we're seeing that rolled out in many, many different ways.

But overall, the long-term goal of our government, of all these governments, is to censor people for whatever it is that they do not want you saying anything that you do to oppose the government's official line or the foreign government that owns our government's official line. But when we talk about what is happening at the border and this kind of tangentially is connected to that, I still have nightmares say some of the tourists who were shackled and jailed for weeks. I mentioned this briefly yesterday. Lucas Silaf was in a car queue waiting to cross from Mexico in the US on a border guard, seeing his German passport, began bombarding him with questions.

Things like, do you have your identity papers, please? We used to, that used to be the meme, the stereotype of German Nazis and occupied France and things like that. But now we have become that. The 25 year old tourist who had been traveling with his American fiance was shackled, taken in for questioning and then interrogated for hours. And he spent 16 days in detention before being escorted to an airport and allowed to fly back to Germany earlier this month.

He told the Financial Times in the UK, he said, I still have nightmares about that. I'm not going back to normal, not yet back to normal. I'm trying to process everything properly and it's going to take a while. He had a valid visa waiver entry permit. He had visited the US several times previously. He has an American fiance. One of a string of high profile cases of European and Canadian tourists who have suffered hostile treatment by the hands of border guards since Trump's return to the White House.

So even though he's got American fiance, perhaps they will not be looking at moving back here. Others have included Becky Burke, a Welsh backpacker detained for 19 days. Her parents complained she was taken to the airport for deportation in leg chains, waist chains and handcuffs. They said she's not Hannibal Lecter. What is going on with this? She was accused of traveling on the wrong visa. A paperwork error. Canadian actress Jasmine Mooney said she felt she had been kidnapped and forced to take

part in some sort of insane psychological social experiment. She spent 12 days in detention. So one of them 16 days, another one 13, let's see, one of them 16 days, one of them 19 days, the Welsh backpacker, and then this actress from Canada, 12 days. She was trying to renew an expired work visa at a border. So I guess this is all because the US is being overrun with dangerous hostile immigrants from Germany, Wales and Canada, right? And they're all bringing in fentanyl as well.

Perhaps they've got some cheap car parts, who knows? The apparent shift has prompted several nations to change their travel advice about whether or not it's safe to go to the U.S. Every day I'm getting calls from citizens, visa holders, immigrants, and travelers. There's a huge concern out there. The administration is creating an atmosphere that's very restrictive to immigrants and even to visitors and tourists. No rules have officially changed for most visitors, they said.

In other words, there's no new laws, no new rules from a bureaucracy, but they have given the border guards discretion. And they said the rules are being applied differently by different border guards. Do you like that kind of a system? I don't. I don't like the idea that bureaucracies are writing rules because Congress doesn't want to bother passing laws. And so they write those rules without any oversight.

They're not elected. They're not accountable. And then they say, well, because the rules are not laws, you don't have any due process. You have no presumption of innocence. You have no protection either against excessive fines. As a matter of fact, you can be fined without even being found guilty. Civil asset forfeiture and other things like that. They call them civil violations when you violate their rules. And now we take it one step further because whenever you have a system like that, you usually find that there's a great deal of arbitrary capricious discretion that is given

to the people who are the bureaucrats enforcing it, and that's what we're seeing here at the border now. In addition to that, as we talk about the desire to censor what people are saying, we have private groups that are working to identify and report student protesters for possible deportation. This is like the Stasi. I've talked many times about the American. She loved communism, and so she wanted to go live in East Germany when East Germany was communist and she went over there on a student visa. She met a guy, they got married, but East German police were suspicious of her because she was

American and after all, I mean who in their right mind would want to live in East Germany under the communists? You know, she left America to live here. Something is wrong, said the police. And so they were suspicious. They kept tabs on her all the time. And she said she was surprised to find out later, you know, when East Germany fell, when they unified with the West and they released some of the Stasi files years later, she said she was amazed to find that, to all these people she thought were her friends. They were Stasi informants. And this is what the government is trying to do.

But of course, this is not being run necessarily by the government. It's in cooperation with the government. This is an Israeli group, kind of a private group that's going out. They're using biometric surveillance and their connections to the federal government which will do whatever they wish going out and so this private group is doing the investigation they're fingering people handing it over to the government and you know we've seen this before we saw this when it was happening I remember when we saw censorship on social media same type of thing, actually.

Yeah, they weren't physically arresting you and physically throwing you out of the country, but it was still being done by private groups. We had groups that were at universities, Indiana University and the Oh So Me, the Observatory for Social Media type of thing. And that was interestingly run by a guy who was brought over from Italy to run their degenerate sex institute, the Kinsey Institute. They're at conservative Indiana University. And then they moved this guy over to run their social media censorship.

They would use bots and other tactics and anything to identify people like me and then to send those lists to the social media companies and have them get rid of people. And by the way this is happening during the Trump administration 2018. Yes it was being done by leftists but Trump didn't do anything to stop them. Nobody in his administration did anything to stop them. It was 2018 we had the major purge. August the 6th, 2018.

Everybody on Infowars getting purged. Pretty much from everywhere. I didn't get purged from Twitter. I got shadow banned after that. But pretty much everybody else got purged. Paul Joseph Watson didn't get purged anywhere. He was on YouTube even. But the,

two months later, you had 800 different organizations, most of them opposed to the coups and assassinations and wars of the intelligence agency. It was not predominantly Trump supporters. It was people who were opposing all that. People like the Free Thought Project, I interviewed them when they got kicked off, but you know, first it was Infowars in August and then it was 800 others two months later. And again, it was private organizations or university organizations that were fingering people for punishment. When a protester was caught on video in January to New York rally against Israel, only her

eyes were visible between a mask and a headscarf. But days later, photos of her entire face along with her name and an employer were circulated online. And so it's a right-wing Jewish group. Some people have identified with the tool. They had a list of names that they submitted to Trump's administration, urging that they be deported in accordance with this call for the exclusion of foreign students who participated in pro jihadist protests.

I've said before that my first understanding of what was going on in Iran under the Shah and what had happened with the CIA was when we had a lot of Iranian students, many of them engineering students at University of South Florida, and they were protesting about the clavas on and that type of thing. Same type of deal with this, only the eyes are visible. And I thought, that's really crazy. Why are they doing that? I mean, they look like terrorists, you know.

But the real terrorists were the Savak in Iran. And they were wearing the mask because the Iranian government, friendly to the US government, just like the Israeli government is now, had people there trying to get pictures of them. They didn't have biometric technology at that point in time. They couldn't do it. Now, that technology is not just in the hands of the state. Of course, this right-wing Jewish group could be a front organization for a Mossad or any

of that. We don't know that they're independent, but we do know that this technology is widely dispersed with a lot of people But going back to that, you know, you would have a situation where the Iranian government was friendly to the American government As a matter of fact, it was a puppet of the American government. That's the only distinction The American government is a puppet of the Israeli government. Then it was the Iranian government There was a puppet of the American government. So roles have reversed Then it was the Iranian government that was a puppet of the American government. So roles have reversed.

But they would have liked to have known who these people were. They would have liked to have had them deported. They would have liked to have arrested their family members and tortured them. And that's why they were wearing those balaclavas. But don't we have a right to free speech in this country? And if somebody is here legally, if they're not here legally, yeah, sure, take them out. That's what they're doing. And if they are violent, that's a reason to deport them and so forth.

But for speech, no. No. And the lines are getting kind of blurry on all of this stuff, especially with the most recent ones. Because once you start down the path of, well, we're going to get rid of this stuff, especially the most recent ones. Because once you start down the path of, well, we're going to get rid of this person. And we all know that it's because of what they say. It isn't because of violence and other things. They may have been involved in that as well, but it's really about what they have to say. Speech is, the pen is mightier

than the sword. And so it's really about what they have to say. And as you start down that path, it gets easier and easier to deport people for less and less. And just get to the point where we are right now, that you're simply deporting people because of speech. The push to identify mass protesters using facial recognition turned them in as blurring the line between public law enforcement and private groups, just as we've seen the line blurred between our elected representatives and our selected representatives who are bought and paid for by foreign government. That's what we're seeing here.

And then who trade-rously work with that foreign government to shut down our First Amendment rights for the benefit of that foreign government. We don't know who these individuals are or what they're doing with this information," said one person. "'If you have a right on a student visa causing civil unrest, assaulting people on the streets, chanting for people's death. Why did you come to this country? Said Eliyahu Hawala, a software engineer

who built the tool that they said is being used for this. Well, again, if you're causing civil unrest, the police are there to arrest you. If you're assaulting people on the streets, that's something that is a crime as well. But other than that, if it is speech, why are they doing this? He says if we want to argue that this is freedom of speech and they can say it, then fine, they can say it. But that doesn't mean that you'll escape the consequences, you see? He's not

talking about free speech. He says, okay, so if we want to argue that's free speech, because again, it's about free speech, it's not about civil unrest and these other nebulous things. It really is about free speech. He says, if you want to say it, that's fine, but there's gonna be consequences. Well, if there's consequences for it, then you don't have freedom of speech, do you? Duh. It's like the difference between privileges and rights. So if there's consequences, the speech is not free.

Here's what I would suggest. I would suggest we deport people like this guy who is trying to shut down our constitution. Get rid of these private Israeli Zionist people out there. Deport them and deport the people who are corrupting our politicians and get rid of these politicians as well. So this is a pro-Israel group. The use of facial recognition technology by private groups enters territory previously reserved largely for law enforcement." Well, and we talked about this as well, all the flock cameras that are everywhere. Law enforcement loves this, and these flock cameras are ubiquitous.

They are the silent partners of Big Brother. Well, you know, it'd be probably a violation of law if we did it, but hey, if you do it, then just give us the money. That'd be great. Well, while all this is happening, while America is becoming a tug of war between hostile forces who have come here, because there's so much money and so much power to be taken out of Washington, we have the Israelis, we have the Muslims, both of them trying to exercise influence here and also in Europe.

We got King Charles, Queen Camilla, and Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, may wish it so, but the UK is not a Muslim country, says Exposé News. The UK is making significant concessions to a seven percent muslim population at the expense of its own culture and its own christian heritage and by the way muslims are seven percent of the population in the uk the jewish population here is 2.4 percent mostly but they they do pretty much own congress, the GOP, as they're demanding that we shut down free speech and do not say that Christ is king, especially at Easter time. That's when they, when Ben Shapiro starts his campaign every year now, apparently.

Examples include the celebration of Iftar in Christian institutions, the cancellation of Easter celebrations in a school, and the broadcasting of the Islamic call to prayer in Christian churches. Here we have a so-called conservative commentator telling us you can't say Christ is king because it offends Jewish people. You can't have Easter celebrations in the UK because it offends Muslim people. People like Charles, Camilla, Keir Starmer appear to be promoting Islamic values at events such as Ramadan, while traditional British values and Christianity are being eroded. Well, it's not just there. It's also President

Trump. You know, as he's vowing the need to AIPAC and these and Masad and these private groups to Deport anybody who criticizes Netanyahu Because you know you It's not anti-semitism to Chris criticize Netanyahu. It's anti Netanyahu ism and It's half of the people in Israel don't like Netanyahu And it's half of the people in Israel don't like Netanyahu. And so here you have President Trump, though, doing whatever they want. And he is doing the same thing that Charles and Camilla and Keir Starmer are doing in the UK.

President Trump is coming to the United Kingdom and welcoming to this magnificent Iftar dinner, very special, as we honor the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. Let me begin by saying to our Muslim friends, of which I have many tonight, and I think we have many all over the world based on the results in Michigan, other places, but I just want to say hello to all of the people that supported us so strongly. Ramadan Mubarak. Ramadan Mubarak. Hey, you gave me money. I'm grateful to be told by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.

Tulsi, thank you very much. Yeah, Hindu. Deputy Secretary of State Landa. Thank you to the Hindu government she represents. Thank you, Chris. Congratulations, by the way. Deputy Special Envoy Morgan Ortegas. Morgan.

Thank you, Chris. Congratulations, by the way. Deputy Special Envoy Morgan Ortegas. Hi, Morgan. Well, you get the idea. I mean, go down the roll call of all the people that support him, have given him money, and that's fine. He's for sale to any group, by the way. Isn't that nice? That's the nice thing about America. Not just that anybody can become President, but that anybody can buy a president, buy influence of the president.

That's what it's really about. Just take a look at the amount of money that they spend on the elections and you understand what's going on with it. But while this is happening here, of course in the UK, it is much more obvious, I guess. Here the AIPAC and Netanyahu and the people in Israel are doing it with money behind the scenes. It's a lot more in people's face in the UK. The mayor of London is Muslim. The mayor of Birmingham is a Muslim.

The mayor of Leeds is Muslim. The mayor of Blackburn is Muslim. The mayor of Sheffield is Muslim. The mayor of Oxfordeds is Muslim. The mayor of Blackburn is Muslim. The mayor of Sheffield is Muslim. The mayor of Oxford is a Muslim. The mayor of Luton is a Muslim. The mayor of Oldham is a Muslim. The mayor of Rochdale is a Muslim. All of this was achieved by only four million Muslims

out of the 66 million people in England. Today in England, there are over 3,000 mosques. There are over 130 Sharia courts in England and there are more than 50 Sharia councils. 78% of Muslim women do not work and receive state support and free accommodation. 63% of Muslims do not work and receive state support and free accommodation. 63% of Muslims do not work and receive state support and free housing. State-supported Muslim families have an average of 6 to 8 children who all receive free accommodation. Every school in the UK is required to teach about Islam. The number one most common baby name in England is Muhammad.

This is not immigration, this is invasion. Yeah, it is. And when you look at, there was a meme that was circulating around, Whistler showed me, he said, this is, they have two pictures side by side. Here's a picture of the Christmas market. notice how they put up barriers and they got guards They got police cars anything try to stop people from a terrorist attack driving a car through it or something like that

And I said and here's an Islamic celebration. It's being done. Maybe as part of iftar or something like that No security needed What does that tell you? Islamist-inspired motorists continued to take the lives of innocent people by careening into crowds, mainly in Germany and so forth. This person writing this in the Exposé said, �In my hometown of Hull, Iftar, the evening meal of Muslims during Ramadan, was celebrated in Hull Minster and was delightfully taken down in a rant by a couple of hooligans as they call themselves, who asked amongst other things if there would be a two-minute

silence to reflect on all the Islamic-inspired terrorist atrocities that have happened, or an Easter Day hot cross bun tasting at the mosque, because that's what these nominally Christian church institutions are doing in the UK. They celebrate Islamic traditions inside the churches. Or would any camp gentleman be directed straight up to the central tower without even a sandwich? Another example, an outrage in fact, is the cancellation of Easter celebrations by the headmistress of Norwood Primary School in Hampshire. In Hampshire, Hartford and Heatherford hurricanes hardly happen. This was done in the name of inclusivity, which ironically excludes Christianity.

Well, not ironically. It's not a coincidence that just happened. It was planned that way. So inclusivity hypocritically excludes Christianity. Instead, the school will celebrate Refugee Week. Presumably, the children will not be taught the distinctions between legal and illegal refugees. They will doubtless be indoctrinated into the cult of multiculturalism and how it enriches our society, except for the bits about Sharia law, knife crime and rape gangs." Well, here's the situation. We have these two factions who have been fighting each other in the Middle East for the longest

time. Now they've decided that they want to come here and, A, in the UK, dominate the people who are living there. And in the UK, in the US., they want to fight each other. And one group wants to impose Sharia law on us. The other one is pushing Noahide laws. Look, I just say deport them all, is what I say. Islam, Netanyahu, they're both the same.

They both hate us. They both want to enslave us. And they both hate us, they both want to enslave us, and they both hate Christ. So I don't have any love for either one of these groups that are here. Ramadan, many of these other schools that are nominally Christian will be celebrating Ramadan. Why any Christian school should be celebrating events relative to a religion which is completely incompatible with Christianity is hard to

fathom. Christmas cribs are deemed to be offensive to certain religious minorities. Crucifixes likewise. While singing Christmas carols can be offensive to religious minorities, we increasingly hear the call to prayer being broadcast in parts of the UK. As a matter of fact, they're doing it up on London Bridge with loudspeakers. And most recently inside the Christian Chapel at Windsor Castle. This is where the royal family is, of course. Most likely Prince Charles, who is nominally supposed to be the head of the Church of England. I think he's a Muslim. Christian churches have broadcast the call to prayer and in 2022 these included Westminster Abbey. They said on a sarcastic note, it makes a refreshing change to see a religious ceremony taking place in an Anglican church for once.

London, the territory of Siddique Khan, is festooned with lights now, celebrating the season of Ramadan. This is a new thing because they're going to replace Christmas with Ramadan. This person said, �I've been in Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia, during Ramadan. I have seen no such thing as Ramadan lights, but they're there in London now. Without a care for net zero, global warming or increased emissions, Mayor Kahn has switched on the Ramadan lights at Piccadilly Circus.

Our King seems to be fully signed up into the Islamification agenda. His philanthropic works include trying to establish a mosque at Piccadilly Circus, and the Aziz Foundation provided the background work for the APPG on British Muslims, which seeks to ban any criticism of Muslims or Islam. Christians and Christianity are, of course, however, fair game, and you can be arrested for praying silently in front of an abortion clinic, but don't criticize Islam. So our leaders are selling us out. They've sold us out a long time ago to foreign factions. And there is more Christian persecution that is on the way. Don't worry about it. It'll just make us better Christians. And it'll, the people who, you look at China,

boy those people in those house churches are hardcore. Or India, where the government associated with Tulsi Gabbard is killing them left and right. Yeah, that government is very connected to our director of national intelligence. Now, you wonder why we can't, won't help any Christian refugees from these countries? So they want to come here, and they want to be, they want to bring their war here to our home as well. On Rumble SVCat, thank you very much for the tip, I appreciate that. Let's take a quick break, and we will be right back. So You're listening to the David Knight Show. Welcome back.

Let's talk a little bit about what's happening with gold, real money. And we have seen, as I mentioned earlier, gold breaking up above $3,100. This is even more than they had been predicting last fall. We'd had a big run up last fall. I remember we would have Tony Arderman on and he would say, I've never seen anything like this. We're getting one all time high after the other. It's really kind of crazy, difficult to deal with for Tony as well, because things are changing very rapidly, which doesn't typically happen with gold and silver. It doesn't usually

change that rapidly. But everybody was real bullish on gold and then Trump got elected and everybody got very bullish on crypto and the price of gold dropped to, what was it, $2,500 or something like that? Yeah, we got down to the 2500s, I think. And I said, this is just temporary because nothing is fundamentally changed. This is people just thinking that Trump is going to roll out the red carpet for crypto stuff. And actually, he rolled out so many red carpets

that people started to realize it's gonna be a magic carpet ride. Maybe it wasn't real. His Trump coins, his meme coins, his tweeting about the Bitcoin reserve and talking about these three coins that had nothing to do. They're tightly controlled, centrally controlled. They weren't being used as stores of wealth, which is what Bitcoin is now being used at. Bitcoin was originally designed of course to handle transactions and then it got hijacked as Roger Ver points out. It got hijacked into being

a store of wealth. Now it's actually been hijacked again by BlackRock and others who have superimposed an ETF on top of it. Absolutely unnecessary! I mean it just doesn't make any sense at all why you would have an ETF of Bitcoin, which is infinitely split-able. It's only so that these people like the ones at BlackRock can run some kind of a scam on you. Anyway, they had been predicting that gold is going to get up to 3,000 the first quarter of the year. Well, you know, by the end of the first quarter it went up to 3,100, even though it took that big hit in terms of confidence. Spot gold reached an intraday peak of 3,128 as a matter of fact, while the June futures touched 3,162.

It's now roughly up 19% year-to-date, just in one quarter. Outperforming most asset classes and continuing its 2024 momentum where it gained over 27%. And as Gerald Sunte was saying, he said Trump is really good for gold the first time. He's going to be really good for gold around this time as well. He said last year was going to be the year for gold. By the way, if you want to get Gerald Sunty's excellent publication, Trends Journal, just use the code NIGHT and save 10% off. It is a real bargain, the amount of information that he has.

And he doesn't fill it with fluff. This is truly historic price action. One person who is an editor at a gold tracking group said 10% of that 19% gain came in just the past month. If you look at the monthly chart, it's basically straight up. Well, why is that? As I said before, when people are worried, they turn to real stuff. And they know that gold is real. There's not some concoction. As a matter of fact, they've thrown all of

these concoctions at it to try to suppress its value. They've thrown fiat dollars at it. They've thrown ETFs at it. They've thrown crypto at it. And it still keeps coming. Gold is benefiting from heightened geopolitical tension, sticky inflation, surging investor interest through exchange traded funds, the ETFs. And this is the message that I wish people could get, that if you want to own gold, don't get it as an ETF. It's just like Bitcoin. Why get Bitcoin as an ETF from BlackRock? Accept no substitutes. You can go get Bitcoin yourself, and you can get gold yourself. And even if you don't have a lot to invest, you can get fract yourself, and even if you don't have a lot to invest.

You can get fractionalized gold. It's one of the things that Tony has at Wise Wolf. You can get these chiclet things, and you can break off small amounts of gold and that type of stuff. So yeah, you can get small amounts of gold if you don't have a lot of money. And it's price per ounce is high, but still, there's a lot of different ways that people fractionalized it. Why would you trust somebody in Shanghai, some financial shark who tells you that yeah don't worry I'm buying gold. Now you're not getting a

share in the gold, you're getting a share in my fund but you're not getting any share in gold and it doesn't track with gold either. And yet, because people are looking at gold, and I did this early on too, it's like, oh yeah, put some money in gold. So you go to the ETF, which is GLD, or you get silver with SLV, and it's easy to get it through the typical channels

and things like that, but you're not really getting the real thing. Total assets under management and global gold ETFs now stand at $268 billion, with a one-day inflow of 23 tons recorded in March, the highest since 2022. So they are buying more gold. The question is, are they keeping that parity? What you wind up with these ETFs and the paper gold and stuff is the same situation that the Europeans wound up when they did Bretton Woods and they said, okay, the US has got a lot of gold. They got gold in Fort Knox and so they're going to issue fiat paper. And we trust them to do that. Then they found out that they couldn't trust us to do that, couldn't trust the federal government to do that.

And you're gonna have that same kind of realization when it comes to the Shanghai Gold Exchange. What these people are saying is trust us, we've got gold to back up what we're selling you. And it is just blind trust. You don't have any way to audit that. And pretty soon, hopefully, people are going to catch on to that. So Trump is expected to announce reciprocal tariffs tomorrow targeting countries, and

that's the key thing. He's targeting countries. He's not doing it necessarily for a revenue thing, although now they're talking about trillion dollars and things like that of additional revenue. That's still not enough to fund the government or to replace the income tax, but he's really just attacking countries. He's not even trying to save particular industries, so to speak. Canadian, China, and the EU has also added automotive tariffs to take effect on April 3.

Expect by the way for used car prices to go up. Tariffs are essentially taxes on goods and that is inflationary, they said. Uncertainty not just about trade but about global conflict and political volatility is also playing a central role. And Trump has been pushing this up. Biden was pushing up concerns about war and volatility. He nearly took us into a nuclear war with Russia. But Trump is out there attacking everybody, essentially.

Silver is also playing catch up. They said that it faces some resistance. It was also climbing, though not with the same breakout as gold did. Despite outperforming gold in percentage points this quarter, silver ETF inflows, again, people are still buying silver as ETFs instead of the real thing, they've added just 2.2 million ounces or a 0.32% increase compared to gold's ETFs of a 5.9% rise. So gold goes up by 19% and they get 5.9% more gold in the ETFs. And the ETFs added 0.32% even though it went up at a very high

percentage. That's what I mean. It doesn't track it, you know, these paper substitutes. So it's the largest monthly percentage gain since February 2016. Uncertainty is going to continue to support the rally as people turn to it for safe haven. But here's the issue. What else is going up? Stable coins, tokenized assets. And people think that this is going to be a response to the Trump tariffs? This truly is fool's gold. As I said before, stable coins tied to US dollars are not stable. They're not coins. And when they talk about the crypto, your stuff is not encrypted. It's all out there on a public ledger. What

you're getting through Bitcoin. Every bit of this stuff has deception written all over it. More capital is flowing into stable coins and into the tokenization sector. Financial products, tangible assets such as real estate and fine art are being minted on the blockchain. Minted on the blockchain. They are being, in other words, virtualized for ease of future theft by governments or by individual thieves in my opinion.

They said because these assets reside on the blockchain even slight shifts in sentiment can trigger significant price movements driven by lower barriers to reallocating capital in real time. So they're there for anybody in the world to steal from you. And they are now, because they're there, well, now their value can change very quickly. Is that a feature or a bug? Now you've made it easily accessible to thieves and to governments, and you've made it highly volatile as well.

This is part of what's wrong with all this tokenization stuff. But we know how this worked out. If we go back and look at 2007, 2008, it was a tokenization essentially. They call it securitization. And people didn't know what they were getting. It's all mixed together. And it was just a scam, a scheme by these Wall Street sharks and all of the stable coin stuff. I think it was a scam by people like Lucky Lutnik.

So again, be very careful about this. These stable coins are, and the tokenization boom, that is how I believe they are going to steal everything from us and the great taking. I think that is an essential part of the great taking. Well, we're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back. You might want to hear it in your pot, you'll owe nothing And be happy Ain't got no cash, ain't got no car

But 24 booster shots in your arm, owe nothing Be happy You can't even buy s**t in the store because of your low social credit score. Own nothing. Be happy. You will own nothing and be happy. Be happy and eat the bugs. They're doing what in the place they named after me? Good thing I have The David Knight Show.

By the way, I was talking about Tony and Travis pulled up David Knight.Gold to take you to Wise Wolf Gold. But I'd like to say that you can get to Wise Wolf Gold through David Knight.Gold. I talked about all the reasons that you would want to physically hold gold, but Tony can actually help you make it happen. And he can work with you, whatever your budget is, large or small, if you want to make a large one-time purchase or small one-time purchase or if you want to gradually accumulate it, he does that as well. Nobody else that I know of does that. It's called Wolf Pack. You sign up how much money you want to save each month to get out of fiat currency and

get into gold or to silver. And he can help you to do that. And you get some really interesting things, as I was pointing out. Different ways to fractionalize and hold gold and silver. We all think of the coins, which are full ounce. And well, you know, that's a lot of money now. You know, gold coin is going to be over $3,100. But you can also get it in

some small fractional amounts. So you can get it where it's embedded into paper and things like that. Like a, it looks like a dollar bill, but it's actually got real intrinsic physical value to it. So there's a lot of interesting things there and you wind up getting exposed to those if you jump into the wise wolf thing, it's a real eye opener. So anyway, let's talk a little bit about climate change. We have talked about that for a while, the climate

MacGuffin. In Australia, in their election, they've got a choice between... What's up with that? It says a choice between impractical renewables and unaffordable nuclear. Except nuclear is more affordable for Australia than it is for us. Because we're getting a lot of our nuclear materials from Australia. You know, we haven't produced much uranium in the US anymore. Right after, you know, once it first started we were producing a lot. But now we've become reliant on foreign supplies of uranium. And so our biggest supplier of uranium are those evil Canadians.

Those people up North, I tell you, they, we get 27% of our uranium from those Canadians that we want to, we don't need them. Those gosh darn syrup swillers. Yeah, we don't need them says Trump. darn syrup swillers. Yeah, we don't need them says Trump. They can keep the uranium in their maple syrup. So we. All right, hold off on the maple syrup, okay? Let's not get crazy.

Yeah, well we also get 9% from Australia of our uranium. Now, so they've got enough that they can, their own use But they can also export to us and it can be 9% of our use We only supply domestically only supply 6% of our uranium. We get 9% from Australia 27% from Canada Kazakhstan is really big as well. It's great to have reliable supply chain like Kazakhstan Anyway, but it's still expensive for Australians. It's not just about the fuel. It's about disposing of the waste fuel. And yeah, there is technology that could be done, but the technology is not there yet. This is the big problem with the government centrally planning how we're going to generate electricity, how we're going to have energy.

They will reward their friends, and then if you criticize it, somebody will say, well, you know, you could do this and you could do that, and this is being looked at. And it's like, okay, well, when you've got a solution, let's come back and let's talk about that. But in the meantime, what you're selling people is a pie in the sky transfer of wealth. So as early 2010s, when Australia's climate wars began in earnest, practically every Australian federal political leader has at some point in the electoral cycle pledged to do something about power prices. Very rarely have they followed through.

This is by Ryan Crop, energy and climate reporter. He said, the Albanese government is the latest to walk into the trap. Not to be deterred though, the coalition is heading to the federal election, heading to the federal election, selling an equally ill-advised counterclaim that its policy to replace Australia's coal power plants with seven government-owned nuclear power stations will lower power bills by 44%." Yeah, right. Yeah, even if, even if you were going to build new coal plants, the new coal plants would be expensive, right? Relative to coal. So just the fact that you're going to build new plants and to

do something different because you've got to shut down coal. That's what we're talking about here, the absurdity of it. Australia's reliant on an aging and increasingly unreliable fleet of coal-powered coal-fired power stations that will eventually need to be replaced. Whether governments choose to do that with renewables, nuclear or something else entirely, it's going to cost a lot of money. But they won't replace them even with coal plants. Australia's failed energy system is crashing on the economy. Same as is happening in the UK and Germany. These net-zero ninis are banning affordable energy everywhere,

and the use of energy. They're making it unaffordable by design, and what it's doing is it's collapsing the economy, because they're collapsing manufacturing. Electricity prices soar by up to 9% in Australia. And we're going to see the same thing here in the US. We have, for example, here, the Tennessee Valley Authority, which is not just in Tennessee, it's regional power supply.

And you have local electrical co-ops that then buy it and resell it. But they wanna put in battery energy storage systems. Tesla was doing that. Elon Musk, I think it was in Australia, where he went down and he said, ìIíll put this in and Iíll get it done within whatever the time frame was.î It was a very short time frame, like two months. ìIf I donít get it in in two months, you donít have to pay me anything.î But hey, if I get it in in two months, youíve got to pay me. And so he did that. Theyíve also had fires, but

of course when they put in their battery energy storage sites, they're putting them out in the desert, not in a heavily wooded area like they are here in Tennessee. And these things have been known to catch fire, but they will absolutely burn your budget to a crisp because they're very, very expensive. You pair these massive battery storage sites, battery energy storage sites, you pair them with the already expensive solar and wind, quote unquote, renewables. Last year Australia's last major plastics manufacturer closed due to high energy costs,

making Australia wholly reliant on imported plastics from China. Australia's only architectural glass manufacturer closed last week after 169 years of operation and this is what we're seeing throughout the UK and Germany. I mean even Volkswagen having layoffs for the first time in corporate history for 80 plus years. But you're having the last coal-fired plants for steel manufacturing and also a special kind of coal that they use in steel manufacturing. All that stuff is being closed down in the UK and in Germany and in Australia. It's a suicide of the West in addition to the groups that they're bringing in. The article blames gas exports for high prices, but what are gas companies prioritizing?

Why are they prioritizing exports over domestic consumption? So the Australian gas companies are charging more, but they are selling it abroad. So the answer is obvious. The export market is safer and it is more predictable. Remember we talked about Trump and the chaos and how that's its own issue. You know, we can talk about deficits. We can talk about budgetary deficits, trade deficits, this and that, but chaos in and of itself is an expense. And so these people will sell it

abroad, these gas companies in Australia are selling abroad at a lesser price because the Australian government is so unpredictable. You can't run a business when you don't know what the business climate is going to be. And it can just change just like that because of arbitrary edicts from a government. Especially when the government is just being run by one person like Donald Trump, who Congress and everybody else, media on down, just lays at his feet and lets him do whatever he wishes without any opposition, without any discussion of the policy. It's whatever he had for lunch today, depending on his mood. That's what the tariffs are going to be.

Exporters know that when they sign those contracts with foreigners, they will make money and they know how much they're going to make. But it can't be said the same thing for the domestic Australian gas market. It is subject to the capricious whims of government price controls. So why is Australia being such a troublesome gas exporter? The reason for all this political foolishness is no mainstream Australian political leader is focused on prosperity. They've got their own agendas, right?

I'll just say they're not focused on the prosperity of the average Australian, just like you see in America. Yeah, these guys are focused on prosperity, their own. Their own prosperity. The long-term benefits of nuclear are dubious for a nation like Australia. Nuclear is a viable technology, but Australia has a lot of coal.

Capital costs of nuclear power are much greater than coal. Capital costs of building nuclear power plants will pile onto Australia's national debt, just as Baby Boom demographics are starting to really bite. You know, all those people that they weren't able to kill with a fake pandemic? There are places in Australia where nuclear makes sense, where remoteness and a lack of fossil fuel energy sources tips the balance in favor of nuclear, but where coal is available, it doesn't make any sense. Well climate activists in America are, we all know that power bills are going up, that they're soaring, and they want to tell you that it's anything but green energy.

Just like we see the excess deaths, it's anything but the vaccine. Massachusetts has historically supported several expensive green energy projects that have been found to raise utility costs, including offshore wind farms and the abandoned Cape Wind project. One of them, another one is the Vineyard Wind project. Massachusetts plans to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, a goal that is also champion was championed by the Biden administration to the tune of three trillion dollars. The sharp spikes and heating bills throughout the commonwealth in January February have been a financial shock and a burden but at least in the UK they have finally just

stopped oil. That's that group that terrorist group top oil. Well, now they are going to just stop because they got what they wanted. Labor government has gone further, faster than any other country in terms of national suicide. I guess we could call this green assisted suicide, economic suicide. And they've gotten what they want and so they're going to stop their vandalism stuff, but it is an indictment of this current labor government that they have given these radicals

who are gluing themselves to the road, who are defacing artwork and all this stuff. They got everything so much that the labor government is so radical that these radical lunatics have gotten everything that they could ever want and they're just going to stop doing their activism. Well, we're going to take a quick break and we're going to come back and when we do, we're going to take a look at some issues that have to do with, again, free speech. We'll be right back. The The The You're listening to The David Knight Show. Well this is an article that was picked up all across the spectrum.

Fact that a toddler was kicked out of a nursery for being transphobic. And everybody's like, what are you doing? This is a young child that is either three or four years old, suspended from a state school for, quote, abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity. And everybody was saying, why would you focus on this child? Why would you punish this child? The child is just saying, that's a boy, that's a girl.

Oh, you can't say that. And yet, what they are not talking about is the fact that it's not possible for any of these kids. You know, the other kids who are supposedly being transitioned, they're not doing that. That's being done to them. And as bad as it is for this kid to get kicked out of the nursery, what is being done to the kids that are being transitioned who also do not know what is going on? It's completely absurd. And what is happening to those children is even worse. They're not getting kicked out of a nursery. They're going to be mutilated, sterilized. James Younger, still fighting the battle for his young son.

He was married to a pediatrician. I interviewed him years ago, and he's been fighting this on and on. She moved out of Texas to California so she could help to do this, but she decided that she wanted – they had twin boys. She was – they had – she didn't want to have kids or couldn't have kids. They had twin boys. She didn't want to have kids or couldn't have kids. I don't know which it was. But these kids are biologically connected to James Younger's father.

I forget what his first name was. He has a website, Save James, I think. So they had IVF, they had twins, so these boys are twins, and the mother who had no biological connection to them and who divorced the father took the kids and decided that one of the boys was going to be a girl. And she got a judge in Texas to agree that by the time James turned eight, they were going to chemically castrate him like they were a rapist. And he's been fighting this. He's a Christian.

He's been fighting it very hard. But she again has gone to California. He's still fighting all of this. But that is the real crime that is there. People doing that to their children, people doing that to students. Yes, it's bad to kick a kid out because they don't play along with this game, but it's even worse what they do to the kids that are being quote unquote trans. This was a story from the UK Telegraph. It happened in the UK. The Department for Education

data shows that the child was aged either 3 or 4, suspended from a state school in 2022 to the 2023 academic year, for abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity. 94 pupils at state primary schools were suspended or permanently excluded for transphobia and homophobia that year. 10 pupils from year 1 and 3 from year 2 where the maximum age is 7. So I'm assuming that the maximum age for year 1 is 6. Of these included a child of nursery age, the data shows.

So the Telegraph revealed children as young as five are being kicked out of school for attacking their teachers or fellow pupils amid an alarming rise and no discipline in Britain's schools. Why? Because they're focused on this kind of stuff. The director of advocacy at Sex Matters said every once in a while the extremes of gender ideology throw up a story that seems too crazy to believe and a toddler being suspended from nursery for so-called transphobia or homophobia is one such example but again the real issue is that if this kid is going to be considered to be guilty of transphobia phobia or hom, they're saying that a fellow toddler there is being

identified as transgender or homosexual. And that's the even bigger issue. Worse still, this is not an isolated case. Apparently 13, 4 and 5 year olds were suspended or permanently excluded from school for the same reason. Teachers and school leaders involved in this insanity should be ashamed of themselves for projecting adult concepts and beliefs onto such young children." And again, the projection of beliefs is being projected onto the toddler that is being transitioned

or told that they're homosexual. Kids don't even think about that kind of stuff. And if the kids are thinking about this, you need to investigate the adults around them for child abuse. It's just that simple. Prioritized the activist demands over the charges well-being, as they said. That's what is happening. The number of pupils suspended or expelled for homophobic or transphobic behavior increased from 164 to 178 that year. Still,

the real issue is the child that is being transitioned. J.K. Rowling got involved in it. I think this is why you see this being reported everywhere. She put up on social media. She said, this is totalitarian insanity. If you think small children should be punished for being able to recognize sex, you are a dangerous zealot who should be nowhere near kids or any position of authority over them. And I would say this about the people in those nurseries. If you've got people there, not only the fact that you're not playing along with our game that so-and-so is transitioning, that person ought to be investigated and should be expelled because they're playing sexual games

with little kids. The case echoes that of Nigel and Sally Rowe, parents from the Isle of Wight, who took legal action in 2021 when a Church of England school labeled their six-year-old son as potentially transphobic. They, because they're labeling other kids as transgender. See, that's the bigger issue. Still, these people had, these parents had complained about learning that their son and his classmates were expected to accept that one of them had transitioned from a girl to a boy.

Just give me a few years and I'll show you a transphobic child. At the age of six even, yeah. Be afraid of these people who start talking to you about transgenderism, yeah. Be afraid of that. The Rose were ultimately awarded more than $23,900 in legal costs and commitment from the British government to reform trans-affirming policies in schools, though Nigel Roe told Fox News Digital in 2022 that representatives from the affiliated Church of England opposed them in their fight.

They still don't support us, he said. It's a bizarre world we live in. The Church of England opposed them in their fight. They still don't support us, he said. It's a bizarre world we live in. The Church of England is the biggest advocate for this depravity and this child abuse. The Bible says we don't fight against flesh and blood, he said, but against spiritual principalities. Again, Ephesians 6. He says, As a Christian I believe that there is a demonic realm that is bent on the destruction of everything that is of God, and that is especially true of children.� He said, �Destroy the family and you�ll destroy society.

Destroy the family and the culture will collapse.� I very much see transgender ideology as that, and it�s very much a movement throughout the world. But, you know, we take a look at the Church of England, and then you go back to the parable of the mustard seed. As tiny seed grows in the great big tree and you have all of these birds of the air nest in it. You know, you've got the transgenderism bird, you've got the Marxist

LGBT rainbow crowd birds, they're all nesting in the trees of the Church of England. I've seen some people interpret that as saying, you know, everywhere when Jesus talks about birds of the air, when he talks about the parable of the sower, it's the birds of the air who come around, you know, I mean Satan and his ilk coming around and snatching the seed on the people who have heard it, you know and I think that's what it references here certainly the The mustard tree of the Church of England is now filled with birds. It's like a Hitchcock all right, so Trump administration is reviewing billions in government contract grants for

Harvard amid anti-Semitism allegations. And you might ask yourself, how does the wealthiest college, perhaps in the world, certainly in America, how does it get $9 billion in federal grants? That's absurd. Absolutely absurd. And it is this, remember when Eisenhower talked about the military industrial complex, he also included academia in it. And this is why. They get all these government contracts. It's not just the scholarships and things like that. And of course, the government giving scholarships and educational grants to people to go to these colleges is one of the reasons why tuition has exploded. And you're seeing it explode in these Ivy League schools especially because they're

getting so much money. But it is the wealthiest college. It is federal cronyism, and guess what? They're not interested, Doge is not interested in this. They're only interested in taking away money, you know, $400 million from Colombia, $9 billion, billion with a B from Harvard. They're only interested in that if they don't like their politics, if they're criticizing a foreign government, because that's what we're talking about.

We're not talking about anti-Semitism here. Again, it's about criticizing the policies of the Israeli government, and the politics of Israel is incredibly divided. As I pointed out yesterday, a virtual civil war is going on there in terms of Netanyahu and other groups. So how is it anti-Semitic to criticize Netanyahu's policies? It's not. In a press release on Monday,

the Department of Education said that over 255.6 million in contracts between Harvard, its affiliates, and the federal government will be reviewed, plus nearly $9 billion worth of grants. The review also includes the more than $8.7 billion in multi-year grant commitments to Harvard University. If they've already made these commitments, you can bet that a judge is not going to let the Trump administration pull that stuff back, Because the judges have already ruled, well, you've made a grant and you've done this, you signed a contract with them.

Essentially, you have to fulfill that contract. Unfortunately. Uh, nevertheless, I'm really offended by the fact that Harvard and these people who have been pushing overt racism against white people, especially and Asian, the DEI stuff, we're not going to admit people based on merit. We're going to do it and we're going to advantage certain other groups and disadvantage other groups based on what? Based on your race, based on ethnic issues.

It's overt racism. They're not going to be punished for that. So how is it that you can't punish Harvard for their Marxist racism, their DEI policies, which are racism, but you can punish them for criticizing the Israeli government by pretending that that is racism? It's not racism. So they said, again, when we look at this, folks, just like it was with money flowing through CMS to hospitals and so forth to pursue the policies that Fauci and the rest of the people in the Trump administration were pushing out there. You do that, I'll give you the money. And so the Trump

administration, the Biden administration, they've all been giving money to Harvard even though Harvard has been enacting racist admission policies. You know, it's not even okay to be white. Remember that? How they got everybody so upset, especially Ivy League schools? You go around and it's not to say, we're not talking about white supremacy, we're just saying it's okay to be white. You don't have to be anti-white, which is what these people want. Harvard can right these wrongs and restore itself to a campus dedicated to academic excellence and truth-seeking where all students feel safe on its campus. So there you go. If you will embrace BB, we'll give you the $9 billion.

And you can continue on with your racist admission policies that are there. And your Marxism. We'll continue to use the federal money to promote Ivy League Marxism, racism, depravity of LGBT stuff. That's all fine. You just bow the knee to BB. Well, I say we throw BB out with the bath water. And we don't need to be funding Columbia University the tune of $400 million and we certainly don't need to be giving Havid $9 billion. But you've got Marco Rubio and others are really excited about what they're doing for their masters in Israel, defending student deportations. Marco Rubio equates writing an anti-Israel op-ed piece.

He says it was starting a riot. This is coming from reason. They said the detention of Tufts graduate student, her last name is Oz Turk, illustrates the startling breadth of the authority and the secretary that the secretary of state is invoking. So again, you got an opinion that I disagree with about something that the government likes, whether we're talking about the vaccine or we're talking about the so-called pandemic or the pandemic measures or now about a foreign government that has bought these Republican

politicians. now about a foreign government that has bought these Republican politicians? Well then, we're going to shut you down, just as we've been seeing the Biden administrations and others doing that throughout this fake pandemic. The contrast between, so there's two students they're talking about. One at Cornell University, his name is Momodu Tal, he's at Cornell. The other one, Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish graduate student at Tufts. Okay, so Ozturk is a graduate student who wrote an op-ed piece. The other guy, Rezen says, he's challenging his deportation and so far has avoided deportation.

Reason says he has explicitly endorsed terrorism as a form of justifiable resistance and has engaged in disruptive protests. But neither of these two issues seems to be true of Oz Turk, who was arrested last week on the streets of Somerville, Massachusetts by massed immigration agents and is being held at a detention center in Louisiana. Now I did not play the clip where she's walking along and she's got like, you know, the Islamic headdress or whatever on. And she's just walking along a sidewalk and a guy comes up and he gets in front of her.

She takes like a step to the side to get around him. He steps to the side and then all of a sudden a couple of other guys converge her and they just take her away. And then they took her to Louisiana against the orders of a judge. Now what Reason is doing is they're setting up two cases here and they're telling you this one guy deserves to be deported, is what they're saying. They say he has endorsed terrorism as a form of justifiable resistance. Did he?

Let's look at what even they say in all of this. You know, the old expression, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? He said, wherever you have oppression, you will find those who are fighting against it, he said. And he wrote, glory to the resistance. Now I don't know everything about this guy, but based on what reason is putting there, they're saying this guy is a terrorist and he's a terrorist because he said this. He sounds to me like Thomas Jefferson. And again, that's why we

say, one man's terrorist, another man's freedom fighter. Would Thomas Jefferson say, wherever you have oppression, you will find those who are fighting against it? What's wrong with that? And glory to the resistance. Jefferson said, resistance to tyranny is obedience to God. He said the tree of liberty has to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. He used to sound a lot more radical than this guy. What he used to say in the libertarian party is like, you want to get labeled a radical, you just quote the founding fathers. That's true. You say that and so many people don't know those quotes and when they hear him come forward he's like, whoa, but this guy in jail,

which is what the British wanted to do and more. But anyway, so he also said, colonized people have the right to resist by any means necessary. people have the right to resist by any means necessary. Is that terrorism? I don't think so. He was suspended twice because of his involvement in the disruptive protest activities at Cornell and at a pro-Palestinian encampment. But again, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Depending on which group he's allied with, it isn't what he had to say. The Israelis would say the same type of stuff. Founders of this country said the same and worse. Now that's their worst-case scenario.

And as far as I'm concerned, if he's not building bombs, if he's not punching people in the face, he doesn't need to be deported. If that's his crime, as they lay out the case and reason. And again, I did not dig into his background or not. I just saw the terrorist label and I read how they described what he did. It was worthy of being called a terrorist. It just amazed me. This is… it ought to be concerning the fact that we have a group that self-identifies as libertarian, basically wanting to lock up the founding fathers. Now we go to the woman who was abducted off the street. Her name is Oz Turk.

Her offense, by contrast, seems to be co-authoring a March 2024 op-ed piece in the Tufts Daily, the essay which was co-written by three other graduate students, criticized Tufts president Sunil Kumar as being wholly inadequate and dismissive. So they have a guy who, I guess he's Indian or something, Sunil Kumar is the president of Tufts. They were upset because they wanted him to do the boycott divestment sanctions movement, the BDS movement, which is saying, well, we don't want you investing in anything that is going to make money for Israel, that type of thing.

Look, I think boycotts are fine. It's a kind of speech. Regardless of, again, regardless of what you think about these different groups, if we're going to punish this when it's done by � didn't we have boycotts of Dylan Mulvaney and Bud Light? Is that okay? We disagreed what Bud Light was doing, so we boycotted the product there? Or sanctions? I'm not a fan of sanctions. I've said that I think sanctions are beginning of war when it's done by a nation.

It's like doing a blockade around somebody. It's like doing a siege around a castle. You're gonna try to starve them out. But it is an overt action of war. I criticized that when Biden did it. But when you wanna boycott somebody or you say we don't like the policies of this organization, again, it's a political opinion, you can agree or disagree with that, but I think these tactics of boycotting and divestment are legitimate.

He says, we've done in the past, we reject the boycott, divestment, sanctions movement, said the president's Kumar. We wholeheartedly support academic freedom, nevertheless. Yeah, right? You know, oh yeah, freedom of speech is great, but there's going to be consequences for your speech, as the other guy said. And so Rubio has said that he has revoked about 300 student visas based on foreign policy concern. He said, quote, every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visa.

We're looking every day for these lunatics that are tearing things up. We gave you a visa to come and study and get a degree, not become a social activist that tears up our university campuses. Well, Rubio, you're a lunatic that's tearing up the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You ought to be deported. Man, violence, vandalism, what is it? No, no, no. He's not accusing them of violence.

He's not accusing them of vandalism. He's not accusing them of being a terrorist. He doesn't like their speech. You've got lunatic ideas. You know, you might think that there's no pandemic, so we're going to have to bring you special punishment. You have to take away your medical license, as they did Dr. Sam Bailey and her husband. Well, first they came for the op-ed writers, says Mises.org, and they talk about this unlike Reason.

You know, they have a big issue with this. Reason's like, well, you know, should you do this or not? It's like, oh, that's a slam dunk, no. And if... Before we move on, I just want to say this succinctly illustrates the problems with multiculturalism. We've got Momodou, Rumeisa and Kumar, and they're all on different sides and yelling at each other. That's right. It's like, do you think this would be as big of an issue if it was, you know, Smith, Smith and Smith involved in this sort of deal? You know, I just don't think so. And that is exactly why they open up the borders and bring this in. As I was saying earlier,

you've got these people who come here and go to war with – they've got all their grudges and griefs about all this other – they come here to America, they get American money, and then they want to fight each other on American soil. Take your war and go home. Fight it over there. And, you know, you're right. We wouldn't be having this if it wasn't for all this multicultural nonsense. So first they came for the op-ed writers, says Mises.org. On March 25th, six masked federal agents, which is even worse than what I said, converged on her, seized her on the sidewalk in Massachusetts. Oz Turk, her name.

She was wearing a hajib, a Fulbright scholar who was working on a doctorate at Tufts University. And by the way, this is the university's, Travis, that are really driving this because they get a lot of, you know, it's a big business for them to have students come here into the United States. So they're driving a lot of, you know, they, it's a big business for them to have students come here into the United States. So they're driving a lot of this, not just multiculturalism and DEI and all the rest

of the stuff, but they're driving a lot of this immigration stuff because they get federal money for this. That's why this is all happening. She was abducted and vanished into the maw of the federal prison system. The Trump administration ignored a federal court order, took her from Massachusetts to Louisiana's federal detention facilities. She had co-authored one piece for the Tufts student newspaper, criticizing the university's refusal to divest from Israel despite, quote, credible accusations of indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinian civilians and plausible genocide."

That was her phrase. She said plausible genocide. So because she said that, you have the Trump administration is going to grab her off the street, transport her to a prison across the country, and then put her out. And Rubio is proud of that. Osturk never mentioned Hamas in her op-ed. Osturk has not been linked to any campus protests at Tufts or elsewhere. The feds have failed to reveal any evidence that she supports Hamas.

She simply co-wrote an opinion piece. As the New York Post reported on Friday, DHS alleged that Ostzturk was a supporter of Hamas but has yet to provide any evidence to that effect. But again Marco Rubio was asked about that case and that's when he started talking about the lunatics. He said, if you apply for a visa and you tell us that the reason that you're

coming to the US is not because you want to write op-eds, but because you want to participate in movements that vandalize universities, harass students, take over buildings and cause chaos, we're not going to give you that visa. Except that he's lying about all of that. She wrote an op-ed. She didn't vandalize university. She didn't harass students. She didn't takeandalize university. She didn't harass students. She didn't take over a building. She didn't cause any chaos. She wrote an op-ed.

And you are deporting her, Rubio, because she wrote that op-ed, not because of those other things. Again, these people are lying up one side and down the other. We gave you a visa to study and earn a degree, not to become a social activist tearing up our campuses, but she didn't tear up the campus. Nobody's even accused her of that. They've accused her of being a closet supporter of Hamas. You know who's a closet supporter of Hamas? Netanyahu.

He wanted them to control Gaza. He wanted to have a worst case scenario in Gaza, so he would have a pretense to come in and do something about it. And he was also negligent. And when that was pointed out by Shin Bet, he fired the Shin Bet guy. And then the Supreme Court said, you can't fire him. And he, and, you know, back and forth and back and forth. So then he fired his own attorney general.

And it remains to be seen what's going to happen with that. So the question says, Mises, is criticizing a foreign government now considered proof of lunacy in the White House? Does the Trump administration consider op-eds to be a weapon of mass destruction? Or is it terrorism? Well, we just had a hearing on Capitol Hill, and we had a rabbi there who was brought in, guess what, by the same guy who has been the representative of Satan himself when it comes to the vaccines. Uh, Senator Bill Cassidy from Louisiana. And he is the one making all these people sign their soul over to big pharmaceutical companies or year out.

And he was the one who vetoed, uh, the, uh, the Dave Walden for CDC. And now we have this Barta, ARPA-H, AI nightmare that has now been put in at CDC. So we can all thank Bill Cassidy for that. So he brings in a Rabbi and introduces him. By the way, he had a hard time pronouncing, evidently, does he not know what Shavad Lubavitch is? This is Rabbi Levi Shemtov, who had this to say.

Anti-Semitism is not just an age-old prejudice. It is a contemporary crisis manifesting on campuses across the nation. It is not enough for individuals or institutions to merely claim they are not anti-Semitic. As my father once taught me, it is not enough for people, especially public figures, to be neutral or not be anti-Semitic. One must be anti-anti-Semitic.

We must demand the same of our universities and government institutions. This hearing, in my opinion, is an attempt to be just that. Anti-antisemitic. What utter nonsense. What utter nonsense. You know what this is about, right? This is, as I said, this is the same tactics of the left that we've seen. The same tactics that we saw from Black Lives Matter. You have to be anti-anti-racist. You have to denounce yourself. And one I had on She-Van Fleet, her book was Mao's America, A Survivor's Warning. She said, don't call this woke. It's full

up Marxism. And these sessions where it's not enough not to be racist. It's not enough not to be anti-semitic. You have to anti that. You have to denounce yourself. You have to do what the Chinese called a struggle session. And this is not anything new. Don't use these labels like woke and the rest of this stuff. This is a straight up Chinese communist struggle session that this guy is pushing there. And they've been pushing racism on campuses, racism discriminating against other people. Now he wants you to be anti-racist and you have to denounce yourself. Chris

Minahan at Information Liberation said, didn't conservatives mock Ibram X. Kindy for saying the same stuff? Yes, exactly. And as I said before, when you see these people for political reasons, you disagree with them politically, what's the left do? You're racist, you're racist. And you see the same thing being done now by the right, which has been fully taken over by the Israeli government factions under Netanyahu. They immediately call you racist. They call you anti-Semitic. So they're not just playing the race card in this thing. They're actually playing Marxism. This witness was introduced by Republican Senator Bill Cassidy,

who has openly decried critical race theory, but apparently sees no contradiction here. So to breaking points, co-hosts, that is absolutely right. This is all of the stuff that the right has rightfully denounced, but they give it a pass because now it's Trump, it's the GOP, it's Israel. So one person said, how about anti-Christianism, or is that not a thing? As the Hodge twins. Yeah, it's not a thing. No, no, you can, fair game.

One person, Dave Smith, says, does this settle the whole who's woke debate? Again, don't use their terminology. It is not woke. It is Marxism. And it is Gramsci Marxism to march through the institutions. That's what this is really about. Call it what it is not woke. It is Marxism and it is Gramsci Marxism to march through the institution. That's what this is really about. Call it what it is. Don't use their labels. Don't let them come up with the labels. Don't let them take the rhetorical high ground. So Chris Mendenhain writes on social media, said,

Rabbi tells senators that the federal government must pass the Anti-Free Speech Act, it's called the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, and must adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. This is a private organization, the International Holocaust, I think, Remembrance Association or something like that. But they push the Holocaust and they're going to define what anti-Semitism is, and the US government is expected to enact that private group's agenda into law. Universities that tolerate anti-Semitic harassment must face real consequences, says this puppet, Bill Cassidy, who has prostituted himself to Big Pharma.

Now he prostitutes himself to Big Israel. We must pressure other governments to do the same thing, said Netanyahu. And while speaking at a conference, that same conference where he said that Trump's former US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, praised Trump for jailing critics of Israel. Chris Minahan also put up, ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt says the kind of genius behind the Pater attack on Lebanon is now needed to fight anti-Semitism. He said this in a speech to the Israeli Knesset just days ago. So, is this a terroristic threat, he says? Yeah, it's about violence, right? The liberal order cannot defend itself, which is why it needs Christianity. This is from

the daily skeptic, James Alexander. And, you know, the liberal order can't defend itself and neither can conservatives. Conservatives are still out there using these ridiculous labels that the left has created for itself like woke. They said most of us just think about the state, about politics and society, etc. We barely think about religion, or if we do, there is a strident noise of disjunction as we do a gear change, as we attempt to think in a different mood. I'm not going to talk about politics, I'm going to do something completely different. Now for something completely different, as Monty Python would say.

But since the beginning and until the end, politics and religion will be intertwined. You know, that's one of the reasons why the founders intertwined them into the First Amendment, isn't it? Because these are all the things that people, if they disagree with you on, they want to shut you up. Our civilization might be only the slenderest intersection of an attempt to separate these into the geological time scale, like a thin stripe of comet dust running through the sediment. Almost all ancient societies and many later societies simply associated politics and religion.

They call the result law or life or the way." So then he continues on with it and he says, so the question is, since the West was founded on Christian principles, can the West survive without Christianity? And we understand that even atheists like Richard Dawkins says, you know, well, actually we need to have Christianity. He just doesn't want the root of Christianity. He wants the fruit of Christianity. But he rejects the root, Christ. And as this person is talking rejects the root, Christ. And as this person is talking about in the UK, again, the Daily Skeptic is out of the UK, he keeps talking about Christendom, Christianity, religion, folks. Those are just as much the fruit and not the root as when Richard Dawkins is talking

about, �Well, I like the know, the cathedrals are amazing. I like the Christmas carols and things like that. Well, there's a lot of different things that we can look at, but all of that is fruit and not root. You can't have Christendom, you can't have Christianity if you don't have Christ. And that's one of the things that he doesn't

seem to be connected to. He quotes Michael Oakeshott who wrote in 1975, asked, what is the state? And Oakeshott said there's two ideas about this, of association. He said the first one is that we are associated in terms of law. So we observe these laws and we put in and enjoy the liberties that these laws permit. This is individualistic and Oakeshott calls this the civil association. Well, I would disagree with that because it isn't about creating laws that are going to make things work. I think that's a backwards approach to that as well. The founders of this country, when they did the Declaration of Independence, they said the purpose of government is to protect God-given rights. And so I think that is the key thing, and that is what is truly individualistic.

But secondly, he said, we are associated in terms of a common good, and we come together to achieve some very specific end. This is collectivist, and Oakeshott calls this enterprise association. So he calls the first one civil association, the second one is called enterprise association. Well, he liked the individualistic, but he didn't like the enterprise association. And if we look at the enterprise association and the common good, what do we see from that? We see the public health tyranny that we just experienced, you know, for the last five years and are continuing to experience. We see things like public education where the the individual's concerns and interests and well-being is not ever considered with

public health, with public education. Even with public transportation, it's all about the collective good. And so when you start looking at this collective enterprise association, you throw out the individual concerns. He suggested the European or Western state is a compromise of both of these. Oakeshott argues that state itself is in its constitution an awkward, equivocal, cognitively dissonant combination of the impetus to allow everyone to live as they want in peace and the impetus to establish by design and coercion and nudge the greatest good for the greatest number of people." Which

by the way that never seems to happen, does it? It's always done for whatever that person who's running the government wants. He said, what I am saying is that even if our ideal is out of civil association, we can't defend this idea except in so far as we imagine ourselves to be an enterprise association willing to fight in defense of that civil association. He says, and he's writing in England, he says, so England, for want of a better word, will die if it is only a civil association. We have to see it as an enterprise, he said.

So my suggestion is for the sort of restoration proposed by David Starkey, a radical one, I think that unless the English are willing to insist that England is Christian and that the Church of England is a Christian church, and to make it so, not by force, but by institutional entrenchment. What does he mean by that? Well, he means to have established religion. He wants the restitution of ties and of religious tests and stuff like that. I would just say that just like we see in Zionism where you have the people who said,

�Well, God has given us His promise, and He hasn't made it happen, so we're going to have to do it ourselves. He's sleeping or something, I don't know, but I don't like His timing. We're going to do it, and I've got a promise here, and I'm going to make that promise happen. We saw the same thing from Abraham. I'm not going to wait for Sarah to get pregnant. I'm going to impregnate her maid, and we saw what happened with that. And folks, if you decide that you're going to, for the good of government, you're going to start baptizing people by the sword, that is not Christianity. That is no relationship with Christ. He is right from the standpoint that religion is foundational. But the way the American position on this has always been, as John Adams said, we have

a form of government that will only work, to paraphrase him, will only work for a moral people. How do you get the moral people? You can't force that morality on people. It will flow naturally if they are in relation with Christ. And if they're not, there's not anything you're going to do about it. It's like the drug scourge. And that's at its heart is a spiritual issue. And if you're going to try to address that by law enforcement, that is only going to get worse. This type of approach that he's talking about, as much as I agree

with him on the necessity of that, That type of approach is doomed to failure. Well, we've got our guest ready and we want to talk about tariffs and I'm interested in hearing what he has to say. Some of it I agree with, and some of it I don't agree with. So we'll have an interesting back and forth, I think on Rumble, self-patriot. Thank you for the tip. He says, you'll own nothing and you'll be tired of winning. He says, well, I'm halfway there. I think he's at the own nothing stage, which I don't know, as I look at that, whenever I hear these people say you'll own nothing, you'll be happy. I always

think about that Chris Christopherson song, you know, freedom is just another name for nothing left to lose. And we may have to have everything taken away before we get our freedom back. Who knows? We'll see what happens. Well we're gonna take a quick break and we'll be right back. So So So So You're listening to The David Knight Show. Joining us now is Spencer Morrison and his book is called, Re-shore, How Terrorists Will Bring Our Jobs Home and Revive the American Dream. Just as a little bit of an introduction, Spencer Morrison is a lawyer, an entrepreneur,

an independent intellectual with a focus on applied philosophy, imperial history, and practical economics. He provides extensive pro bono legal services to the victims and the families of trafficked children. Good for you, Spencer. He also is editor-in-chief of the National Economics Editorial. His work on tariffs and trade policy has been featured in major publications, including the BBC, RealClear Politics, Daily Caller, American Greatness, Western Journal, The American Thinker, Foundation for Economic Freedom. So you get the idea, and I'm very interested to talk to him because tomorrow is going to

be Liberation Day. Tomorrow we're all going to be free. And we're going to be free because of Terrace. So I'm going to let him give you his case for Terrace and his critiques of free trade, what has been called free trade. And we know how NAFTA has worked out for us. So we've sat on this program many times. We talked about that giant sucking sound sound as Ross Perot called it, and that sucking sound, I don't hear it so much anymore because I think everything's been sucked out of this country already, but thank you for joining

us, Spencer. Good morning. Thanks for having me on the show. Well, tell us a little bit about your critique of how we got to this point. Globalism, as we look at it, it's also, to me point, you know globalism as we look at it It's a it's also to me It's a technocracy when we look at it and we look at what is happening with China you make some very interesting observations in terms of Gross domestic product and how we measure that and how we really are already lost so much ground to China talk a little bit

about that Yeah, certainly. So I think where I'd like to start is understanding how foreign trade and the trade deficit actually works. It doesn't work the way a lot of people think, okay? So if we take a look at last year, for example... And let me just interject here, you know, we talk all the time about the annual deficit with a budget of the government spending, and we talk about the cumulative debt of like $37 trillion. It used to be talked a great deal about trade deficit, but most people are not talking about trade deficit anymore, and you talk a great deal about that. So, yeah, talk a little bit about the

importance of keeping an eye on the trade deficit. Well, the trade deficit really matters because it's the reflection of the offshore production of this country. So I'm just gonna walk you through this. So when we when we have a trade deficit what that means is that we're selling more every year than or we're buying every more than we're selling right. So last year for example we purchased from foreign producers 1.2 trillion dollars more worth of goods than we sold to them. The question is, and this is the question that very few people actually ask, is how do we actually pay for that? Part of it is paid for by selling services. So America runs a trade surplus in services.

So apps like Spotify or Facebook, that brings a decent amount of money into the country. Last year in 2024, it was about $350 billion. So that brings that trade deficit down. But we're still left with about $920 billion that we need to pay for. So how do we pay for that? Well, we do it in two ways because the Chinese aren't giving us goods for free, right? So what we're doing is we're selling assets and we're selling debts, right? Assets are production that we made in the past. So for example, a house, if a house was built in 1973, the construction costs would have boosted the GDP in 1973, but not in any subsequent years. But the house obviously retains value, right? And land retains value.

So in order to pay for the trade deficit, we have to trade them something. So one of the ways we're doing this is we're selling our assets like our real estate. So every year we're selling a ton of that. For example, in 2024, we sold $42 billion worth of real estate, residential real estate, so houses. We sold 8 billion dollars worth of agricultural land.

And we sold 12 billion dollars worth of commercial real estate. So in order to get these goods, these allegedly cheap goods from places like China and Mexico, what we're actually doing is we're selling our inheritance. Yes, I agree. We're selling ownership of this country. I agree. Yes. And let me ask you, because we've had both Scott Bessent and Howard Luknik and also Doug Burgum, who is Interior Secretary, they have all talked about the massive amount of assets

that we have. When Doug Burgum was in confirmation hearing, he said, we've got $200 trillion worth of federally owned land. And later on when he was doing an interview with Breitbart, he said, we got $200 trillion worth of federally owned land. And later on when he was doing an interview with Breitbart, he said, $100 trillion. So I don't know, I guess it's a big difference in those two numbers, isn't it? But whatever it is, they have indicated that they're looking at putting those assets to work. And my question, and many people's question is, is that going to be a liquidation?

As you point out, we got $12 billion worth of commercial real estate, we've got $8 billion worth of agricultural stuff that's being sold to foreigners. Are they now going to sell all of the land that is owned by the federal government? Is that what this is ultimately working up to? A lot of people are suspicious about that. I know it's not about the tariffs issue, but that is one of the big concerns. What do you think about that? Is all of this chaos that is happening with the tariffs? And that's another layer above and beyond how we collect taxes, whether it's with tariffs or income taxes and that type of thing. And I'm sympathetic to doing it through tariffs instead of income tax. I just don't like both

of them. But I'm also concerned about the chaos that is there. And if this is to distract us from the fact that maybe there's just a great Americathon auction that is coming up in the future. I know it's kind of a side issue. What do you think about that? Well, I think that's a really great point to make, and I think it's very troubling, as a matter of fact. Now, that's not, you know, I think that's a really great point to make and I think is very troubling as a matter of fact now that's not You know, I don't have any insider information I typically I refuse to make predictions because I don't believe that you can make predictions when we're dealing with a complex system like The economy right the best we can do is make forecasts

So I'm not going to speculate on on that point. But what I will say is that there is an interesting historical parallel that is worth considering. Think about what happened to the British Empire and British holdings towards the late 1800s and then culminating with the Len Lise Agreement in World War II. The British Empire was running massive chronic trade deficits for about 50 years and that in very real terms resulted in all of the gold being shipped from the holdings in London to the United States. It resulted in the lease, which ultimately it was, we'll say it was consideration for the products that were provided to the British Empire by America in World War II.

So, I mean, what we saw is that the British Empire and Great Britain was completely sold out, in large part because they were purchasing far more than they were selling and And I think that's a very real possibility for this country. I mean, we're really in the same position We've run a large chronic trade deficit every year since 1974 It's been 50 years the cumulative value of that trade deficit when adjusted for inflation is 25 point two trillion dollars that has to be paid back and where's the money coming from? Yes. Are we not going to consume anything for a whole year? Probably not. Or are we going to liquidate our assets and sell our past and

mortgage our future? Right? I mean those are the only options. We've got to pay for it somehow. Yes. How are we doing it? And that's a good example. We have planned. That's a great example of Great Britain. You know we've seen other things in terms of usage of energy and stuff, and you can see that when they were manufacturing concerned, they were using all this energy. I used to hear people when I was in high school in the 70s decry the fact that America was using so much of the world's energy and said, yeah, it's because we're manufacturing most of the stuff that the world has. And yet you see that has transitioned from America to China.

And so as the manufacturing is transitioning, and that's one of the key things that you're pointing out, is that the wealth of a country is about actually making things. When you talk about China and the US and GDP, you make that case, you say, well, okay, they've got a higher GDP, but most of our stuff, as you just said,

and as you point out in the book, most of our stuff, as you just said, and as you point out in the book, most of our stuff is largely skewed towards services as opposed to actually manufacturing things. Yeah, that's entirely correct. I mean, the big issue here is that America's economy has shifted from a productive economy into a consumptive economy. It's a service-driven financial economy, but that doesn't actually generate any material wealth for our own people or for the world.

I'd like to give a couple of really telling examples as to the difference between what a productive economy in China looks like versus the sort of financial economy in the States, right? In terms of steel production, in 2023 2023 China produced 12.6 times as much steel as America. I mean steel is the backbone of a nation. Steel is what you use to build skyscrapers, it's what you use to build automobiles. Without steel, and I think President Trump has pointed this out correctly, no steel, no

nation, right? So right now we have a problem where we don't actually produce enough steel to replicate our own economy. We consume about 20% more steel than we produce. Concrete's even worse. So you can look at the development of a country along how many resources it's consuming. Concrete is directly tied to how much people're, you know, people are building. Are we building a country? Right? China produced 22.9 times more concrete in 2023. I mean,

the level of construction and creation that's going on in China is, you know, is orders of magnitude larger than what's going on in this country. Power consumption, they're consuming more electricity. And I think you made a very good point when you're talking about Britain's shift to these so-called green energies. The amount of energy that people are able to use is directly proportional to the wealth of that population. The switch to electricity from animal power or the switch even for animal power to steam power I mean these were tectonic leaps

In the wealth of mankind right and it's because of the sort of access that we had to power Right right now America is falling behind on our power consumption and as a result our prosperity is going to follow follow our power consumption Shipt on edge America doesn't even make ships anymore. All of the goods we consume are shipped on Chinese and Korean made vessels. America doesn't make any ships anymore for the merchant marine. Automobiles, it's another one.

China makes more automobiles than we do. We're import dependent on foreign automobiles. About a third of the automobiles we consume come from foreign producers. Computing power, we're now on parity with China. Computing power, AI, that's a sign of the future. That's tied to power consumption. And China is just shy of where we're at right now.

It's very dangerous because they've got very good AI. I mean, look at DeepSeek compared to chat GPT, right? I mean, China's got some very powerful AIs with some very energy intensive GPUs and they're going to make good use of that. One more thing or two more things. Okay. I know I'm rambling here, but I think these are really important statistics. So two more things. Machine tools. Machine tools are the tools that shape metal, shape our products. We need machine tools to make more machines. The market share

for America, we used to produce over 50 percent of them, now we're producing 7 percent. China produces 31 percent%. We actually produce fewer machine tools in Italy, which is crazy if you think about it. And then silicone chips, we're dependent on silicone chips, right? If we stopped trading with China and Taiwan, this economy would shut down. We don't make enough computers. The funny thing is that the machinery we use to make computers, the photolithography machines, we don't even make those in America. Those are made by one company in the Netherlands. They're shipped to Taiwan. The chips are printed in Taiwan and then we buy them. But that whole

supply chain is off-shored. So America is completely dependent on foreign suppliers and designers for computers, which go in everything. They go in our aircraft, they go in our cars, we use them at work. We're on the computer right now. This economy shuts down without computers and we can't even make them. Well you know it is one of the things that has come out of NAFTA and free trade and globalist trade is these long and complicated supply chains that we have as you're pointing out I mean even when we look at the effects of an EMP for example The fact that it's gonna blow out transformers that are made, you know by one company in Germany

And they've got a long lead time for doing these things So if you had massive destruction of a lot of these things It's gonna be a long time before people can get a replacement for it So it is what the free trade regime has created. It is a very complicated global infrastructure that, yes, it can deliver a lot of goods efficiently, but at the same time, it has become really a house of cards, a very complicated, easily destroyed supply chain. And we've all been set up for a complete collapse I think and this is globally it's not just going to affect us it would also affect China yes they

are more independent and I think a lot of that goes back to energy and that has been directly and by fiat and by treaty which we didn't sign the Paris Climate Accord we never signed into that that self-ratified by Obama and John Kerry. So we're supposed to, we're pretending that we're in this treaty, which allows them to build, I think, what is it, something like six new coal power plants coming online every week, and yet we've got to destroy our coal power plants in the West. And the UK has done that. They've basically, they can't make steel because they've shut down their steel plants and they can't afford to compete because their energy is so expensive. It's like four times as much as it is even in Germany.

And Germany can't compete with China. I think that's one part of the China price that nobody's really talked about, energy. And that has by design been turned over to China. But you had a couple of interesting things when you talked about, first you talked about GDP and then you pulled that back and you said, well, GDP inflates America's position and you said it's better to look at the purchasing power parity and that changes it considerably. Talk to the audience about what that is. Yeah, exactly.

So typically, the way GDP is marketed to the American public is it's based on the value of all the goods and services produced in the country. And it's measured in relation to the American dollar, right? Because where the yardstick by which other countries are measured. The problem of doing it that way is that it really undercuts the actual production

in the rest of the world, because the value of a dollar is different in different countries, right? So essentially, if you look at the value of production and you account for that sort of inflationary differences, what we find is that China's GDP is not simply equal to America's, which is what they'd have you believe. It's about 50% larger. It's even worse when you look at just the productive components of the economy.

Right? So America's economy is heavily based on services industry. You know, in any given year about three quarters of the economy is services, right? So things like accountants, lawyers, massages, restaurants, all of those things that are, you know, produced and consumed simultaneously, those are services. But in terms of producing long-lasting value like steel and concrete, manufacturing, China's economy is not just double America's. It's a, hang on, I have the number here. You got it that it was three times larger than America's, their productive economy. Yeah. Yeah.

Three times larger. Yeah. That sounds correct. I just wanted to look to see if I had any numbers, any more specific numbers for you. But yeah, it's about three times larger. I've got the section here and I thought this is really key. You said in 2022, service accounted for 80% of American GDP. That means that America produced just 5.3 trillion worth of physical output.

Meanwhile, just 52.3% of China's GDP was services. So 33% of its economy was industrial output. In total, China's productive economy was 15.7 trillion or three times what America's was. I thought that was very interesting. And especially because when you look at it, you talk about normalizing it in a sense for the American dollar. That is one of the things that they have done in order to help them with the China price. Part of that is currency manipulation as well as slave labor and other things.

Now of course they have a tremendous energy advantage and that was given them by Fiat. All the rest of the leaders of the West decided that they were going to hand this to them on a silver platter. So we have this global move to establish them, I think, really as kind of a beta test site for technocracy. What do you think about that in terms of China's position and how that's been handed to them? I Think I think it has been handed to them. I think that's exactly correct China's trade policies

You know to begin with they were were explicitly designed to focus on predation on the American market. China has used the American market to leapfrog the scale of their industries. Back in the 1980s when China was opening up for business and even in 2001 when China joined the World Trade Organization, they did not have the purchasing power to actually consume the goods they were producing. There was simply no market for it. The market that they were piggybacking off of was America's. So China's rise was impossible without the cooperation of America's politicians. Now the question is, why did America's politicians do this?

What was the benefit that they accrued by offshoring America's factories and jobs to China and making us dependent on Chinese imports? I don't think it's a question that you can answer from an economics perspective. There's simply no long-term justification for doing so. I think you can somewhat justify it on a short term. I mean, obviously, it's off-shoring factories is in the short-term interest of any given company

because they reap cost benefits by moving factories abroad and that sort of creates a cascade of off-shoring. I call it in the book, I call it the offshoring vicious cycle. So I think there's a bit of that, but you got to remember this was a top-down policy choice. I mean since 1789 when the when the first Tariff Act was implemented under George Washington, America has run high tariff policies. In fact this nation had the highest average tariff rate throughout the 19th century. It was only in the 1970s that the tariffs were abandoned, and that's when you start

seeing this offshoring to China and other countries, right? So this was a deliberate policy choice to integrate America's economy with the world at large. It's hard to speculate on motives. I mean, we can look to the EU, the European Union. The European Union began as a European coal and steel commission and in the in the documents that were written by some of the founders and the debates they had, you know, one of the things they wanted to do is they wanted to prevent the outbreak of a third world war. They wanted to make, and I quote, they wanted to make war materially

impossible. Right? And economic integration, the idea was is that it will make war impossible because you know, simply you won't be able to fight if France is getting all of their coal from Germany and Germany is getting all of their steel from France. How can either country go to war when they need the other country's resources? So I think that may have been part of the the impetus, but I mean this really brings us all back to globalism and one world government, right? If America's economy is fully integrated with that of the globe, America is not economically independent and therefore political independence will fold in the future. I think that's their endgame ultimately.

I agree. Yeah, when we look at it in the European Union and Bilderberg where they first talked about having a euro and things like that, I kind of look at it as not just that economic ties are going to make things more peaceful. Actually, you talk about it perhaps being exactly the opposite in your book, but I think it was a recognition from them that it would be a shorter path to global dominance if they went through the economic issue than through the tanks and planes. They could achieve global government economically with a, I don't know, maybe a world economic

form. Uh, they could maybe do that more quickly and more efficiently economically rather than with, with tanks and planes. And so I think that was a part, a big part of it. Exactly. You talk about how, you know, this whole idea, well, if we trade with people, we're not going to go to war with them, but you say that's exactly the opposite. Talk a little bit about that.

Well, I think it's very interesting if you look at the countries that are the most warlike throughout history. Those countries are always the ones that are the most reliant on trade or the most economically integrated. And the reason for that is that disputes over resources, especially when one nation relies on a particular resource for its own economic well-being, basically necessitate conflict if the supplies are not available. A really great example of that, well, we can

go all the way back to the Peloponnesian Wars in the 4th century ancient Greece. You know, I'm a classics guy. I love ancient history. There's a lot to learn there. A great example is the city of Athens. The city of Athens had no access to timber and it had very limited access to grain, which resulted in the city of Athens trading with all of these other cities across the Aegean Sea for timber and grain. This ultimately culminated in the creation of the so called Delian League whereby all of these states sort of under the umbrella

of Athens they entered into basically a big free trade agreement and this over the course of about 20 years transformed into the Athenian Empire. And this pitted them directly against the other Greek states led by Sparta. It was wars over resources, right? And you see the belligerent party, in that case was Athens. It's the same thing when we look at the history of Great Britain.

Great Britain has been the, I would say, the most belligerent nation in the last thousand years. And a big part of the reason for that is that Britain has been relying on imports this whole time. Right? And if there's a shock or a problem in acquiring imports in Britain, well, they have to go to war. Right? So this is part of the reason the British Empire was the biggest in world history, because Britain itself, if it didn't have an empire, the country would starve, right? So countries that trade together often end up in conflict. And the converse of this is also true. The United States of America, traditionally, and I say traditionally,

as in sort of the 1800s, had an isolationist approach. It was not involved in all the European warfare, that sort of endemic warfare. I mean, there was other stuff going on, obviously, but if you compared it to European countries, America was just not getting involved. And the reason they had the luxury of not getting involved, because we weren't reliant on any of these colonies for products. We could make everything here, right? Now that we are engaged in foreign trade, we have taken the mantle from the British

Empire. That's been the most belligerent of the countries. And all the bloodshed that goes with it. That's right. We had Pax America, Pax Britannia, and now we have a Pax Americana, and it's not really peaceful. It never is. That's right. One of the other things that you said, I thought it was a very interesting insight, and we'll get into some specifics about what's happening with Liberation Day here in a moment. I'd like to get your thoughts on it. But one of the other things I thought was an interesting insight, you were talking about how you gave the example of textiles and how in Christendom

the Greco-Romans had used slavery and it was the impulse of Christians to invent machines so they didn't have slaves. And you talked about that as being a fundamental aspect of production. And when you said that, I thought about the way NAFTA and free trade was being sold back in the 90s. I remember this debate when it was happening. A lot of people would say, well, you can get the Chinese to do this

for practically nothing. They work for practically, wouldn't you rather have cheap goods at Walmart that's produced by slave labor? I used to always think that was a really corrupt calculation. You know, it's like, yeah, okay, let's do that. I'm going to enslave those other people over there. And yet it has redounded to our harm in doing that type of thing, deciding that – because

that's a big part of the Chinese price was the cheap labor, even slave labor that's there. But talk a little bit about, because that's a key part of your argument in favor of tariffs, was the way that the King of England protected himself from the textile industry that was being done by, what was it, the Flemish I think it was? Yeah, it was Flanders. Yeah, so it was very interesting. The rise of England as an industrial powerhouse begins long before the Industrial Revolution.

It actually begins around the year 1200 AD. At that time, Christendom, I don't know if we're still Christendom, but at the time we certainly were. A big thing in Christendom was investing in machinery because obviously slavery was illegal. There was no slavery as there was in the Roman world. In Christendom, we invented all sorts of, we call this the first industrial revolution, right? This is in sort of the 1200s, 1100s, when windmills and water mills, treadmills, all of these things were

being used in a new way to mechanize the production of, you know, grinding grain, moving cranes, fulling cloth, things like that. And Flanders, which is an area in northern Europe, Belgium, Holland, that area became sort of the mechanical hub for northern Europe where the textile industry really flourished and took off. In Flanders, they were essentially purchasing cheap English wool, turning it into finished textiles, and then selling that cloth back to England,

you know, at a higher price, right? So England was sort of in a colonial trade paradigm where they were making raw materials, shipping it to the to the Metropole, and then buying the expensive products back. Does that sound familiar? It's exactly what was happening to America in the colonial period.

We were doing the same thing to England, That's right. So what England did was very, very novel and very, very smart. A succession of English kings banned exports of wool to Flanders. They put on high tariffs. They even paid textile mill owners and machinists from Holland to settle in England and teach English how to make cloth and set up these factories. And as a result, England actually, because they already had the wool, they had the raw materials, they shut down the Flemish textile industry and England became the main center, the main hub of production. So for example, the cloth production rose from 1350, just 5000 ball suit cloth in England. By 1500 it was 80,000.

England became very, very rich during this period relative to its rivals because rather than focusing on low tech, low value agriculture, they were now the hub of manufacturing and textile design. And that core industry is what gave birth to the Industrial Revolution. England had all of the factories. It had the tinkerers, the inventors. It had a population that was, you know, very, very knowledgeable

about machinery. And that allowed the Industrial Revolution to really take hold in England in the latter half of the 1700s and early 1800s. And it would have been impossible without having that industry there, right? Because industrial development is path dependent, right? So if you're on sort of one track, it's very difficult to switch tracks later. That's why countries that were early adopters of industrial technologies are still the richest today. There's a long latency effect. You even look at the difference between the countries in Eastern and Southern Europe versus Western and Northern Europe in

different regions of those countries, like Northern Italy versus Southern Italy, you have in many ways, very similar populations, but you have one side of the country that industrialized and one side that did not. And it's taken 300 years, 200 years to catch up and they still haven't caught up. Right. Because the cutting edge is where all the economic growth and wealth flows to, right? So if you're at the cutting edge, it's easy to stay there and it's hard to get there.

So that's the whole point of tariffs and the whole point of this book is a reminder that America is at the bleeding edge of technological development. But if we hollow out our industries and if, and if we reduce our human capital so that people don't know how to make things, we're not going to be able to stay there.

And once we lose that position, it's very, very difficult to get back. It's taken China a century to get back, right. After the, after the opium wars over a century, actually. Yes. Right. And in, since, since 1980s, it's, you know, it's decades and decades to get back in the driver's seat. We're already there. Why leave?

Yeah, I agree. Well, there's a whole lot of things that come together with that. Again, it's the availability of energy. We've had our political leaders in the West have decided that they don't want us to have affordable energy. That's not just a measure of our lifestyle, but it's also a measure of life expectancy, cheap affordable energy. So our own leaders have been undercutting us. And I guess that's part of the problem that I have with looking at the tariffs as a energy, as a form of creation.

as a form of creation. When we have politicians who have done these types of things for their own benefit, and also the aspect of central planning, as I said earlier in the show, the concern that I have with the terrorists is that it requires a lot of central planning. Who are the winners going to be and who are the losers going to be? And we've seen that that fits perfectly with the Chinese Communist Party, but it's a bit

of a problem here in America. Early on, we had, and you're right, you talk about this, the fact that Washington had put tariffs in. You say that Jefferson was a bit reluctant about it. He was more of a free trader. I think he was maybe not on behalf of protectionism, but he bragged in his second inaugural address I've talked about frequently on this show, that he had eliminated the useless offices, as he put it, and by doing so he was able to support

the American government completely on tariffs collected at the border. And so when he was doing it as president, he was looking at it strictly as the source of revenue. Now we have too much spending going on in the United States to be able to even think about the terrorists being able to do that, I imagine. But later on, as you pointed out, in 1812, he came around to Washington's thinking in terms of protecting of industry because that was on the cusp of the 1812 invasion by the British. He realized that it made us vulnerable from a defense standpoint. But when he was doing it, it was for revenue.

Later on in the 18th century, it was about protectionism. I'm not really clear what's going on with Trump because he is more than anything focusing it on a blanket attack on individual countries. He doesn't have enough there to fund the revenue. We're going to wind up with an income tax plus a tariff. And he doesn't seem to be focused on any particular industries. But even with that, I think that the tariff aspect is a bit troubling in terms of allowing the government to pick winners and losers.

What do you think, first of all, about that, the protectionism and its link to central planning? Yeah, I mean, I think the first thing that I'll say is that one of the things that has made this country so great and economically productive is that it has historically been very decentralized in its economic production. And I think that is a integral in key ingredient in keeping america you know if we want to make america great again america has to be free again

and part of that is economic freedom this is it this sounds like a paradox on the one hand mister morrison you're afraid of uh... in favor of tariffs on the other hand you're saying we need economic freedom. I don't think it's a paradox. And the reason for that is that tariffs, it's not about picking winners and losers. Every policy choice is going to have a winner and a loser

regardless of whether you do something or you don't do something. We talked earlier in the show about the switch to economic globalization. That was a deliberate policy choice. So America used to have high tariffs. The government decided we're going to get rid of those and instead we're going to globalize the economy. That was a policy choice.

And the question is, did that policy benefit the American people? And I would say no, it didn't benefit the American people. I don't think that we have access to better quality goods today. I don't think we necessarily have access to a better variety of goods today. And the reason for that is because somebody is going to win and somebody is going to lose. Ideally, the market picks who that is. The problem is that if we don't have trade barriers like tariffs or tariffs are the main one but there are other ways of doing it as well.

If we don't have those, rather than the American people picking the winners, it's really foreign governments that are picking the winners a good example of this is china so china engages in all sorts of asymmetrical trade with america and american companies chinese manufacturers are given preferential and treatment they are given that massive loans and export subsidies uh... they are given asymmetrical access to markets, so they can sell and prove up

their products in Chinese markets, while still having access to American markets, but American companies don't have that same access. As a result, what often happens is Chinese companies backed by the Chinese state are able to out-compete American free enterprise and it has nothing to do with the quality of the product and it has everything to do with the fact that the that the Chinese are simply able to dump their products

at below market rates and prices for 20 years until they kill the American businesses off and then they have a monopoly. So the problem is that American businesses are operating on a private enterprise model. That's not a problem and that's what we want. But what I'm saying is that in an international competition where you have private American enterprise and small business competing against the Chinese government, they're never going to win. And as a result, who's picking the winners and losers? In a free trade paradigm, and you know, free in air quotes, it's not really free, but

in the sort of economic globalist paradigm, China's government, Germany's government, Canada's government, they're picking the winners and the losers. In a tariff model, the American public has a better opportunity to actually pick the winners because it's going to level the playing field between these foreign producers and American producers. I guess what I see happening, for example, a Taiwan semiconductor manufacturer, TSMC, right? They've been given, I think, tens of billions of dollars. Because as you pointed out, they are so incredibly productive in Taiwan that that's the big prize that's there, why the US and China are both fighting over that.

So the idea is let's get them to come here and open up in America, let's onshore these manufacturing processes that are over there. And they have given them massive amounts of money. It's not really working out yet for them. And I guess when I look at that, from a, you know, from that standpoint, we're trying to emulate what the Chinese Communist Party is doing in terms of, as you point out, tightly integrating, subsidizing particular industries. And I think there's an, as I look at it, I see a tendency by Americans to say,

okay, we need to do what the Chinese are doing. So let's subsidize TSMC and other companies of that ilk. They're doing it with a lot of different things. On a micro basis, I guess we could say, we've seen this type of thing happening with just stadiums being built. Because they love to have the pride of having a professional sports team there of some sort. They're more than willing to give lots of money, billions of dollars to these billionaires who own these different teams,

and have it paid for by the small local businesses that are there and say, well, this is great for the economy. And it's like, yeah, well, except that you're kind of directing this and maybe it's not being done very efficiently. Maybe not as efficiently as a competitive market would do it. And from the standpoint of somebody who is there with a small business having to subsidize this billionaire's stadium.

I think when I look at this TSMC, it looks like just a more sophisticated bigger version of these local stadiums being built for sports teams. And so that's my concern is that the American government in many ways is trying to imitate the central planning picking of winners and losers that we see happening in China. losers that we see happening in China? I think that's always a risk. I don't think it's the right way to do it. What I would like to see is the president stick to the game plan of instituting reciprocal tariffs,

the idea being that American industries are the most productive in the world. And if the playing field was level, we would be able to out-compete everyone else. That's ultimately what we'd like to see. Reciprocal tariffs. America's industries are actually more efficient on a per-cost basis. America's factories are more efficient than Chinese factories.

They're more efficient than German factories. And they're more efficient than Canadian factories. The issue again is that all of these other countries are engaged in this sort of asymmetrical industrial policies that are artificially lowering the costs to the detriment of America's industries. And then of course when they conquer the industry, then they can jack up the price.

I agree. Yeah, what we're seeing in Europe is reciprocal tariffs so that we can act so American companies can compete. We don't want to pick winners and losers because the reality is, is we're going to win if the playing field is level. I agree. I agree. Yeah. I would agree with you on that. Yeah. What we see a lot of with Europe as well as with China, especially it used to be called when I was in high school, they call it Euro sclerosis. They would so highly regulate everything that was there that they really couldn't move quickly, they couldn't adapt, they couldn't change.

Whereas you had less regulation in the US and so the companies were able to flex with demand and to change and to grow and to innovate. And it really is regulation that is doing that. So I look at it and on the one hand, you know, you have the protectionism that we've seen in Europe. Now we see it in China. But on the other hand, they hobble themselves with a highly centrally planned economy and

a great deal of regulation. And I guess my concern about this is when I look at it and look at the nimble free market and entrepreneurs that can adjust, I think that requires deregulation. And it seems like we're putting too many eggs in the tariff basket and not enough in the deregulation basket to allow people to be able to build these companies that we need here in America rather than just protecting them because we think that that industry is important. What do you think about that? Do you see much in terms of a focus on

deregulation and that being a really key component because I think that was a key component of what happened in the and that being a really key component because I think that was a key component of what happened in the Prosperity of America wasn't just tariffs at the border It was freedom on the inside as Jefferson said they people on inside the country don't know a taxman And they certainly didn't know somebody's gonna come around and micromanage their business in the name of Saving the planet from co2 or something, right? Well that that's exactly correct it's not a it's not an either or proposition it's a both and proposition we need tariffs to balance out to the uh... the market asymmetries so that american companies have an opportunity to compete

because right now they're getting killed they don't have an opportunity to compete so we need to preserve the ability for them to compete part and parcel to that is we we don't want to go the European model and just say, oh, we're protecting everything, let's overregulate. We don't want to do that. America was at its best and most vibrant economically in the 19th century. And there was two critical components of that. Number one, it was high tariffs,

which promoted domestic manufacturing and domestic industry. Number two, you're entirely correct, this was the most free country in the world. We had robust property rights. We had economic and political freedom to freedom of speech. We had a, at the time we had a very functional patent office. It's not like that anymore, but at the time it was very functional. And this allowed Americans to invent and to prosper off of their inventions and to build industries without being,

you know, crushed by, you know, cheap foreign imports. So we need both. On the one hand, we need tariffs, but that's not, that's not in and of itself going to be enough That's just going to get us to where Germany is today, which is not great We need to go back to our roots and to have decentralized Decentralized economies we need to cut regulations and we have to cut taxes and what I'd love to see what I'd love to see

Is the tariff being reduced by domestic taxes. So any money that we collect from the tariff, it's a one-to-one reduction in domestic taxes, whether that's import taxes or consumption taxes. Ideally, there's no income tax. But what I'd love to see is the money coming in from the tariffs reduce the internal tax burden on a one-to-one basis. That would be, I think, great. Because then we'd have a revenue-neutral policy that

promotes American industry and labor, which doesn't actually have a cost associated with it. And then tied to that, the obviously, you know, cutting welfare and, you know, making the government less bloated. We need to do that regardless, right? Well, it's kind of interesting because, you know, first they were talking about hundreds of billions and then Trump said, well, maybe about a trillion. Then we had Peter Navarro say tariffs will be a $6 trillion tax increase, but then he said, because he would use it as a reduction, he said, we'll use it to pay for making the 2017 tax cuts

permanent. So now we're talking about reducing taxes. He's talking about maintaining the status quo, essentially, and saying that they're going to add $6 trillion in taxes. So I guess when we talk about the actual policies, it's very interesting to talk about the tariffs as we're coming up to this big announcement tomorrow and everybody is still guessing

as to what that's going to be. We look at whether or not they're going to actually do any reduction of taxes. Certainly there's been a lot of people in the media that are favorable to Trump who have said, well, we're going to get rid of the income tax. That of course is not going to happen at all. They made it very clear that they're going to make these tax cuts permanent, or they're

going to take off taxes for this particular, for waitresses for example, or whatever. They're going to take off taxes for tips. So that means that they're going to keep the income tax. They're going to keep it pretty much at the same level that it is. This is going to be an additional tax, I'm assuming. We still don't know because there's been so much back and forth and it's been so volatile. And I guess that's one of the key things. We talk about tariffs and taxes and regulations, but of course chaos and volatility is a big, big issue in the economy as well. I know you don't make predictions, but are you looking at this as

he's saying he's going to add $6 trillion tax increase? Is that the way you're looking at this? Do you think that that's going to be a productive thing? What do you think about that? Well, I'll be honest, I think the branding is very, very bizarre and a little schizophrenic. And I think you pointed this out in a previous program. You had mentioned that, you know, on the one hand, we're saying tariffs are going to bring jobs back and on the other hand, the tariffs are going to increase and we'll get more revenue

from them in the future, which should be precisely the opposite. If the tariffs are successful, the tariffs should actually go down down because we're going to be getting the money domestically. Right. And the whole point of the terrorists is to increase the size of the pie within the country so that you can generate more money within America. You know, and you can lower the taxes, but get the same amount of money because we're going to have more GDP in the country. Right.

And that's sort of the point of tariffs is to create long run economic growth. Right. So I don't really understand the branding. I don't know if it's, you know, if it's just about scoring political points or, or who knows, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but just speaking about the, you know, the historical value of the policies and what we, what we can expect, we can expect that if president Trump stays the policies and what we what we can expect we can expect that if President Trump stays the course and institutes reciprocal tariffs like he

said he's going to do that is going to create a large incentive for factories to reshore their factories in America it's going to create a lot of jobs it'll create you know predicate jobs so and that ultimately will increase purchasing power in the long run. Let me ask you from a practical standpoint, since you focus a lot on tariffs, what are the impacts of, you know, he replaced NAFTA with USMCA, what are the impacts of that going to be? I mean, it seemed like when he first announced these things in January, they were kind of taken back and surprised that, oh, wait a minute, we have a treaty here on this.

To what extent are you aware that he is hamstrung in terms of what he can do with Canada and Mexico, for example, because of the USMCA? I don't think he's hamstrung legally. I mean, politically, it may be a bit of a bind, but I think, you know, the president has shown that he's willing to burn political capital on this issue. So I'd like to see him to push forward on the tariff agenda. But I mean, if they've got something in the USMCA that is an agreement there, part of one of the things that I don't like about NAFTA or USMCA was that they had a mechanism in there where they would, a corporation, if they felt that they were being unfairly

tariffed according to the agreement, could take the country to arbitration. And so I mean, they would get that back. So I guess that was my question. I don't really know how that plays out since there was so much done to distribute supply chains for automobile manufacturing over the three countries and all of a sudden you're going to cut that and say now that's not going to happen anymore. I'm just wondering just how much of the stuff they can practically do. Maybe that's part of why there's this big debate inside the administration and uncertainty

about what they're going to do. What do you think? Yeah. I mean, the very fact that the so-called free trade agreement allocated production across Canada, America, and Mexico just goes to show that it's a centrally planned agreement. It's not free trade. That's right. I mean, it's a self-feed.

I think that's what Ron Paul said, or somebody said that, you know, well, if it's a free trade agreement, you don't need a thousand pages to define that, right? Yeah, exactly. So, I mean, the whole thing's a bit of a, I mean, it's a sham agreement. So I, whether or not, uh, you know, it has any teeth is, is a question, uh, I suppose for trade lawyers, I don't do a ton of that myself, but, uh,

what I'd say is that the focus ultimately, I mean, there's a big show about, uh, you know, the asymmetrical trade with Canada. Okay. Whatever. Canada is the size of California. It's not a big deal. What we really need to be focusing on is China, right? And there's no such agreements that are going to be binding with China. If we dealt with China, I mean, it's an 80-20 Pareto principle, right? China's doing 80% of the damage.

Let's deal with China. Yeah. And forget about Canada. I mean, ultimately, if Canada engages in asymmetrical trade policies with the states, it's not really that big a deal. Canada is a tiny country. China is the one we've got to deal with.

And yet we see from Trump, what is the long-term strategy? Is it to deal with China? Because he's already Trump, you know, what is the long-term strategy? Is it to deal with China or because he's already said, well, I'm going to increase your tariffs, but I'll pull them back off if you let us buy TikTok, you know? So we get these mixed schizophrenic policies that are there. It's like, okay, so are you really trying to protect us from China or is this just some kind of a thing so that you can sell this to your friend, get your friend to be able to buy TikTok? I don't understand what's going on with it at all, but we're just going to have to wait

and see. It's very interesting to talk to you. And I agree with you in terms of forms of taxation. And we've always had in the past a lot of different plans about how we could change the way taxes are done. I don't like the income tax because of the intrusive nature of it, because of all of the time consuming compliance with it and everything. So there's a lot of different things that have been proposed, all kinds of sales tax things or flat taxes or whatever.

Everybody was always concerned that we're going to wind up with both of them. So my concern with all of this is that we're going to wind up with $6 trillion worth of new tariffs as well as income taxes but as you point out if they on short those that tariff revenue goes away so I guess that's one of the reasons why they're keeping the income tax there but it's great talking to you and again I'll remind people the name of the book is reshore and Restoring the American Dream and basically going back and recovering some of the principles and the tax structures that we had at the foundation of this country I think and it's a very interesting book.

Spencer Morrison is the author and where is the best place to get it? Yeah, thanks very much. The book is currently available on Amazon. It can also be purchased directly from Calimo Press. And if you'd like to hear more on Taris, I'm always available on X or Twitter or whatever it's called these days. But it's a real SP Morrison. Okay, great.

And Calimo Press is at calimopress.com. Is that where people can find the book there? When I try to encourage them to get it outside of Amazon if at all possible. It's talking about decentralizing. That's another way that we need to decentralize. Very interesting talking to you, Spencer. Thank you so much. Again, the book is ReShore, How Terrorists Will Bring Our Jobs Home and Revive the American

Dream. But as he pointed out, we need a lot of different things to happen. We need especially to have deregulation. That's an important part of the formula that made America prosperous in the 1800s. And that's a part that seems to be forgotten. Thank you so much for joining us, Spencer. And thank you, uh, audience for joining us. Have a good day.

Good evening. Tonight's tale is a story of paranoia and a most unexpected perpetrator, the common cow. Or more specifically, what comes out the other end. Yes, the air is thick with intrigue, as it seems that in our modern age of propaganda, even a humble bovine's backside can be branded a national security threat. The menace is invisible, silent, yet deadly. Carefully contrive to panic the masses into accepting the government stepping in, jack boots and all, with their solutions. Because who better to stop a gaseous threat than a bunch of political windbags. But one must wonder is this truly about saving the planet or are we

simply being led to pasture? Is it merely a MacGuffin? The David Knight show serves as a breath of fresh air for those who still believe that truth can stand up to scrutiny. And he's found that the government narrative smells suspiciously like a load of bull. So if you want to help others catch wind of the BS being shoveled out of Washington, please consider supporting the show. And now back to our regularly scheduled program. You're listening to The David Knight Show.