22Jan24 Is Trump the Next FDR? Bannon Thinks He Will Be

Using free speech to free minds. You're listening to the David Knight Show. As a clock strikes thirteen, it's Monday, the twenty second of January. You're of our lord two thousand and twenty four. Well, things have accelerated in the election, or maybe we should say the selection. We've now had to Santas out and everybody is rallying around Trump. We're even told that he is the goat, the goat, and by that they mean the greatest of all time, not the Judas Goat. And then we're going to answer the

question who do I want for president. We'll also take a look at what is happening with the March for Life over the weekend, as people turned out in the snow, and the way it was reported by the press and the way it was hidden by Google. We also talk about what is coming up, of course, with a climate that is the epicenter of all of this, as Davos is making more moves and many people are asking, so how

they're going to rebuild trust if they don't admit to doing anything wrong. Well, we know somebody else who resembles that remark too, don't we We'll be right back, you know, let's talk a little bit about what happened with the election, of course, and I'm gonna issue here with my little articles that's showing up all right, here, we are, here, we are. You know. It's when you look at this, it truly is a

horse race, isn't it. And let let's begin with a horse race aspect of it, because that really is the way that Wayne Allen Root openly described begins as analysis to all this stuff. That's right, It is the horse race aspect of it, isn't it. I got the horse right hit. The name is Paul Revere. And here's a guy that says a foe with his clear can do He's got a clear shot. Yeah, the weather is clear. We got this horse named Paul Rever. Maybe it's Benn McDonald.

That's their gates. And Wayne now says Donald Trump is the closest thing to secretariat that we've ever seen in American politics. So he sees him as as a secretary. I see him as a trojan horse. That's what I think. He's like, very pathetic. Yeah he's not Paul Revere. But he goes on to explain to evidently his low information readers secretariat the winner of the famous Triple crown holder. The fastest of all three races of the Triple Crown.

I think could stop Secretary. No one could beat Secretariat. Secretariat is a legend. Secretariat is the goat. Secretariat is Trump greatest of all time? He says, is that right? Well, again, if you want to focus on the horse race aspect of this, if you want to focus

on all the celebrity aspects of that's true. I think it is interesting that Davas's theme was rebuilding trust, and we'll talk more about that when we get to some of the things that are coming out of But isn't that really what this is all about, what the right stream media is really all about, is rebuilding your trust in Donald Trump. The people don't trust the vaccines. Now that's good, that's good, But they want you to trust the guy

who bragged about it and gave it to us. And they don't trust the lockdowns of the mask any of the other stuff like that. But they cannot associate or will not associate that. And why is it. We'll just take a look at what happened to DeSantis. He's exhibit A. You know, just a couple of days ago, he said, you got to kiss this guy's ring. And now he is kissing this guy's ring. Who knows what

else he's kissing. It was just last week. So he's not only dropped out, but he's endorsed Trump. There never is really any opposition to Trump. You can't beat the man if you're afraid of him. You can't beat the man if you're afraid to criticize his record. And of course Trump was not going to show up in a debate. That was never going to happen. But you could have debated him in the media. You could have debated

and talked about here. He was the one who locked everything down. And yet it was Trump who brought up the lockdowns and said that it was DeSantis who did him against his will, which is an outright lie. And Trump was not called on it, of course by the Maga Press operation Maga Bird. But anyway, he criticized DeSantis for doing what he said to do, and he criticized Kemp in Georgia. And because they were the first two to pull back after two weeks, I said, all right, I said we're

going to start pulling back, and they continued to pull back. Trump's response to DeSantis kissing his ring was. He said, the sanctimonious nickname is now officially retired. Isn't that nice? Isn't that nice? Yeah, you know, neither one of them, as I pointed out NICKI Haley, of course not because she doesn't support any pro life positions, and neither does Trump anymore.

He said as a candidate that he did the Supreme Court justices changed the balance, but of course they were given There was a list that was given to him by some conservative think tanks of candidates, and who knows what you're going to get. Like I've always said, we've been trying that strategy since nineteen eighty as Roe v. Wade came in. The initial strategy was to oppose it on the basis of the Tenth Amendment, and then people said,

but Reagan, Reagan will do it for us. We've got a savior that's going to go to Washington and do this for us, and he's going to appoint good Supreme Court justices that are going to do so. He appointed people like Sanderday O'Connor and others who you thought had a chance of doing it. But as I've always said, Supreme Court justice appointments are like a box of

chocolates. You never know what you're going to get, and nobody accept people as dumb as Forrest Gump believe that you're going to be able to get any reliable Supreme Court picks. This is all about the president trying to avoid any responsibility. And Trump did the same thing with DACA. He kicked it over to the Supreme Court when he had the authority to get rid of the executive

order that started deferred enforcement, that was his authority. Instead, he didn't want that hot potato, so he kicked it over to the Supreme Court. The Congress kicks everything over to the bureaucracy. They don't want the responsibility for this stuff. That's why I said the elections don't really matter, because even if you like these people, That's what I said in twenty twenty. Remember election in twenty twenty, I said, well, I'm not voting for Trump

after what he did this year. It was more than just half fulfilled promises or not fulfilling the promises at all, like we typically see from politicians. I said, this is outright betrayal. He's a trader, And I said, why would I vote for him when he set up the rules that he's complaining about with a vote by man stuff. And why wouldn't I vote for him when he put Fauci in charge of the country. We're being ruled by bureaucrats. What difference does an election make? And I say that again when

we've got Congress that is too sheepish to do anything about it. Chip Roy said it best about the border. He said, why are we going before the cameras and talking about impeaching me Orcus because he's not doing anything about the border, and then we continue to give him money. Right, I'm glad to hear chip Roy say that. That's exactly right. That's what I've been saying. Stop all the show trials. You know, it was Trey Goudi and ben Ghazi, and then as Jim Jordan and everything else. Jim Jordan's

always in front of the cameras. When is he gonna quit and go to Fox News so I don't have to see him anymore. It's just it annoys me how all they do is show hearings, show trials. They have the power of the purse, that's their power. Cut the money off. Instead, you got people like Johnson continuing to kick the can down the road. We'll give them more money. Well, it comes up with exactly the same budget as McCarthy, exactly the same budget as Nancy Pelosi, exactly the same

tactics of these people. You keep voting for these people and they keep doing the same thing. Isn't that the definition of insanity? What difference do the elections make in Washington? Zero. You may be able to get some good people in the state and local level, but not in Washington. It's done. Nobody there except for a couple of people like Chip Roy Thomas Massey, even want to talk about what the issues are. Everybody else just wants to

get on TV and raise money. And that's where these guys are running for president. Nobody wanted to go to the March for Life. You got three Republican candidates running for that. Nobody wanted to go for the march March for life, and instead you've got Trump with his childish labels. You got Trump who's not marching for life. He's life. He's mocking. Any protection against

life is saying too harsh, too harsh. That's why he called uh Run DeSantis sanctimonious because of his stand against that, because of his stand and defense of printal rights. Now, we don't want to have anything like that. So yeah, Trump was Now this is who Trump always was. Anybody who stands for anything that is halfway moral. This New York playboy, billionaire pal of Jeffrey Epstein and the Clintons despises them. Anybody that is to the moral

side of Clinton's and Epstein's. As far as he's concerned, they're sanctimonious. Yeah, you don't know. People don't know who this guy is. I think you listeners do. But DeSantis had largely dismissed the nicknames and the criticisms of his campaigns. The name calling was petty and juvenile last year. But then he said, I signed a pledge to support the Republican nominee and I will honor that pledge. Well, newsflash, Trump ain't the Republican nominee.

So why are you supporting him right now? Well, because he's kissing the ring. You know, the only person that's left in there is Nuki Haley, who has absolutely not qualified either. That's why I say we got to find ways that we're going to protect ourselves and our families. We've got to work on nullification at the state and local level as much as we can, but work on protecting yourself. These people are There's nobody there that you can

really support. By the way, you know all this stuff about pledging, Trump never took a pledge. You remember the very first debate. I remember it really well. At that point in time, Info Wars wasn't covering the the debates or any of that kind of stuff live, and so we didn't have sufficient internet coverage to watch anything. We didn't have any cable TV. So Karen I rented a room and just sat there and kind of had a debate party, and I just live tweeted about it. And and so I

remember it really well because I watched that and live tweeted it. And I remember when Ram Paul, who I really admired in terms of his position on issues, the very first question from Brett Baarr was will you raise your hands? Raise your hand nonsense, raise your hand, little boys and girls, if you want to, if you will support the eventual nominee. And everybody raised their hands except Trump, and ram Paul went off on him, how

dare you not support a Republican? What's that about? Where did this this slavish partisanship come from? And it was disgusting, and it was servile, and it was you know, Ran Paul doing it. It's like whoa. And I could sized them for doing it, and I complimented Trump for not going along with a group think and not being partisan like that. But that's where we are now. So he went on to say, even though he said he signed a place to support the nominee, but you know, Trump

has us. Everybody has said he's one. Now everybody is anointing him. And of course they've been doing that for many months, going back to this almost a year ago. Everybody, oh, Trump's nominee. Trump's nominee. Everybody's saying that. And there's a reason that both the mainstream and the right stream, you know, the alternative mainstream if you will, why they're all saying it because they wanted to happen. It's it's good for their bottom line.

It's good for CNN, it's good for MSNBC. It's good for Breitbart and for Info Wars and all of these, you know, Daily Caller, all of them. They all want Trump for different reasons. You know, some of them make a lot of money up posing him, some of them make a lot of money supporting him. But That is the bellweather, the dividing line, if you will, for how they choose the demographic that they want to flatter and serve their opinions. And so he said that Nikki Haley

is a repackaged form of warmed over corporatism. That's what DeSantis said. Well, that's that's faint criticism. Quite frankly, I can think of a lot better criticism of new Ki Aale. But of course a lot of those things he's not going to criticize him for because he would have supported him himself. Right, they got Tim Scott. The race is already over, and this

is before the Dysantis exit. This is the adoration of all these people falling in line, all the politicians, all the press falling in line behind Trump. This from Human Events Libby Evans, voters loved Donald Trump because he's the only man successfully standing against him America's kafka esque justice system. And she references the trial and from Kafka well in the mini trials of Donald Trump, each

seemingly more absurd than the last. But this really has been his key to victory is how he took the lead over to Santis, playing the victim card. Oh poor me, and then taunting the judges, baiting the judges, doing everything that he can. Go ahead, throw the book at me. I'd love to have that. I'd need some more money, you know. I mean, you look at all of this. What is going to happen to him in any of these trials? Right? You got to pay a

billion dollars to somebody who cares. These guys pay millions of dollars for tv ads. These trials are far more effective than any TV ad that Donald Trump could ever run, because now he is both victim and savior. He's a suffering messiah for these people. And you know, just think of it as an expense. And so he goes in and he baits these judges. Yeah, I'd love for you to do that. Go ahead and see what you can do to me. You can't touch me and all the rest of this

stuff, and his crowd eats it up. I'm reminded at the time that Ronald Reagan was in the debate and there was I forget exactly what had happened with it, but he had this SoundBite. I paid for this mic, you know, and he takes the thing back, and so we had a couple of those types of issues this week. Over the weekend, just before DeSantis dropped out, he had some current reformer teacher who decided that she would troll him and get into an argument with him, and he lost it with

her, and it's you know, we all do. I've lost it with people. I regret it afterwards. But you know, she wanted to debate him on who had done more for education. I'm a teacher here. I know she did a lot for education at the time of thing. And it turns out that, you know, what she hated about Dysantis was she was a teacher and she also has a non binary adult child or something like that.

That's why she was coming after him. But it was just back and forth, and they presented Dysantis. You know, he eventually he gets exasperated because she won't shut up and he can't move on, and so he goes, this is my show, this is my show, your show, this is the show. You know, the choice of words was really fatal there. Instead of saying I pay for this microphone, you know, get her

off. And then you had another troll who showed up with Trump. I think it was about climate nonsense, and you know, Trump just like, get him out. Of here, throw them at it. So they came after Trump. The left wing media came after Trump because people started pushing and shoving this guy and they weren't throwing him out. So, you know what, you have two situations, very similar situations, and one guy's portrayed in the media as being weak and ineffective because he can't get rid of her.

And then when you know, the way Trump gets rid of him, everybody paints him as a tyrant and a dictator. And so, I mean, it's it's communications Again. Reagan was the best at doing that type of thing. Three different situations handled very differently, portrayed differently by the media. Trump has told Americans that the weaponized powers of justice are not coming for him. They're coming for you. We've heard this, haven't we. Yeah, I'm

just happened to be in between them and you. Well, he never interposed in any of this stuff, did he. We constantly talk about the doctrine of the lesser magic. What about the doctrine of the major magistrate? Who never interposed himself for censorship? He never imposed himself for January six victims. Yeah, they're really coming after me. I know, you guys are going to be in jail for thirty years. But you know, hey, it's me thereafter, as he SIPs his soft drinks in mar A Lago, whatever

he drinks, eat, says McDonald's Hamburger's in mar A Lago. Now, no, they're really all these people in jail for January sixth. They may not realize it, but they're not the real Trump's the real target, and he is, he is, but they're between. It's not that Trump is between the January sixth people and the tyrants in Washington. No, he threw them under the bus. He put them between. He got them to come on January the sixth, and then he let them twist in the wind.

Yeah, they're coming for you. Look, they've been coming after us, says way before Trump was president. And he's absolutely during his reign he didn't do anything to help us either, did he. They didn't even talk about civil asset forfeiture, or about the loss of DUP, or about total surveillance as exposed by Ed Snowden. And he had absolutely no problem when after the massive purge. I mean, we knew there was shadow banning, we knew

there was all kinds of manipulation of search results and social media. And then when they outright bandits at info Wars in twenty eighteen, he had nothing to say about that, did nothing at all about it. And the very next year he puts in William Barr And what does bar do comes after Julian Assange. Why is that? Well, because I said before, the CIA is not monolithic. It's got its right side, it's got its left side.

It's just like the mainstream media and the alternative mainstream media, the right stream media, if you will. And Trump is aligned with that right wing side. He's aligned with Bill Barr, and with the Bushes, and with the Steve Pitchinnicks, and with the Jack but Soviets, which is human events. This is what this is. Those are the people that are part of the

right wing intelligence agencies and he's aligned with them. And guess what right wing intelligence agencies And Alex Jones, people like the Steve Jack Pozovia, Alex Jones hated Julian Sich, would not have anything to do with him, goes to England, wouldn't talk Paul Joseph Watson, won't talk to him. Alex Jones says, yeah, yeah, oh, he's working for the other side. Yeah, he's working to show the crimes of the people that Alex works with

and for. It's just amazing. Franz Kafka is iconic. Booked the Trump by the way, good good film. If you really want to get frustrated about this stuff, If not frustrated enough to listening to me, you can watch the Orson Wells adaptation of that with Anthony Perkins, the guy who was starred in Psycho, and he's about that same age, very nervous and he doesn't know what's going on. He's nervous, he's paranoid, perfect person for

that Kafka in the trial. But again, civil asset forfeiture is that Kafka? Ask where you and civil asset forfeiture? You're not even charge of the crime, and they steal your stuff. And we all know what Donald Trump is being charged with. It may be a kangaroo court, certainly is. But does does Trump when he goes into these things, does he say, well, I'm going to stand for the Constitution, I'm going to do this and defend this on legal principles of free speech and all the rest of the

stuff. No, he doesn't. It's only about him. It's about him. It's about him personally. He wants to make it about that. So the question is, when you look at this, does his Maga cult do they want reform? Are that they're calling for reform? No, they're not. They're calling for revenge. They're not calling for reform, they want revenge. It's it'd be a very different thing if the Maga people were out there saying, you know, we got to make sure this doesn't happen to him

anymore. We got to make sure that happened to us. The reform there that we get to have due process. Let's see Trump won't talk about anything, especially one of the most egregious violations of due process, a civilized set forfeiture rules not laws. They're rules by the bureaucracy, not laws by your elected representatives. So we don't have to obey the Constitution, the Bill rights, or the due process clauses. Because they're rules, and because they're rules,

the bureaucracy can do to you whatever they want. And it's not just the war on drugs. It all really began with the IRS. But we see this with all these different agencies are doing this stuff all the time. So it's not just Trump. This DOJY she says, as willfully prosecuted, peaceful protesters and journalists. Moms have been questioned by authorities for speaking out against mandatory masking. Mandatory masking. Wait a minute, who did that? Was

that Trump? Or was that President Fauci? Yeah, Trump paid people to mask you up. How about that? Think about that. These people will never talk about that. So she says, kay, who is the defendant in Kafka's the trial? Well, he faces unknown allegations. But as I said before, we know what Trump is on trial for. He's on trial for hiding the hush money that he paid a hooker porn star. We know

that he's on trial for carelessly handling documents. And we also know that this mishandling of documents, even though it's a crime, it is something that other people have been given a pass on. And so because other people have been given a pass on it, and I'll say this, not other people, other powerful people, other powerful politicians, presidents, vice presidents and so forth, have been given a pass on it. So it is a dual standard.

But folks, it's a dual standard when you give a pass to anybody on this stuff. In other words, these people out there saying yeah, Let's take the guy who took a couple of shots of his bunk in the submarine. Remember that, I forget the guy's name, and they came after him. The Obama administration did said eviolated, eviolated the law, and it was you know, he didn't take any pictures or anything that'd be of any help to the enemy, unless they want to know what kind of a bed

you sleep on in the submarine. I don't know why they would want to know that, why that would be such a big help to them, you know, but they wanted to crucify this guy. At the same time, you know, they look the other way while Hillary Clinton is doing all of her you know, release of documents that are born above top secret. It's that type of thing. The little guys have always gone to jail for these types of crimes. What's different is these people and the MAGA people are outraged

that Trump should not get a pass like all these other privileged politicians. Now they ought to all go to jail. I'm sick and tired of this. Yeah, but you got off for this, so I should get offer this type of stuff. No, you all need to go to jail if you committed the crime, you go to jail. Politicians, powerful politicians get off the laws. One person said it was like a spider's web. It's very effective at catching the small flies, but the big bumblebees just go right through

it. And now this time they're trying to catch the big bumblebee. But this is not for us. I mean, just look at the entitlement, the privilege, the contempt from Hunter. And I mean not even the contempt in terms of not showing up for the Trump, but expression that he put in his face as he shows up and scowls at them and then walks off again. You know, that is the kind of privilege and entitlement that Trump thinks he has. As a matter of fact, he's argued that no laws

should apply to the president, none whatsoever. So the New York Conservative Party right there, even before the DeSantis exit, oh yeah, we got to support Trump. They endorsed Trump, and which reminds me. You know, it was and Davos that Klaus was talking about the election, and everybody was outraged that he would say, well, we will decide who the who's going to win the election, and we'll know in advance who's going to win the

election. Why even bother to have elections. You do not even have to have elections anymore because you can already predict what predict and afterwards you can say, why do we need elections because we know what the fasult will be. That's right, why do we need elections? We have the mainstream media which wants to have Trump as the you know, professional wrestling heel. You know, nobody's a better heel than Trump. Yeah, you see that in professional

wrestling. Some of the biggest professional wrestling stars of the villains, they love that it packs people in, and so yeah, they want to have Trump in their polls are pushing everybody that way from the very beginning, and they already know who's going to win. They told us last year he was going to win the primary. Now they're telling us that, you know, everybody needs to get out. That's what the politicians and the GOP are saying as

well, everybody else except for him. And they've got everybody out except for for Haley. And she's not a choice. She's an echo. As they said, Conservative Party chairman in New York. This is not the the GOP. This is the Conservative Party in New York, a different, different political party. I wonder somebody should ask this guy, the Conservative Party chairman,

please explain to us what conservative principles you loved about President Trump. You like that lockdown, You like the government the CDC saying if people can't pay rent because we locked them down and took their jobs, well now you're not going to have any property rights to evict them, and on and on, you know, I mean, it's just the complete takeover the beer at a medical

martial law that happened. So he said Trump will curb illegal immigration and help reign in the US Mexico border crisis that has spiraled out of control under Biden. That's what he said. Didn't Trump say that seven years ago? What happened to that promise? Not a great deal. When you look at Bannon, why was he doing that we build a wall, right he in the vet who's crippled. They were doing that because Trump wasn't building the wall.

He wasn't building the wall. Everybody knew, including the people who gave money to Bannon, knew that Trump was not building the wall. Well, fantasy land are they living in? You talk about the self delusion? It truly is amazing with the Trump supporters. So as a talked to the national spokesperson for the Trump campaign said, and this is the way they talk. This is a thuggish language of the Trump campaign. Nikki Haley is signing her own

political death certificate. Yeah, authoritarian thugs is what they are. I guess I've signed my own political death certificate a long time ago. But frankly, I'll write it really big, just like John Hancock, he was signing his death. Weren't for sure at that point in time if they lost. Well, anyway, another victim, Peter Navarro, six months they want for doing the same thing that Eric Holder did, which was Tuesday, I'm not going

to testify before Congress. Holder refused to appear before Congress. Now, when Peter Navarro refuses to appear before Congress for the January the sixth stuff, they want to send him to jail for six months for two misdemeanor contempt of Congress charges. Again, it is not you know, how do you let Eric Holder off and then send this guy on a misdemeanor try to send him to jail for six months. Well, again, it's a double standard. I

say, jail on both. That's where I come down. It's like, go back and get Eric holder let's the statute limitations on this contempt the Congress thing. Anyway, let's eaven it up instead. It has always to say, well, because it's a double standard. Our guy gets off for doing anything wrong, because they get off for doing anything wrong. And here's a reality. And here's why I say, send Peter Navara for jail. They

never come after the real crimes. As I pointed out with Dennis aster Yeah, they send him to jail for, you know, trying to avoid detection and reporting when he pulls money out to pay the blackmailer who was blackmailing him. Because Dennis Hastert was a pedophile wrestling coach and then he was selected by the GOP to be a congressman, so they'd have somebody those black manibiles see

that the GOP does the same thing that Epstein does. It's always it's always a trap, especially a pedo trap, because that's one of the few taboos taboos left, and not even that's really a taboo anymore, I guess. But anyway, the judge even referenced that when he sentenced him, because that's

really what the jail sentence was about. Now, the jail sentence for Peter Navarrow is not about the fact that he was the guy running through the ventilator thing that killed so many people, or the other policies that Trump was doing. But he was really all there about the ventilator thing. He was the one who was re enforcing that. Remember there was a wartime rule, because you know, Trump was at war with us, that wartime rule to ramp

up manufacturing and we can commandeer things. I can tell GM and Ford stop making cars, start making ventilators. Well, it was Peter Navarro who is the guy who was in charge of running that, and he should go to jail. He should go to jail like you know Gebels or whatever or some of these other henchmen of Hitler how to face the music for that murder trial.

But anyway, he's now playing the victim because they never come after these people for the real crime, just like they didn't come after Dennis Aster for the real crime. So when you look at Trump's trials, are they kafka esque or are they professional wrestling? As one person said, Trump wants to in this latest trial with e Gene Carol. Right. Oh, by the way, did you notice that did you just see those pictures holding up his hand. He said, look at that, he's got these red spots on

his hand. Kicked off a lot of speculation last week. James Carvill immediately thinks that's sephalis, And he also said clap I had looked that up. It's like, are those two different things, isn't it? I thought they were. I thought Clapp was at least I looked it up. It said gonorrhea. But I guess when you work with the Clintons, you're always attuned to that anybody got sores on them. Ooh, this is where were you last week? You know that type of things. It's just kind of an

occupational hazard. When you hang around the Clintons all the time, like James Carvell did that, you expect that everybody in your crowd is going to be having some kind of sexually transmitted disease. But he came out and said there were paper cuts. I don't know if there are paper cuts or not.

I don't know if it was. Who would ever think, seriously, who would ever think that Donald Trump leading such a chase life whatever, a situation where he would catch us sexually transmitted disease, you know, I mean not the e gene Carroll troll. But the other trial, I mean, we're actually talking about a porn star, hustler get a sexually transmitted disease. No way, Trump's not like that at all, right, not our Trump, not the Trump I imagine. And so now they're saying in this trial,

you know where he got caught. I was gonna say he got caught red handed at the rap trial, and his lawyers left him. Maybe his wife left him too. Do you see that picture from the funeral where he's, uh, I don't have the clip in here. I was going to put that in. After the funeral, they go to get in the car.

Malania gets in one of the limousines and he starts to get in. He stops abruptly and backs back, stands there for a second, then goes to another limousine like hmm, okay, well, I'm sure maybe he got caught red handed. Yet again, He's been caught red handed many times in many different ways. But who knows exactly what's going on with it. Anyway, his lawyers have walked away, and it may be because everybody agreed this is he's on a suicide mission, right he wants to testify in this uh,

this latest defamation trial. Others he she accuses him of rape and defamation and the jury finds in her favor, and then immediately Trump defames her again, and so she starts another one. And uh So this is his uh kind of kind of the way that I think his second term is going to go. Frankly, uh he raped us the first time, I think, and defamed us, and I think he's going to rape us into famous again anyway.

Uh So, he is absolutely determined that he's going to testify on the stand, and all the legal experts say it's a suicide mission, and I think it's probably why his his legal team there all walked away except for this one woman that obviously he hired for her looks, not for her legal experience or ability to speak or knowledge of the laws. He just is a like a deer in the headlights. And it's has been pretty amazing to watch it.

But he wants to lose this trial, and I'd say he wants to He wants he wants to testify and tell this judge and Egene Carroll off so badly that he'll be willing to pay the judgments that come off of this. You know, the lawyers, you know he's they're not. He's not going to take their advice. They don't want to lose a trial, and so they took a hike except for the one and but he wants to lose. That's his energy for this campaign. And there's no more effective commercial that he

could ever do. This is reality TV at its worst. The Washington Post concluded that it was a ken to a legal suicide mission. New York defense lawyer Robert Katzberg joined with other legal experts and saying the testify would ultimately humiliate him and he could risk contempt of court. But that's his political juice. That's what he has to have. That's what his campaign is running on. And it's just a campaign expense, and he'll more than make that up from

his people with money. Can you imagine if they put him in jail, even for contempt, you know, for a week or two or something like that, how popular he would become. Except that he's not on our side. He's on his side. And so three members of his legal team just walked. And last week Takapina is that's how to pronounced this guy's name, and others that worked for and with him and his lawyer said, the two federal cases are serious cases, and I think they're not to be taken lightly.

Let's just put it that way. Isn't it interesting to see that the people who know him the best, his wives, his lawyers, and all the rest of these people are walking away from him. Ty Cobb saying he is incapable of acting. He is a deeply wounded narcissist, in capable of acting except in his own perceived self interest or out of revenge. Isn't that where we are with him? And it's not going to change really, And yet as we look at Davos, they say, well, we're going to

rebuild trust. People are saying rebuild trust by doing more censorship. I mean, you talk about censoring people on it and JET you're going to rebuild trust. And the comment from Jordan Schleichtel said, in none of these panels did anyone show any bit of regret for their decisions. Unsurprisingly, none of the catastrophic quote unquote errors because they weren't theirs, they were deliberate. None of the errors made during the COVID hysteria era ever came up. And so the

GOP is looking more and more like Davos every day, isn't it. We aren't going to talk about the errors that we committed. I mean I did see the Santa say we did it, we were wrong, we changed it. You know, we learned from our mistakes and anything. He's the only one who even said that. Nobody in Congress wants to own up to mistakes with this. Nobody is going to accuse Trump of making mistakes with this.

They're all on board with this. And as I said before, it's like Murder on the Orient Express Agatha Christie novel, where you find out that all the possible suspects were all murderers. Everybody took a stab at that person that they hated. And these people in Congress, whether you're talking about Republicans or Democrats, presidents or governors, they all stabbed us. They all stabbed us in the back. They tried to stab us with their jabs, and there's

no apologies. But now they want to rebuild the trust, just like Davos, without saying that they did anything wrong. They want to rebuild our trust. They haven't called for any reforms, but they want us to trust them

again. They haven't fired anybody, they haven't changed anything about out the rules that were put out there after the Dark Winter simulation two months before nine to eleven, the false flag anthrax attack one week later, and two months later the model legislation that they sent out to all of the states to because this runs through the states, that's where the legal thing, and they don't have under the Tenth Amendment, they don't have the ability to directly order people to

do this stuff. So how did they get around that? How did they get around the tenth Amendment? By money? By money, That's what the executive order was about. The executive order was declaring an emergency so you can release money, just like a hurricane coming through Florida. And so it was all about the money and the legal framework, and that legal framework is still there. Nobody has proposed getting rid of it, even at the state levels

for the most part. And so just as there's no apologies for this pandemic mcguffin from Davos and there's no changes, and as they're also we're going to have to do it again, we already know that and we already know who the winner is too, right, so we don't even need to have elections. Isn't it amazing how much Davos and the GP are converging with each other, and of course the Democrats, you all understand that they are already everybody

knows, so the Democrats on board of Davos. What you need to understand is that the GOP is as well. We build the trust, no changes, we know who the winners are, no need for an election, no need for debates, no need for any of this stuff. And since we know who the winner is, and they're telling the all the GEOP organizations are telling the supporters. We know that Trump is gonna we know he's won the

nomination, we know he's going to win the election. And so what happens when he doesn't win the election, Well, he set us up for civil war. And then I think even if he does win the election, the left is going to do something to start a civil war. He's going to be the Mason Dixon line over this thing. And so the media, you know, making money of this. And again Lee Fang is talking about how the media and Trump corporate media profits skyrocketed during the years of the first Trump

campaign and presidency, only to plunge into layoffs after he left. But in this long article, and everything he says is correct, he says, here we go again. About thirty minutes into the first into counting the first votes in the Iowa caucus, the Associated Press, CNN, NBC, various other

news networks called it for Donald Trump. There was little doubt that the former president would easily dominate the rural state, but the rush to declare him the victor and violation of policies that prohibit such calls before the polls close was a blatant attempt to soak up the election night audience. The Santis call that out and they called him a poor loser, but they wanted to take the lead, and they wanted to call it for Trump, and some people were calling

it as a celebration. On MSNBC, you had Rachel Maddow saying democracy is falling into an authoritarian and potentially fascist form of government. But they all make lots of money off of it. And the interesting thing about this article I find is that Lee Fang only looks at it from the perspective of the Democrat mainstream media. He doesn't look at the money that is made by the so called alternative right wing media. Trump is their lifeblood as well. And this

is the kind of reporting that you get so what's driving me nuts? All of this stuff? No talk about that, no talk about the talk about all the profits of CBS News. And this has said Les Moonvez in twenty fifteen, looking ahead, he told investors the presidential elections right around the corner, and thank god the ranker has already begun. Go Donald, keep getting out there, he chuckled. They understand, well, they're making money,

but yet there is no talk about the right stream media. There's no talk about how they profit by cheering Trump. At the same time, they run article after article right next to their pro Trump articles. They run articles about how bad the lockdowns were for us as individuals and for the economy, how bad the masks were, how bad the ventilators were, how bad rem dizevir was, how bad Pfizer and Moderna were, how bad the vaccine was and

is. And yet they right next to it, they put articles praising Trump, and they never mentioned Trump with any of those things lockdown's, mask, ventilators, drugs, fiser, any of that. No, don't talk about Trump. And of course the Democrats won't criticize those things. They love those things things. That's why they gave us Trump. You see, they selected Trump and they pushed him in, and they're pushing him in again. So what is he going to do the next time? Trust us where the media

Hunter's laptop confirmed authentic? Has past deniers doubled down on censorship? Yeah, well, you know Trump never was their force with censorship. He was always a wall, wasn't he. And so Jonathan Turtley talks about how, yeah, they suppressed this story. They claimed it wasn't true, there was no laptop, and now the FBI has admitted it. They say it was backed up on the cloud. And here's all this data and so forth. And yet nobody talks about Trump on free speech. And Trump doesn't talk about free

speech either. He's not talking about doing any reforms. So Turtley said, this is why the start of Our Republic alternative media sprang up with pamphlet. Here is, like Thomas Paine, citizens rejected the state supported media. They searched for their own sources. Today's citizen journalists can be found on the Internet and blogs and other sites that carry opposing views or accounts. But you're going

to have to look pretty hard because there's a lot of shadow banning. If there is an outright banning, and just one last thing before we take a break. Here, you know, illustrative of the kind of doublethink, literal doublethink that is there in the mainstream in the right wing media. This is an article from Daily Caller and it was posted by WorldNet Daily and it picked up by some of the other right wing publishers. A cloud of doom is

hanging over commercial real estate. True, under the Biden economy, they say, under the Biden economy. I mentioned this is where we're going to as the program was ended just briefly on Friday, Gerald Silenti's been talking about this. I've been talking about this for years. We talked about this from the very beginning. Well, the consequences were going to be of Trump's lockdown, and yet Daily Caller and WND say, this is the Biden economy. Trump

did this. Trump did this. It's truly amazing. You know, you got sixty minutes now to play the clip last week, sixty minutes now talking about the commercial real estate crash. Some conservative places talking about it now, But Gerald was talking about that years ago. By the way, I just mentioned trends Journal dot com. If you want to get Gerald' stuff, you can save ten percent off of it. With a code night. He knows

what he's talking about with this stuff. Two point eight trillion dollars in commercial real estate loans set to expire through twenty twenty eight, meaning borrowers will either have to pay the amount outright or which they don't have the money to do that, or refinance the debt with higher interest rates to create a payment that they can't afford because nobody's in the buildings and even these articles now from Daily

Caller are not talking about the full extent of what is happening. Really, As Gerald Slinty pointed out, borrow has simply been unwilling to accept reality. But reality has to come due at some point. Says the Wall Street Journal, about five hundred and forty four billion dollars in commercial real estate loans came due in twenty twenty three. Of these people have to re up that.

And so there is one paragraph in this article from Daily Caller where they get to the bigger issue here because the way that it affects all of us, as Gerald Slinty has pointed out, is taking down the small and medium sized banks, which are the ones who typically have these commercial real estate loans. Why is it skewed that way. Let me just add a little bit of

background here that's not talked about in this article. After the scam of the securitized mortgages in the two thousand and seven two thousand and eight Great Recession that came after that, Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats came in and they created the

Consumer Financial Protection Board, and they created a bunch of regulations. It was supposed to protect consumers, but what it did was it drove the small and medium sized banks out of doing a lot of home loans because of the excessive amount of red tape that they couldn't afford, but the big, big banks could afford. And so these smaller midsized banks then got into commercial estate loans.

Now, small and mid sized banks, those outside the top twenty five in terms of assets, hold about sixty seven percent of this these commercial estate loans that are about to go bad, and they only owned about thirty seven percent of total loans, So they're heavily skewed towards commercial real estate, and

that twice as heavy as the overall pie. Small and medium sized banks are still reeling from a crisis that hit the sector early last year, leading many deposits to flee to the bigger banks where they feel their money is safer from bank runs and resulting shutdowns. And so now this is going to hit them especially hard. And who was it that kicked this off? Yeah, so on the eve of our turning point, this is an article from Brownstone. We'll talk about this when we come back. You know, it is important

for us to think about how we responded to this. It's okay nothing, you know, It's it's okay for people to be fooled. It's not okay for people who live in this world to be fooled. And I don't think they were. I think they fooled you. But it's okay for the general public to be fooled. Fool me wants shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. So we're going to talk about that when we come back. What could anybody have predicted that this kind of stuff, what was

going to happen? Well, quite frankly, yes. Tell Alexa to add the APS Radio skill and have access to the best channels anywhere from country to blues, classic hits to news. APS Radio curates incredibly diverse playlists for you to enjoy. Get details at apsradio dot com. In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. You're listening to the David Knight Show. This is an article from Brownstone on the eve of our turning point.

And I'm going to get to the question that everybody asked me, who do you want for president? We'll talk about that coming up and what the next presidency is going to look like. But let's try to learn something from history here. So Mark says, the night before the lockdowns began, I laid alone in bed listening to national Public radio affiliate in the dark newscaster grimly announcing that New York Governor Cuomo would the next day issue a fifteen day shelter

in place order. I couldn't believe this was happening. Put a state of twenty two million people under house arrest over a respiratory virus that was linked to the deaths of a tiny fraction of old Italians and Spaniards. Then again, you know, we already had two weeks worth of data. Let me just insert this, two weeks worth of data out of Italy showing a very small

number of people who had died. All of them the average age was one week it was over eighty, the other one was just under eighty of seventy nine points something, and they all had on average two and a half comorbidities. And that was why it was so amazing. You know, when Mauchi and Trump just went with this Imperial College of London nonsensus computer model. Anyway, you know, why do we lock up people who are not sick? Never done that before ever anywhere, and yet it was done worldwide. Why

was it done worldwide? Because Trump and Trudeau and Macron, all these people were marching in lockstep to the orders from the UN, the World Health Organization and to enact what the World Economic Forum wanted to do. You cannot lose sight of that betrayal by Benedict Donald. They did. He did exactly the same stuff at exactly the same time, and he would have done it at exactly the same time if he had been elected president. They needed to have

both parties as part of this. They needed to be able to have plausible deniability. It wasn't me, it was the other guy who did it. He said. Over a respiratory virus linked to the death of a tiny fraction of old Italians and Spaniards, over a hokey video of some Chinese guy laying on the sidewalk. When had healthy people ever been locked down? What made this virus different from any other virus? Exclamation points should follow each of the

preceding questions. A few nights prior, on my way back from the County ice rink, I had stopped at home Depot near closing time to buy a bucket of paint. The tall, fiftyish guy behind the counter and I both commented on how quiet the store was. He mocked the emerging notion that New Jersey might be shut down because one very sick nursing home resident well into his nineties was said to have died from a virus. The paint mixer was the

last reasonable stranger I would meet for quite a while. Turned out he was smarter than many medical experts quote unquote puts that in quotes many smarter than many medical experts, governors, big city mayors, TV commentators, college presidents, and the US president and Congress. Wait a minute, who was that president? Can you name that president? For five hundred dollars, Mark Oshinsky, can you name who was president in twenty twenty? Oh jee, I just

I can't recall. You know, Fauci had that problem when they got him on the stand. He couldn't recall hundreds of times when they asked him direct questions. And when you get somebody who's on the right side of the issues, they can't name Trump. They can never recall them. It's almost like there was some kind of men in black, you know, flash that light at them, and they can't recall who was president when this all happened. I'm afraid I remember, do you? On the darkest night of the keep

m in a missile crisis, he said. Bob Dylan hunkered down his room and wrote a hard Rein's Gonna Fall, which foretold what he thought was going to be imminent nuclear war. He said, I found felt the same profound dread on the eve of the lockdowns. So he says, here's what I wrote down as part of a So I got out of the I got out of bed, switched on my computer and wrote this on March the nineteenth, he said, I remember it was Friday the thirteenth, after my show was

over that Trump did the executive order, made the announcement. He's locked. You know, he's going to declare national emergency and then over the weekend you had New York and California say they were going to lock everything down. He wrote this on March nineteenth. Go back and look at my program on March the sixteenth. Anyway, what he said, I don't hate old people.

I am one, or so i'm told. I probably visited more people, including non relatives and nursing homes than most of them, ninety percent of most Americans. But it's neither sensible nor fair to shut down society of a coronavirus, largely in an attempt to extend the lives of the small percentage of people who've already lived a long time or who have bodies made old by overeating or smoking. So he made a pragmatic argument, which, of course that should

be enough to stop this. Right, It doesn't make sense from a medical standpoint if you assume that this is a pandemic, even if you assume that it's a very a very dangerous pandemic to a certain demographic. And again that's another thing that's very rare about this. We've never seen we've never seen well people locked down, and we've never seen a virus that only affects people based on their age or are there other comorbidities. But I looked at it and

I said, this is political. And I looked at it and I said, this is a this is Dark Winter two, this is Dark Winter of one simulation that they practiced for twenty years, and now they're pulling it on us. And so on that Monday, what I did was I talked about the political aspects of it. I says, this is a political war.

And I began by talking about how the British responded to the threat of the Nazis right across English Channel, the imminent invasion of Britain, and they put up the signs that you still see on T shirts, Keep calm, carry on. But there are also other signs that they put up everywhere. Liberty is at peril, defend it with all your might. It was a political pandemic, it was a psychological war. I knew it was a total scam. I knew it was a push for medical martial law. And that is

why I am unalterably opposed to Trump. I will never support him as a lesser of evils. Never will I support that kind of evil, the kind of evil that Donald Trump put on us in twenty twenty. Far surpasses anything that I've ever seen from any president in my lifetime. And I'm one of these old people as well. And he comes up with no apology in any way, shape or form. He doesn't have any ideas for reform, no apologies, only bragging about what he did. So what do you think he's

going to do when he gets another shot at it? So here's what I say. You know, when people say who do you want for president? You got Steve Bannon out there who predicts that Trump's first one hundred days will set a fifty year agenda. Doesn't that same kind of and not a lot of hubris? I think it is. And yet why does he say that. He says that because he thinks that the first one hundred days of FDR

set an agenda, And it is true. You know, FDR was there at the point where we were having the fourth Turney, and he set that agenda. And you know, Steve Bannon, and I was more open to him than the people that I worked with at the beginning of the Trump administration because he was talking about the fourth tourney. He certainly understands the cycles of history that we're in. But I've seen just how dishonest, Steve Bannon is, and so he sees the Trump second term as something like FDR, and

in that I agree with him. I don't know that it's going to be something's going to set the next the agenda for the next fifty years, but I do know that we are going to be setting up our society for the next seventy years. This election is very important. Whoever is the president is going to take us through the end of this this fourth turning. And that's why we have to be prepared to block them because there's not anybody who is

still in the running. But it wasn't really anybody that was in the running from the very beginning that I thought was going to do this right. But this guy has been you know, I said, I don't trust Steve Bannon. He is a convicted liar and con man. He was pardoned by Trump. He hangs out with a Chinese Communist Party billionaire Guo. Yeah, he was on the outs with him, but that doesn't mean that he's not a

not a rat like the rest of them. This is kind of like the competition between Lennon and Trotsky or whatever, you know, And so he is kind of Steve Bannon's GWO is kind of trotsky to to she the president of China, not somebody that I would trust. And so he says an FDR in the first one hundred days laid a lot of foundation for what was going to be a complete change of our society, our government, and he thinks

that Trump will be able to do that around this time as well. He said, one difference would be this time, he said, the team of rivals dynamic in the second administration, apart from what Americans saw between twenty seventeen and twenty twenty one. In other words, he admits that the first team that Trump had that he had he had basically people from the globalist military industrial

complex empire, and he had a lot of globalists and bankers. Hey, you know, people frankly from Goldman Sachs, which is where Bannon is from. Bannon worked at Goldman Sachs. And so he brings in people like Cohen, and Cohen gets a special golden parachute so that he can be a part of the Trump administration. Well, you know, it would be one thingying if Trump brought these people in and then he never got rid of him and he never changed the person he's made a mistake at the very beginning. Well,

you know, he has a neophight. He didn't really know what he was doing. But the reality is is that he ran the entire four years as if it was the Apprentice, except and he was firing people left and right, except for Fauci. Would never fire Fauci. Isn't that interesting? But these other people he fired him one after the other, and the next person that he would bring in was just as bad or even worse as the one that he had just fired. He didn't learn anything in his first four

years. He made enemies out of all these people. They won't support him again. But he was firing people left and right and bringing in equally bad people all the time. But Bannon says, you won't have people that tend to be more globalist. I think you'll see populist nationalist people that are fully on board the outlines and the directionality on board or the present with President Trump's policies. He says, Trump is now running an anti globalist campaign. Well,

isn't that great. He ran an anti globalist campaign when he won the twenty sixteen election, But then he created a globalist cabinet and he governed as if he was Davos. Man Ben had said the first one hundred days of the Trump term also suffered because, quote, we didn't have a deep bench of MAGA type people that understood policy or had been in the government before he goes. But now he got groups like the Heritage Foundation, you know,

the Heritage Foundation where the president was just in Davos. Now he's shaking the finger and lecturing these people and Davos about all the things that they got wrong in public. I wonder what they're doing in private. Do you have to go to Davos in order to do that? No? Could you oppose Davos without being there? Yeah, but if you're there and you're meeting and closed door meetings with people. And by the way, it was the Heritage Foundation

that supported all along the corporate censorship, this guy and his organization. There were apologists for the idea that corporations can shut down our free speech because not only are they like people, but they're superior to us because they've got more money. And so corporations ought to be able to censor us on social media. You got to be able to censor us on search engines and all the

rest of the stuff. Now we know that they were doing it at the direction of the government, but I said that at the time that they were doing it at the direction of the government. But regardless of whether it was at the direction of the government or not, they should not be shutting down our rights. A corporation is inferior. Corporation is not created by God,

It's created by government, as I've said many times. But again, what he wants, he says and thinks he's going to get, and he's telling lyne to everybody about this, the MAGA equivalent of a new deal corporation. What are you going to call it? You're gonna call it the new normal? Because it was Trump who ushered in so much of this new normal stuff for us, didn't he said, Well, a second Trump term could accomplish

a lot through executive orders. He says, the reversal of many Trump executive orders at the start of the Biden administration reveals the weakness of governance in that form. Well, you know, there's some executive orders that Biden did not reverse. He didn't reverse this whole idea of gun control by executive order.

You know, Trump did that with a bump stock, and then he did it with the pistol brace, and then he dropped the pistol brace executive order in December of twenty twenty after the election because he wanted to have full support of people on January sixth, and so he dropped that executive order. And then when Biden got in, he revived that Trump executive order to ban pistol

braces. So you know, not all the Trump executive orders or overturned the Trump executive orders on COVID and all the stuff to lock people down, all the medical martial law that was not reversed. The ability to pay people to get them to do whatever you wanted to do in terms of lockdowns, that was not reversed. He says Badness says to stand a better chance of lasting, MAGA policies emanating from the top would need to be buttressed by MAGA laws

promulgated by a friendlier Congress. Oh good luck getting a friendlier Congress, because I think that when Trump is the top of the ticket, I think that's going to destroy the chances of a GOP Congress, just like it did in the midterms. You look at how bad Biden is, how he's wrong on the economy, he's wrong on war, he's mentally weak and fragile, and everybody expected a red wave. Why didn't you get it, Well, it

wasn't because of abortion, it was because of Trump. But you know, when we look at Congress is having Republicans in there, are they really going to be on board with your agenda? You know, we look at the Paris Climate Accord. Mitch McConnell is head of the Senate when they had a Senate majority. The Paris Climate Accord is actually a treaty. You know. They can call these things a trade agreement or they can call it an accord or whatever, but they are all treaties and they have to be ratified.

And everybody was laughing about the fact that John Kerrey said, well, you know, Brock and Eye ratified that, except Mitch McConnell knows better. He certainly does know better. He knows the power that he has. He did nothing nothing to reverse that. He could have immediately said oh yeah, well we'll see you about that, or I have a luction they are or we're going to No, he just kind of froze. He did nothing, and

then he did nothing even throughout the Trump administration. He could have called for an election of that, and it would have lost. You weren't going to get sixty votes in that. But Mitch McConnell is a responsible for the Paris Climate accord as anybody, more so than anybody, and so you're going to have that kind of betrayal. And of course when it comes to Paris climate accord, Trump didn't want to do anything. The conservative wing in the first

year said you've got to do something about it. So he said, all right, I'll get out of it, and pretending that Obama and Carrie got us into it. Okay, well they got us in with it some kind of an executive order. So I'll do an executive order and get us out of it. But I'm not going to do that until after the election, he said, And that's what he did. These are the kinds of games

they play with the issues. Chip Roy says, why are we giving money, as I pointed out before to maw Yorca, and then we go on

cameras and we talked about impeaching him. He said, Look, he said, first of all, I met with one of these mayors, a mayor that represents the city in the district that I represent, and I talk to people all the time about what they're dealing with in Texas, and I can assure you that they're not excited about what they see coming out of the Senate and out of the White House. And with all respect to the President, Biden who said, I don't think there are any sticking points. He has

no idea what's in this bill. He doesn't know what's actually being discussed, says Frankly, we only know bits and pieces coming out of the Senate. We've seen some of it, and it doesn't do the job. He said, Look, this is not about just restoring Trump policies. We actually need to enforce existing law. You see the Trump policies, and kind of a passiveway, he admits the Trump policies didn't enforce the law. DACA was to say, we're not going to enforce the law. That's what DOCCA was.

What did Trump do? Did he end DACA as he said he was going to do. No, Now he's talking about how he's going to bravely end all that and he's going to deport people. He's not going to do any of that stuff, folks, if he gets present. He didn't do it when he was there the first time. As I said before he kicked it over to the Supreme Court, pretended that he didn't have the ability to get rid of the executive orders from Obama. And so chip Roy said, well,

we need to enforce existing law. All that means that you get rid of DOCA, right, And he says, as long as you release people. He says, Majorcas has released eighty five to ninety percent of all the people that they have encountered. And then he says, but as long as you allow any of those numbers to come in, you will never stop the crisis. Texas is left holding the bank. So yes, I oppose it, and I also oppose Republicans funding it. And here's the key quote from

chip Roy. Perfect I'm so glad that he said this. Why are we giving more money to Alejandro Majorcus while we go to the cameras and talk about impeaching him so that we can score points in campaigns, rather than doing our job to use the power of the purse that James Madison articulated was our power, the power of Congress to stop an out of control executive. So that's what I think we ought to do. I've been saying that for years. Glad to see Chip Roy saying it and again, yeah, because we need

to enforce the law, which we haven't done. He doesn't mention Trump's name, so they've got to stop painting to the cameras. He doesn't mentioned Jim Jordan. That's who's doing this stuff in the House. And so when people ask me who do you want for president? Well, this article from Brian McGlinchey stark Realities really is very succinct. He says, Americans are fighting for control of federal powers that should not exist. And so when people ask me

who do you want for a president? To me, it's like asking who do you want as president of this American government, this unconstitutional American government. That's like asking me, who do I want for Czar? Who do I want for Caesar? Who do I want for Emperor? I don't want an Emperor, Czar or Caesar. I want an American president, which nobody who is running for the office wants to go back to the constitutional office of president.

And so McGlinchey says it's no secret that politics in the United States is growing increasingly acrimonious, to the point that a twenty twenty two poll found forty three percent of Americans think a civil war is at least somewhat likely in the next decade, and he sees this exactly as I see it. I'm so glad that he wrote this because he said, the reason that we're fighting over this is because so much power has been centralized into Washington. The federal government

is trying to micromanage every detail of our life. Biden is trying to tell us which appliances we're going to be allowed to happen, which ones were not, what cars were going to be allowed to drive, and on and on, what kind of food we're going to eat. They don't have that power under the constitution. But that's one of the reasons why everybody wants to fight for who the dictator is going to be. We're answering the wrong question here.

We're asking the wrong question. We're answering the wrong question here. The intensity of our division springs from a federal government that is operating far beyond the limits of the Constitution, fueling a fight for control over powers that were never

supposed to exist at the national level. To put it another way, if the federal government were confined to its actual granted authorities, federal elections would be of little interest to the general public because the outcome would be largely irrelevant to their everyday lives. When I was running for Congress, I pointed out to people, I said, you know, the average person in Switzerland doesn't know

who the Swiss president is. I said, can you imagine that? As illiterate as the American public is, as deliberately dumbed down as the media keeps them, and they can't name the three branches of government or anything like that, but they know who the president is, don't they. And you hear it all the time, and it's because the power that the president has. I've been beating this dead horse for decades. I'm glad to see somebody else

say the same thing. The America's founders drafted the Constitution of great trepidation, having just escaped British tyranny. The people of the separate states that would compromise the proposed union were wary of centralizing too much power at the federal level. That was their big issue, thus sowing the seeds of new tyranny. Their

biggest issue was they called it consolidation. We call it centralization, and that's why they divided the power within the federal government, and they divided power made it clear that the federal government was subordinate to the states and subordinate to the people. That's one of the reasons why we didn't have direct collection of the Senate. The Senate was there as a way to have the states have Powerate is supposed to be representatives of the state. The House of Representatives was supposed

to represent the people. Those powers, only eighteen of them, are listed one by one in Article eight of the Constitution. They include such things as the power to raise armies, to maintain a navy, to declare war, to borrow money, to coin money, to establish punishments for counterfeiters and pirates, to set standards of weights and measures, secure patents, and establish post

offices. Reassuring those who are considering the enormously consequential decision of whether to ratify the Constitution James Madison, who would later write the Bill of Rights, so the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain with the state governments are numerous and indefinite. Federal powers will be exercised principally on external objects as war, peace, negotiation,

and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, the liberties, and the properties of the people. Notice that he doesn't say that Texas can't do anything to defend the border. He says, the federal government is going to be primarily focused outward, but the state governments don't have

any restrictions on them whatsoever. And yet what do we have. We have exactly the opposite To win over those would be ratifiers who still feared the proposed

federal government would undercut state sovereignty and would infringe on individual liberties. Ten amendments are drafted the Bill of Rights, and the tenth Amendment codified Madison's previous assurance that the powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, or reserved to the states respectively, or to the

people. So then how do we get to today's, as he points out, sprawling government, which involves itself in almost every aspect of daily American life. It is almost entirely unconstitutional. And yet what do we see. Every candidate promises to do more right, more control from Washington, as we began this, Steve Bennon, Yeah, we're going to have our MAGA agenda. Well, you know, FDR gave us radical socialism. I don't want some kind of you know, Trump version of FDR socialism. I don't want fascism.

I don't want socialism. I don't want any of this stuff coming from Washington. What Steve Bannon doesn't realize that the federal government that he imagines and this Trump empire that he imagines should not exist under the constitution. What Steve Bannon is telling you is antithetical to the Constitution. And this is why you shouldn't get focused on the presidential election to exclusion of everything else. You need to understand how criminal they are, how adversarial they are to our lives,

to the constitution. You know, when you look at the Dobbs decision, for example, the Dobbs decision was a step in the right direction. It was to say the federal government doesn't have this power that belongs to the states. And yet what was the initial reaction from everybody and the GOP pretty much, Oh, we need to come up with you know, Mike Pence, all of them, you know Trump. I don't think well, I don't know. We're just saying this bottom line is, you know, they all

want to Nikki Hill, they all want to refederalize it. Again, there is no authority, never was any authority for Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court finally decided that correctly in Dobbs. This is not our decision to make. It belongs to the states. That's what the Constitution says. And you've got all these Republican candidates, You've got all these pro life organizations who are self serving. They make more money, and it's easier for them if

they make it a national issue. And of course they never have to worry about it being solved. That's a big problem. If you're a special interest group. Sometimes you really don't want that special interest problem solved because then that's the end of it for you. And so we have GOP politicians, we have pro life organizations, so trying seeking to nationalize this in opposition to our constitution. And I oppose that. And it's not even a pragmatic solution.

Just as the guy was saying when he said, you know, I thought about this, when have we ever locked everybody down, all the well people and anything. What's the consequence is going to be is he starts to go, I didn't read everything that he had there. But as you start to think through that, how's it going to cripple our economy? How are we going to even be able to handle if it is a real pandemic? How would we be able to handle it if we lock everybody down? Well,

of course that's still in the cards, isn't it. Nobody wants to say they did anything wrong, and we want to elect to re elect the guy who did that to us. But it's not even a pragmatic solution to do this this way. So he said, don't let your affinity for any of those enterprises short circuit your intellectual honesty. He lists all these different government bureaucracies.

He says, you know, small Business Association, the Department of Labor, but even things like Social Security, medicare, all these other things. It said, don't let your affinity for that short circuit your intellectual honesty. Even if you view them as being benign, that doesn't make them constitutional. You know Harry Brown, who ran as a libertarian candidate. When he would speak to an audience, he would say, what's your favorite government program?

And then he would say, think about it would you be willing to give up that favorite government program to kill the irs, to make the government smaller so it doesn't interfere with everything in your life. And you know, interestingly enough, people were not willing to do that. You know, we want a tautalitarian, authoritarian government. We're getting it really harder, and we're going

to get it much harder. Much of the current state of affairs has been driven by the Supreme Court's extreme expansive interpretations of certain things like the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce clause, and so he talks about that, but let me just say that, you know, this is like the cartoon thing on YouTube how it should have ended? Right? Yeah, For example, they

do Lord of the Rings how it should have ended. At the very beginning, you know, he says, Okay, you got to take this ring, you got to throw it in a mount doom, and then the whole rest of the three books is about that, and then how it should have ended, He just s whistles up the eagles and they fly him in there and he drops it in and that's how it ended, right, So we could short circuit all this stuff about the general welfare and commerce clauses, just

by saying that even if the expansive interpretation of those things, even if that argument were correct, and it isn't. But even if that argument were correct, it was fixed by the Bill of Rights, because the Bill Rights superseded and amended anything that was in the Constitution, including the general Welfare clause and the Commerce clause. And so he says, the General Welfare Clause, he said, copied from the Articles of Confederation. Madison said, it was always

understood is nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers. He said. It was copied for the very reason that its prior use in understanding would hopefully minimize the risk of it being misinterpreted as a grant of power, which is what we always see the federal government. You know, they put in prohibitions and it's just like the fi as a thing. Put that in so

you're not going to spy on Americans. Instead, what they do is they use the fis of court to spy, to get a search warrant for mister and missus Verizon, and spy on everybody. But the writer says it flies in the face of reason that the drafters of the Constitution would take pains to carefully list the Congress's specific authorities and yet simultaneously say Congress could also do anything it thinks that is generally beneficial. He said, those two words general welfare

do not bestow an authority. Indeed, they are present in order to limit authority to the power to tax and to spend. And then we're back to FDR, because you see, we've had our government. We're in America three point zero. I guess, let's see if one point zero would be the aftermath of seventeen seventy six. Two point zero was a civil war, radically changed the structure and the concentration of power. And then FDR did it,

and we're about to go into America four point zero if America survives. In nineteen thirty seven, the Supreme Court used the imaginatively expensive interpretation of the general Welfare Clause to turn back a constitutional challenge to the Social Security Act and as set a precedent that fundamentally change the nature of federal government and so we don't

need a right wing version of FDR's un constitutional government. The decision healver Ring versus Davis, came as a court was under intense institutional stress following a wave of High Court decisions rightfully striking down various pieces of this New Deal legislation as constitutional. FDR, emboldened by his massive landslide reelection nineteen thirty six, pushed a legislative scheme that would enable him to appoint as many as six more justices

to the Supreme Court. It had a jaw dropping five hundred and twenty three to eight a win in the electoral college, and so that along with a swing justice, he started getting rubber stamp approval from the Supreme Court and all of his New Deal ideas. Is this what Bannon has in mind? Does Bannon think there's going to be some kind of a massive electoral landslide that Trump is going to come in with this big landslide behind him like FDR did.

He's going to strong arm these tactics through there. Again, I don't think we need a right wing because it's not going to be a conservative version of FDR. That'd be an oxymoron. Conservatives ought to be about conserving the Constitution, don't you think. And so the proclamation from the Supreme Court was that Congress may spend money in aid of the general welfare. Well, where do you see that anywhere else. The famous speech from Davy Crockett opposing that idea

for a very deserving cause, a widow. They said, I'll give the money, but we can't approve that from Congress. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. Yeah, like Davy Crockett. We will not resurrect the contest, but we will settle it by this decision, said the Supreme Court. Done. Huh, they didn't do. The proclamation didn't do enough to demolish the concept of limited federal government, and

so they continue to amplify the damage. They said this, The discretion is not confined to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress. Thus the Court not only granted broad new powers to Congress, but it also limited the extent to which that power would be subject to checks and balances. In seventeen ninety two, Madison had written, the federal government has been hitherto limited to specific

powers. If not only the means, but the objects are unlimited, then that parchment better be thrown into the fire at once, might as well be. And then you take the commerce clause just real quickly. That's the basis really of our twisted drug war, and I've interviewed people, even people who are law enforcement against the prohibition. I interviewed him and he said, well, he says, so what is the authority for this? I said,

we had to have a constitutional amendment to prohabit alcohol. So what's the authority that you're against this prohibition? What do they claim is the authority? Says, well, you know, the Commerce clause gives us that authority. I said, no, it doesn't, because if the commerce clause gave them the authority, then everybody up until the point that they invented that idea in the

nineteen seventy everybody up to that point had gotten the Constitution wrong. Everybody everybody had gone to a lot of extra trouble to pass the constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, and they didn't need to. Now, the commerce clause was always there, and of course the commerce clause clearly does not give them the authority

to run any kind of prohibition. It's important to consider the fact that the Constitution was drafted to replace the articles in Confederation, and part of the reason why they did that was because you already had taxes being imposed by states on goods coming in from another state, and so they wanted to eliminate the internal

taxation. The Commerce clause was intended to enable a free trade zone within the United States by empowering Congress to bar tariffs on property that was going between states. But that was it. It was to free commerce instead of to restrict it. How have they used it from FDR on to restrict commerce, not

just the war on drugs prior to that. That's what he talks about in this particular one, the court case in nineteen forty two Wickered case, that was the one where you had a guy who wanted to grow wheat on his small farm in Ohio, and they had come up with the price supports that FDR wanted to do, and they told him that he was not going to be allowed to grow wheat, even just to feed his own family. He says, I'm not sending this across state lines. I'm not even selling it

to anybody. I'm using the wheat to feed myself and my family and my animals and for future planning. But they said, no, you can't do that. And so where are we today. We've got Amish farmers who can't grow and slaughter cattle because we've got the tyrannical USDA thugs out there. Is that on the radar of Trump or any of these candidates know they don't care about that. Yeah, He's focused on his own candidacy and his own revenge. He doesn't care about any of this stuff. Ram Paul wrote in a

twenty twelve Supreme Court amicus filing. He said, wickered, that's this case about the wheat. He said, it stands for the sad proposition that Congress can prevent a man from feeding his family in his own home with food that he grew himself. And that's who we are right now. And that's just one of many things. Decentralization of power and government is what we need in

order to not have a civil war. And you know, you the previous civil war that we had was over whether or not people could declare their independence and their self governance. And this civil war and Biden is pushing us into this very heavily. But Trump's not going to push back in an opposite view either. He doesn't want to diminish any of the power of the office.

He wants to extend it. And just ask yourself when Trump gets finished extending the power of the office, as he did in twenty twenty, and then he was succeeded by Biden. Ask yourself, what's going to happen after Trump does his little right wing FDR stuff and then we get a socialist Marxist president.

Ask yourself, what's going to happen with that? If state law, rather than federal law were pre eminent on the vast majority of topics, we'd also see a sharper differentiation and what life is like in each of the fifty states America. Americans rather would be presented with a more diverse selection of places to live, while enjoying the freedom to choose the one that best comports with their views on how things should be, he said. George Mason said at

Virginia's ratifying convention. He says, is it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country embracing so many climates, containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs. And yet, as much as I agree with this article, his conclusion of how to fix this is, he says, So then there's another long shot avenue to fix this. To amend the constitution, he said, we need to have an Article five

constitutional convention. No, no, this is like she floats, she's made therefore she's made of wood. Right, he gets all of this right, and then he comes to the absolute illogical conclusion. In other words, he's just been going through here saying we got people in government who won't obey the constitution, and even referencing fact that, yeah, we had to just throw

this thing into the fire. Right, And so let's take the people who won't obey the constitution and let's let them because they'll be the ones who are running this constitutional convention. Let's let them have the power to change the Constitution because we think that they're going to somehow altruistically change it to fix the problem. See, the problem is it's just a piece of paper. And that's

why we need to be able to nullify this. That's why we need to not be focused on who the czar, where the emperor is going to be. And as said, as I previously covered, nineteen states have now requested a convention with the one goal being to limit federal jurisdiction and power. No, no, that is not the solution. Constitutional convention is one of the most dangerous things that we can do. I'm glad to see so far that I've not seen a Bannon and the Trump people picked this up as a rallying

cry. If they do, we're in big trouble. No, the real solution is nullification, even more so, getting the Federal Reserve out of our lives, ending the FED. And I say nullification because look at Jeff Sessions and refer madness for example, right as much as he hated marijuana, he would never try to stop the state. So nullifying it instead, what did they do? They use to continue things like civilized at forfeiture. They use

bribery. Bribery is the way they get around the tenth Amendment in every way. And so the problem is that Congress doesn't want the power to do anything about this. We say, we keep pushing on this rope. We think, well, we're going to fix it with a present or fix it with a Republican Congress. And yet they don't want to do anything about this. They like the fact that we have taxation without representation, and then we have

regulation without representation. There's a new American article that gets this right. There's a major Supreme Court case that could force Congress to do his job because they don't want to do their job, he says, Are we truly a nation of buying for the people? He says, if our elected representatives aren't the one that actually make the decisions that are affecting our lives. No, for a long time, they haven't been making those decisions. They've essentially outsourced them

to judges and to bureaucrats. But two cases currently before the Supreme Court could remedy this problem, and so he talks about this is a good example of how micromanaging and how pressive our government can be. Listen to this. For the past thirty years, the Magduson Stevens Act has given the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAH what people usually call it, the authority to require monitors on commercial fishing boats. And I saw that and thought, Okay, what's the

big deal. You know, it's some kind of device or something. No, it's not a device. It's a person. It's a person. And so these monitors intended to ensure that the fishermen adhere to ethical fishing practices as mandated by NOAH. So it's not a device, it's a bureaucrat. But here's the kicker. Outrageously, these mandates that certain types of fishing vessels must pay for these federally required monitors themselves. Nevertheless, the Act didn't list certain

boats boats herring boats. Here we go red herrings. Again, it did not list herring boats among those types. And for many years the Noah agreed that it didn't apply to these boats, and so it funded the monitors itself, and then they ran out of money, and then instead of getting more

congressional funding, Noah simply changed this interpretation of this mandate. And while on now these herring fishermen who have a crew of only five or six people in their vessels, have to pay the salary of a bureaucrat to monitor what they're doing, which reportedly runs more than Listen to this, seven hundred dollars per day per boat. This guy's getting paid seven hundred dollars a day, one

hundred and sixty eight thousand a week. If you think of it as a forty hour work week, you know, or we multiply this out by twenty days, except it. Yeah, if you if you say it's going to work five days a week, seven hundred dollars a day, run that out for the year, one hundred and sixty eight thousand, dollars. This can be as much as twenty percent of a ship's daily take home pay, and it's frequently more than even the captain makes. This is a bureaucrat that you

were forced to have on and forced to pay. Now, I look at this, and you know they don't mention this in the New American, But I have a take on this. Isn't this like a Is this very much like a violation of a Third Amendment where you have to have a government soldier quartered into your home. I mean, they're forcing a government bureaucrat to be

quartered by these fishermen. And of course we know that part of what made that so odious is not just the fact you've got a stranger living in your house and that you've got to feed and provide them with room and board, but they're also an informant. That's exactly what this monitor is I talk about. People say that every one of the Bill rights is being nullified except for the Third Amendment. I say, that's being done all the time. I said, that's being done most of the time by the NSSA, who is

spying on what is happening on our computers. They're there in the background. The current Scotis cases that are there are urging the justices to overrule a landmark holding that would involve the energy giant Chevron, And in that decision from nineteen eighty four, the Court said that government agencies are best positioned to interpret federal statues if a question is not specifically addressed, provided that the interpretation is reasonable.

So what that was was that was an abdication of the courts to the bureauc You say, we've had the president like Trump, say well, I can't undo the previous president's executive order on DHAKA, so let me send it to the Supreme Court. And then you have the the Congress saying, well, we don't want to write all the laws. Let's just, you know, create a broad legislative agenda and we'll kick it to the bureaucrats to fill in the details. Or maybe we'll make a new bureaucracy like the Consumer Financial

Protection Board or something like that. And then now the courts are even saying, well, we don't want to have that, We're going to kick it to the bureaucracy. So we're being ruled by a bunch of bureaucrats. That's why I say we have taxation without representation, we have regulation without representation. And in nineteen eighty four, the court under the Chevron case said we're going to kick stuff too. We're going to let the bureaucrats basically rule themselves and

we're not going to be a check on them whatsoever. And so that's why these two cases are saying, no, you need to you know, we can't let we cannot let the bureaucracy be a law unto itself. And so since the Chevron defense, that's kind of interesting, because the Chevron's like a flag, right, since the Chevron defense has been foundational framework and administrative law.

Even though federal bureaucracies, whose mere existence is usually unconstitutional anyway, federal bureaucracies have no power under the constitution to make these decisions in question anyway, so their existence is unconstitutional. They don't have any power to make these decisions, and so they've created this unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy, just as we saw with the medical martial law stuff. What do elections mean? So you tell me which bureaucrats so I get to vote for? Do I get to vote

Fauci out? Do I get to vote people like Fauci have they done anything to make sure that his replacement does an act just like him. While Chevron has been designed to limit judicial activism, it has led to bureaucratic activism, and it's led to a consolidation of power that was antithetical to what's seventeen seventy six created. We'll be right back. Unlike most revolutions, whether people rise against the real economic oppression, in our case, here in Boston, we

are fighting for purely an abstract principle. It is, however, not nearly so abstract as a young gentleman supposes. The issue involved here is one of monopoly. Today the British government will monopolize the sale of tea in our country. Tomorrow it will be something else, liberty. It's your move. You're listening to the David Knight Show. Whether you're feeling like the booze or blue grass. APS Radio has you covered. Check out a wide variety of channels

on our app at apradio dot com. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, Yet Laos, your annual Global Risk Report makes for a stunning and sobering read for the global business community. The top concern for the next two years is not conflict or climate. It is disinformation and misinformation followed closely by colarization within our societies. In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

You are listening to the David Knight Show. Yeah, And of course that was the the European Commission. And I figured out finally how to pronounce her name. Ursula fond of lying. That's it, Ursula fond of lying. She will lie to you and she will make sure that you can speak the truth that she's gonna shut you down. And of course she's one of many, one of many of these people. We got a queen now who is talking about how we all need biometric idea as well from Davos. This

happened over the weekend. UH biometric digital ID cards could track vaccination status, says the Dutch queen Maxima. Oh okay, that's a good name for an authoritarian dictator. Maxima Maxima the first I imagined. There's been many other Maximus before this one who were maximum leader, czar all the rest of this stuff. You know, here's the question I have. Why should a Queen of the Netherlands or a King of Britain, why should they have any say about

our lives. That makes me think of the money byline. You're elected, you king it. We're an autonomous collective here in the United States and in other areas, so we're not really too interested in what kings and queens have to say about us. She is described by Breitbart as a longtime social justice campaigner, working with the UN and all the rest of this. And so in a panel discussion to talk about financial inclusion, he says just the opposite.

You know, you're going to have to have an ID to have financial inclusion, And she says, you know, when you look at poor people, they really need to be able to have some sort of IDs so that they can get their government checks and all the rest of stuff. And I immediately thought, so, what kind of an ID does the Queen of the Netherlands or the King of written What kind of an idea do they present to get their government welfare checks? The biggest welfare louts in the world are these

kings and queens? Do they have to have an ID? Do they have to go down to some office, show their ID and get their multimillion dollar check? Of course not? And who are the real welfare queens here? Right? It's not these poor people that she's trying to tag and bag. It's she's the welfare queen. She's on the public doll and so as Charles and all the rest of them. Why do we put up with people like this? And Ursula fond of lying? She said when I started this job

is actually just a couple of countries. Say let me, let me play the whole clip for you. I've got what she has to say. Here's the here's the queen waxing on just like Bill Gates about how important it is for people to have the ID because the idea is going to be their ticket to welfare. Although she doesn't need an ID for her welfare. Why because in order to open account you need to have an idea, right and she

shows her idea to open accounts. Job. They were actually very little countries in Africa or Latin America that had one ubiquitous type of idea, and certainly that it was digital, and certainly that was biometric. And now we really work with all our partners to actually help that being. I mean to grow this And the interesting part of it is that you know, yes it is very necessary for financial services, but not only it's also good for school enrollment

is also good for health who actually got a vaccination or not. It's very good actually to get your subsidies, you know, from the government. So this has not only effect to the financial services. It's a very important iss. Yeah, it's good to get your subsidies from the government. So she must have one of these things. There's a lot of subsidies from the government. What a hypocrite these people are. And of course it's not just good

for this, it's good for everything. You know, you're not going to do anything without that ID. And so this is what they've been saying all along. I don't know how they think they're going to rebuild trust. The Dutch Queen has also been one of the leading proponents of cbdc's and she does it in the name of quote unquote financial inclusion what double speak what or William

doublespeak that is. And of course this is Bill Gates has been saying, you know, all along, has had ID twenty twenty, which is really where they kicked this stuff off, was in twenty twenty, and he kept saying, you know, you got to have all these different the poor people for you know, their subsidies for their healthcare they need to have an ID and all the rest of this stuff. They would open a bank account, and I'm sure that the Queen whenever she wants to open a bank account,

they want to see her digital ID. So Davos is demanding coordinated system of carbon taxes that is worldwide, and of course that's what they want. This is always what the climate stuff is about. It's always problem solution. You have to have a global problem and then a global tax for that. That's what the climate stuff is all about, because you can't have a government without

a tax. Ultimately, right now, they have been funding their globalist agenda by essentially selling shares to these multinational corporations as backroom deals where they become stakeholders. As I said before, they've got the ideas and the agendas at the UN and then the World Economic Forum and these other globalist organizations will come in

and start to try to come up with strategies to enact that agenda. But they really do need the money and also the technology these corporations in exchange for that they become stakeholders. They get into buy their way into it. You know, they're essentially you know, buying a dukedom or they're buying. You know, it's the old fashioned feudalism that we're looking at here. These people

are. You know, they're not winning this stuff as a handout from the king because of battle or something, or even because of loyalty and opposing another king trying to take the throne. But they're establishing this global throne and they're getting paid for it. But in the long term they want to have taxes to support this and of course to be able to redistribute wealth globally, because that's what these people are. They're not socialists, they're Marxists, and they're

all about the redistribution of wealth like every other Marxist. You know, it's not from the rich people to the poor people. It's from the poor people to the rich people. That's the way the Marxists redistribute everything, especially taking it from the middle class. And so they're trying to redistribute wealth, they say, to poor countries from Western countries, but they're really trying to redistribute

all the wealth to themselves. The climate change gend it can only be fully it can only be fully obtained if international carbon taxes are implemented on a global population, said the Saudi Arabian finance minister, you know, the country that chops off people's heads for massive skill. But again, this is why they

have to have climate. This is why the climate mcguffin is so central to everything that they want to do. They have to have a global so called pandemic, even though it wasn't a pandemic, It wasn't an epidemic anywhere, but they claim that it was a worldwide thing because they have to have worldwide solutions, worldwide ideas and travel restrictions and things like that. And this is

why they are so focused like a laser beam on this climate nonsense. There is no realistic solution to the climate transition, says the Saudi politician, that does not involve a globally cored donated system of carbon taxes. Phony problem, to steal money from you. That's what governments always do, isn't it. Rejected the notion that such a system would hit the poor and developing nations the hardest, because that's he's right about that. He's being honest about that.

It's not targeting poor nations, it's not targeting developing nations. They're using them as an excuse saying we're going to take we're going to target the industrialized West, and then we're going to give this to the poor and developing countries. But no, they're going to keep it themselves, like any self respecting Marxist would. What we need is a system of carbon taxes coupled with subsidies for developing households and a stream of funding for the developing world to allow them to

engage in investments and mitigations and adaptation that allows them to keep growing. And of course they will do this, and they've already we talked about the redistribution of wealth, they've already started talking about climate reparations and so forth. The implication is is that you deserve this. You know, we're stealing this from you, and we're going to give it to somebody who is more deserving because they've been wronged in the past, and so we're going to give that to

them. Also, at the World Economic Forum, you have a question and answer period and you have one of the participants there, Scott was asked about collaboration with tackling climate change and how it is not keeping pace with the Paris Agreement, which we were talking about earlier. Right, that's a key thing, and Trump didn't want to get rid of that, and he didn't get rid of it. As I said, he kicked the can down the road, and you know, made a token effort, and that was immediately quote

unquote reinstated by Biden. Nobody in the Trump administration, nobody in the Republican Senate, not Mitch McConnell, not Ran Paul, not anybody. He said, hey, this Paris climate thing, can we have a vote on that? Not a single Republican senator brought that up. The fact that, hey, wait a minute, we are the ones who are supposed to ratifice treaties. They just let it go because they all want to let it go.

So when they were talking about this Paris agreement, this treaty, how do you see real collaborations keeping up with the pace of the risks that are happening, giving given everything else that we're talking about here with climate change, and he says, well, you know, we talked about the cost of living

crisis. You know, some peoples, most people's electricity bills are so high that they're desperately trying to find some way of getting off the grid or removing themselves, and the cost of purchasing electricity, so that gives us hope and optimism that you know, people can't afford what we're doing, because this is about driving us into a new dark age, literally without any lights. You

know that type of thing. Another example came twenty twenty three when Egyptian President Abdel Fatah El Sissy, the Sissy the this reminds me of quick drama gral el Kebong. Well, this is El Sissy. It doesn't hit you with a head, with a with a guitar. He just slaps you with a limp wrist. He says, hunger is a price worth paying for a country's

progress, because that's a bill that other people will be paying. El Sissy is going to be eating whatever he wants to eat, Right, don't you Egyptians dare say that you would rather eat than build and progress and progress. If the price to the nation's progress and prosperity is to go hungry and thirsty, then let us not eat or drink. Let them eat bugs. Don't

undermine the cause of our nation and make us the world's laughing stock. Stand fast, transform the cruel circumstances that we are going through into a gift. The harder you stand fast, the sooner the economic crisis will pass. It's not a gift. It's a grift. And of course you've heard essentially the same thing from our fearless leader Biden, who says, yeah, you know,

he puts these sanctions on everything he goes. It's going to be tough, but in the end it's going to be worth it, because you know, we're going to get rid of this form of energy that we're using. Right now. Well, as we look at Davos, the questions still arise. You know, there was a as to the conservatives who went there. Of course, we have Javier Malaia as presented as a conservative and we have the president of the Heritage Foundation, the biggest conservative tank tank. Both of

them went to Venezuela and publicly. You know, Javier Malaia's speech was excellent. He had all the points on individual liberty and the economy and things like that. As I pointed out last week, I think you know, Einran's vision of the her worldview is very limited because of its secularity. Right she she just sees every thing in terms of money and economy. She sees greed

is being a good thing. It's not a good thing. It may be something that motivates people in terms of competition, But if they're only motivated by greed, you're not going to want to live in that society. If it's a dog eat dog, cutthroat type of situation. Having a free market, now that's a different thing. But if it's just greed, what are they going to do? We know how that works out. We know that if somebody is motivated entirely by greed, they're going to figure out the competition is

not a good thing. And we've heard people like John D. Rockefeller say that competition was a sin, and we've seen people like Peter Teel even double down on that and talk about how stupid competition is. That we've got to eliminate all competition. And so you know that greed can mitigate against a free market. So even from an economic standpoint, you know, a lot of these libertarian philosophies fall short. And if you don't understand where this is truly

coming from, and that is and you don't understand human nature. See, the people who founded this country understood human nature is not to be trusted. They said, we need to have government because men are not angels. But since men are going to be running the government, what do we do to try to control this. They try to put some controls and balances in the in there, but you know, when you get greedy people who are hungry

for power and money, they basically throw off these restrictions. And so the jury is still out with me. In terms of Javier Malai, it was you know, he has all the right enemies. Venezuela's Maduro really hated the speech. He called it shameful because again Maduro is a communist, so you know, when you look at this, it's it's not enough. In many

cases, the would have just to have the right enemies. The Argentine people, he said, should be saddened, should be ashamed, indignant because of Javier Malai's mess at the Davo Summit, a disgrace, an expression of his Nazi ideology, his McCarthyism. It is a lie that he is a liberalist, liberal libertarian. He said, well, actually, you know, this guy is getting all these different labels confused and mixed together, isn't he?

He said, The businessman of the world, the capitalists, the capitalists of the world, and the governments of the West were stupefied when he accused the entire West, of being communist, of being socialist. Anyone who does not think like him is a communist and must be exterminated from the face of the earth. That is Nazi thinking, except you know, it's exactly what we always see the left doing. If you don't agree with them, then that

means that you are a right wing Nazi and a fascist. So you're either a communist or a fascist. And that's exactly what we hear from this communist. So what he had said in the opening of his speech was I'm here today to tell you that the West is in danger and danger because those who are supposed to hold a value of the West find themselves co opted by worldview

that inexorably leads to socialism and consequently to poverty. And so again, as he pointed out, it's a worldview, but I don't know that any worldview that is devoid of an understanding of God that is purely secular. I don't think any worldview like that is sufficient to protect us from socialism, to protect us from poverty. And so again he said what he said was correct.

I just felt like it was not broad enough, not deep enough, and he didn't have the kind of moral foundation that I think is essential to be able to protect individual rights. He responded to the criticism from Maduro, He said he never expected such praise from a globalist dictator. He said, I did not expect such praise. Impoverishing socialist Maduro, saying that I am an historical mistake in Latin America confirms that were on the right path. Long live

liberty, he said. And again, so there's a lot of you know, a lot I'm somewhat undecided about him. We have to see what he has to say, but there's a lot of things that indicate that something may not be quite right. Wine Press expresses some of my concerns, saying that they think that he's a globalist puppet actually and making the case that as their theme was laughably called rebuilding trust. Where they do they bring in Malaia,

they bring in the president of the Heritage Foundation. Is that how they're going to try to re establish public trust? Is that going to be how they are going to tell us, don't worry everybody's you know, We've got Dallas's number, and they're not going to threaten you because we know what they are, and we just told them to their face what they are, and so you don't have to worry about it anymore. So just go back to sleep type of thing. We got leaders who are going to oppose them, so

you don't need to worry about. What Davis is saying is that what that was early about, is that the way they want to rebuild trust. See. I think that's what's going on with Trump. Frankly, like his predecessor's, Argentinian President, Malay is listed by the World Economic Form as a contributor to its agenda. In fact, he has consistently represented the positions of the

World Economic Form in the recent past. So he wasn't just somebody. You look at this and we have people like Dan Crenshaw, We've got people like Tulca Gabbard and they show up there as World Economic Forum Young Leaders and things. And of course vyve Ramaswami he says, well, they never asked me, and I want to get you know, he said he was going to sue them, I think to get his name taken off of their website. They took it down. You could have a situation where somebody gets their name.

I don't know if that's really what was going on with him or not. When you look at his pharmaceutical connections, maybe he was pushing for that. Nevertheless, how being identified as a world economic you know, form leader, that doesn't necessarily mean that you're a part of them. Doesn't necessarily mean that if you go there multiple times, that you are, you know, sympathetic to the organization, as we've seen Governor Kemp and Youngkin and others and

Trump and always going there. I am. On the other hand, I start to say, well, it certainly looks to me like I would lean the other way. I would lean into saying that they're globless. But as wine Press points out, Javier Malai was initially against vaccination, but he's argued for mandatory vaccination during the coronavirus crisis. So again like Trump, you know, he's saying, well, I know these vaccines. I got some real concerns about them, and you know, maybe about autism and some other things

like that. But then when it comes into the coronavirus, they're right there with everybody else. Malai Trump and so he was also on the side of the Zelensky regime in the Ukrainian War, and he stands right there, shouldered and shoulder with Netnyahu in the current Gaza war as well, and so he talks tough, but we've seen that before. He also borrowed Trump's slogan and rebranded it to fit his country, make Argentina great Again. So we got our own maga. As a matter of fact, I see here a tip

and a comment from Stealth Patriot. Thank you for the tip. I appreciate that, says Marina Abramovich said that Donald Trump is the magician to wake up the world. Maga, which also means witch, is the fifth degree in the Church of Satan. Yeah, and he said, there's a video link that I posted on Today's comments about that. As a matter of fact, that's also pointed out by Wine Press. So again you use that term maga.

These are the individuals who act as spokespersons for the philosophy of the Church of Satan, uh says the Church of Satan, and their on their website they say we have titles such as magister, magistrate, magas and Maga in the Church of Satan. So just a coincidence, I'm sure right. Malay is a showman, and that's the other thing that gave me pause about him. You know, he's a little bit too much of an actor a little bit too much with the antics, with the chainsaw and things like that,

and you know, yelling and screaming and cursing. To me, that is always a troubling thing to see that in somebody I think we ought to have. It looks like a demagogue instead of a statesman when you see that type

of thing. So that's another thing about him that gives me concern. But I think that looking at Mali, looking at Maloney in Italy and looking at how it's too soon to say that whether he's doing the right thing or betraying his promises, but certainly it's we know that Maloney is full of maloney in Italy, how she campaigned again just like Donald Trump, We're going to control

immigration. She's done exactly the opposite. And she has been one of these people who has hung out with with the leaders on every occasion, these globalist leaders. So he is another one of these, you know, celebrity politicians, So in that regarding is very much like Trump as well. Just weeks after his election, he immediately backtracked on most of his campaign promises, such as renewing Argentina's pledge for the Paris Climate Agreement. Found dational the Paris Climate

Agreement. And so this free market guy, as I said before, the climate thing is the centerpiece right now, the climate mcguffin is a centerpiece for moving their agenda forward and for creating a global id, a global carbon tax and all the rest of this stuff. And Javier Malai renewed their pledge to the Paris Climate Accord. Now even the environmentalists understand the Paris Climate coord is a fraud. Even the people who believe that the world is going to melt

down tomorrow know that it's a fraud. And they said, this doesn't address this at all because it gives a free pass to China and free pass to India, the two countries that are the biggest and dirtiest producers of energy anywhere. They said, this is nothing other than a redistribution of wealth. They said that when it was first when it first went through back in twenty fifteen, the wacko alarmist environmentalists said it was a redistribution of wealth. So why

do you have people like Trump and Javier Malai supporting it? So again, is it about rebuilding trust? And as the Wine Press points out, goes back reminds people about the Trust. Remember the Trust, Felix Djinska, Drzinsky and the Cheka and how they ran all of the opposition. You see, that's what's really going on. You want to know what's going on with these anti globalist organizations. You know, the easiest way to to there's books about

it. But I think the best example and the most entertaining examples look at Sam Nil's Riley ASA's Spy series that I think it was done by the BBC, and in that you see how the Russian intelligence Agency, the Cheka and Djinsky, Felix Drzhinsky who was running that, they created all of these anti Bolshevik organizations outside of Russia, and they funded him and they knew who the people were, and they had their own people in there, and if they

were not on board with them, people like Simond Riley, they would lure him back in and they killed him. And he was the model for that Ian Fleming used for James Bond. That's how the real James Bond wound up. He got snikered by the Trust, just like American conservatives are getting snickerd by MAGA today. So again rebuilding trust, you know, this is the Heritage Foundation. Think you are the problem, and he slams the Davos globalist

to their face. Right, and except that, you know, since their key thing is ID and censorship, you know, misinformation, disinformation, that's their number one thing. But of course right behind that is the Global Eye. What is the record of the Heritage Foundation in terms of defending free speech? Well, again, the Heritage Foundation, just like the Cato Foundation, the conservative biggest conservative think tank and the biggest libertarian think tank, Cato Institute,

we're on the wrong side of the issue. When it came to social media censorship, they said, corporations can do whatever they want, and we don't want the government telling the corporation what to do, but the corporation can tell you what you can say or do. And that's exactly wrong. Again, going back to the Supreme Court decision back in nineteen forty six marsh versus Alabama, they said, even though the public square in this cold town is

privately owned, they cannot shut down free speech. Even if the public square is privately owned, Twitter and all these other places were public square, digital public square. And so that's the principle that we have to look at. And the reason for that is because we have god given rights that can't be taken away by a corporation. As they used to say, would you have a problem if a corporation said, well, I'm just going to drive up and take your tow, your car off, or something, right because I'm

superior. They can find some legal justification for that. But no, we have rights and we have boundaries, and these boundaries need to be enforced by government. Heritage Foundation did not stand for that. So I don't know what they're saying behind closed doors. They are at Davos, the World Economic Forum. Panelists breaks down how to crush bad content sources. You see, this was the central thing censorship. I don't think that they've necessarily learned anything at

the Heritage Foundation. But again this may be why he was there. Let's get you behind closers. How can we do this better, Well, we can crush bad content sources, how we will guide advertisers, and of course we'll do it through corporations. And I said, you know, Trump is going to run this core of the vaccine, all that re stuff, It's going to be run through corporations. This is one of the ways that they get rid of responsibility for this. And so this kind of the economic pressure

through corporations. We can get the banks to definance people, we can get the social media companies to definance people. And if we can't do that, we'll use other corporations to definance and social media platforms. You see. It's all about that again. Where are the people who are going to stand up for God given rights? I don't think you're going to see it from these people. These corporations are not even taking government orders, you know, they

say, but we know that they are. We know this is just plausible deniability. We're going to quick break and we'll be right back. He is a song I all you might want to hear it in your pod. You'll own nothing and be happy. Ain't got no cash, ain't got no car, not two empty four booster shots in your arm. Own nothing to be happy. You can't even buy in the store because of your lone social credit score. Own nothing, be happy. You will own nothing and be happy.

Be happy at eat some bugs here News now at apsradionews dot com or get the APS radio app and never miss another story. Okay, and let's talk a little bit about the March for Life. We had a lot of people show up in the middle of a massive snowstorm. These are people who committed I'm not DeSantis, not Trump, but they did. They show up. And of course not Nikki Aley. She doesn't support that in any way, shape or form. Before I get into this stuff, let me just

say thank you to Dougalug. Thank you for the tip. He thanks me. No, thank you, Doug. I appreciate that. By the way, I don't have the list here of zeal contributors. Meant to bring that with me, but I forgot to. I'll read that tomorrow. But I want to thank everybody who's supporting us. We are. We got about a week left in this month and we're at fifty one percent. I updated it. Of course, we have not been able for about eight days to get

to the post office. I haven't gotten anywhere we've been. We're all starting to get kind of a cabin fever here. Shut up here because we have but even though a lot of the roads around here are cleared, we can't get to the roads from where we are and it's just too dangerous. So we have a very steep, very twisted road that I'm not going to risk trying to go down because there's nothing on the other side. Except a really steeper drop that goes down, so we're kind of stuck here. But except

for that, we're at about fifty one percent. So we really do appreciate any help, and thank you on Rockman, Eric appreciate that very much. Thank you comment on Rumble from distorted perceptions. The longer the problem goes on, the longer the funding comes in. They're stealing from us while we find our own demise. That is absolutely correct, and we need to understand what

the mechanisms of this are. But again, everybody thinks that the solution to you don't even hearing this stuff, you know, don't make a federal case out of it, because everybody wants to make a federal case out of everything.

And this is what's driving us into this civil war. You know, people on the left, even when Trump got in, although pushed back on the left and the riots and counter demonstrations and everything, because the left wanted the federal government to define their life for them and to give them everything that they wanted. And then we saw exactly the opposite with the conservatives, because

the conservatives have now been drawn into this as well. It used to be just the left that wanted them so let's take a look at what was going on in DC as people marched in the snow. Some brave souls got out and marched. Here's a time lapse photography and you can see how heavy the snow is there. But it didn't stop anybody from going to look at that massive numbers of people, even though there was a snowstorm that blanketed the city.

Oh, Mike Johnson showed up the house speaker. You didn't have any politicians running for presidency, but he showed up. He said, I am myself the product of an unplanned pregnancy in January of nineteen seventy two, exactly one year before Roe V. Wade. My parents, who were just teenagers at the time, chose life, and I'm very profoundly grateful that they did. He said. America is the only nation in the world that is founded

upon a creed listed with theological lucidity and the declaration of independence. All men are created equal, not born equal, but created equal. That's an important distinction to make you know. It doesn't begin at birth. It begins at the moment of conception, that is, when you were created. God goes through the process knitting you together in your mother's womb. But he knows all of your days before there was a single one of them. That's what we

believe, if you believe the Bible. But no presidential candidate is going to show up. And how do we convince people of this position. Well, we have to just unleash the truth. And this is one of the reasons why I've spoken many times about that woman who is She's a progressive in other words, a leftist, a socialist, and all these other issues. Probably

nothing else would I agree with her on. But she's running for Congress solely so that she can show the mutilated bodies of babies that she discovered that so disturbed her. And you can't stop a congressional candidate from airing anything, you can't censor their ads. So that is the only context in which she can show the truth about what abortion really is. And Speaker Johnson ought to be telling the other Republicans to do that. He ought to be doing it himself,

all of these candidates, all the presidential candidates. Instead of whining about how the Dobbs decision from the Supreme Court is an albatross around their neck, they need to show people the truth about what this is one large manner that spanned the length of the the crowd read, Hey, GOP, we vote pro life first, Well, then vote for this progressive woman if she's in

your jurisdiction. I support any candidate who will pledge to stand with us at minimum to sign a national heartbeat protection law if that goes to their desk, said Kristin Hawkins, president of these Students for Life. Well, again, we don't want to federalize this. First of all, there is no reason that we should have to throw the constitution out in order to protect life. And that's what unfortunately a lot of these national pro life organizations are doing.

So we're going to kill the constitution order to save life. That's not necessary. You need to make sure this is at the state level. As a matter of fact. On MRCTVS for Guard Goldsmith also does some work. Of course, he also has liberty conspiracy. Gabriella Paraso caught Google News trying and the bias that they have against in terms of reporting what this event was. So they analyzed search results from Google, from being and from Duck Duck Go.

They searched the term March for Life, filtering specifically for new and using a clean environment the day of the March for Life. So in other words, you don't want to get articles from past events, so we're just looking for new, clean things that will be attached to that particular search term. So they conducted an investigation of the March for a Life rally where thirty on site marchers volunteered for the study and they conducted the same Google search on their

own phones, and the findings were telling. In both investigations, Google buried results from outlets like Fox News, Catholic News Agency, and The Washington Examiner, and instead elevated liberal news sources like The Hill, Axios, the Washington Posts, the Associated Press. These sources vilified pro life marchers as quote abortion rights opponents and anti abortion activists. And why do they do that because the

Associated Press says, that's how you will refer to these people. You will not call them pro life, not even they don't even like the term anti abortion. They want anti abortion rights to be the term that is used. But in contrast, Being and Duck Duck Go elevated articles from a mix of different perspectives when searched in a clean environment. Google's top search results in the news tab included four articles that were either neutral or showed a clear liberal bias.

Among the highest ranking results in Axios piece was by far the most inflammatory. Axios seems to suggest that marchers associate with neo Nazis. Headlined and photos they show anti abortion activists joined the March for Life and snow colored snow covered DC. That was what they chose to feature anti abortion activists. They highlighted the participation by a controversial group, Patriot Front. The article characterize the group

as a quote nationalist and neo fascist hate group while others. While Christian and student groups attending the rally were ignored. They singled out this controversial group in order to paint the rally as neo fascist and hate. The Hill topped the search results of the headline abortion rights opponents rally at annual March for Life in d C. The article itself repeatedly referred to to peaceful pro life marchers as

quote anti abortion or opponents of abortion or opponents of abortion rights. The initial four results also included The Post and the Associated Press, and so as they point out the different headlines, and they've got several of them here at The Hill, just read that to Washington Post March for Life in d C. Thousands of anti abortion protesters expected. The Associated Press and snowy DC. The March for Life rallies around against abortion with an eyeboard the November elections New York

Times. Abortion opponents march in Washington with obstacles ahead the d cist road closures for Friday's annual March for Life USA. Today March for Life rally in Washington spotslight spotlights anti abortion movement. So these were the search results that you'd get from Google, very negative, and yet Duck dut Go and Being have a

more neutral result. They had headlines from Real Clear Politics, Fox News Washington Examiner, and I said, these findings come after Google propped up planned parenthood and it's top search results for the word pregnancy and the week that was leading up to the March for Life. You see, Google has become a search engine designed to hide things. It's become a means of propaganda and information control.

Of course, some of the people who spoke, well, he had a pastor, Greg Laurie was there and he said the same thing that Mike Johnson did in terms of the fact that he was conceived out of woodlock. He said, I could have been an abortion statistic, but my mother chose to carry me to term, and I'm glad you made the decision, needless to say, so, we need to carry this on one person at a time, as well as through legislation and voting for people that are pro life,

he said. And so the question then becomes with a lot of people, you know, do we try to do this? And maybe you know, even though you've got a lot of states that have passed a six week ban or something, let's make it fifteen weeks and put it at the federal level. And as I said before, if you do that, you're going to wind up having abortion legalized throughout the full term and maybe beyond. It's going to be worse than Roe v. Wade. This is what some of

the conservative organization's approach is going to result in. And I say that from experience, from looking at this, we know that if it is, if they get in and they put it there and they make it fifteen weeks, that's going to be much much further than some of the states that have a six week or whatever thing. But it's going to be less than there in some of the Democrat states. But the Democrat states won't abide by that,

they will nullify that. Why well, because there's no authority under the Constitution to define when life begins, just like there's no authority under the Constitution to outlaw, for example, marijuana. So when the states legalize marijuana, there's nothing that Jeff Sessions can do about it. And so you're going to have the same situation with abortion. This is not conjecture. This is history,

folks, this is how it works. It can't get this to people's heads, just like they can't get the understanding that Trump paid for all the stuff that was done in twenty twenty. He paid for the lockdowns and the medical death protocols and all the rest of this stuff, as well as the vaccines.

He paid for it all. He's responsible for it. And so in the same way, when you have a situation where you're going to say we're going to bring the restriction down on some of the Democrats states, and we're going to bring it up in some of the conservative states, you're going to find that the Democrat states are going to ignore that, and there's not going to be any way that you can enforce that, no way to enforce that.

But then when the Democrats get in charge, they will move that fifteen week line up to thirty six weeks or whatever, and the Republicans will obey it. And it's just, you know, we don't need to be drawing the line at the federal level anyway. But he does have some good things to say to people, some encouraging things to say. He says, it seems like we'll probably end up state to state, but it really comes down

to person by person, said Greg Glory. He's right about that. That's the key because ultimately this is a moral issue, and the state is even the state, let alone the federal government, even the state is not sufficient to address this issue. Because it is a moral issue. He says that that is where you really want to gain ground, person by person, and so he called on the church to come alongside pregnant women and to assist them

to help them raise their children. According to a twenty fifteen survey, they found that more than four out of ten women were church goers when they had an abortion, and only seven percent discussed their decision to end their pregnancies with someone at church. It's a lot of that brings up a lot of questions about this, and he says, look, you know, we need to explain them what it is. Well, he can start by showing them the

pictures. And only again, only this progressive leftist woman who's running for Congress is really doing that. Show people the truth about what abortion is. It's ugly, it's horrific. Nobody wants to see it, but you have to confront the truth of it. You know, every time somebody wants to show a picture of it, they get shut down. And again, you think Fox News is on your side, do you think Republican's on your side.

I've talked many times about Matt Drudge and how he knew he would get fired if he showed that picture not of an abortion, but of that prenatal operation of that baby who had been diagnosed as spina bifida. They did, and you know, an operation before the baby was born, and when they made the decision, the baby reached up and grabbed the finger of the surgeon, and you could see that it was a human being, just a very small

human being. A picture of a baby, Sam, I think it is maybe you could find that show that, Travis, because we show that kind of stuff. And again, this is not a baby that's being dismembered, but that's what abortion is. But he did that, and he knew that Fox is going to fire Mes's. He did that because he wanted to get out of his contract. He told me that I thank them for doing it because oh, I just wanted to get out of my contract. It's okay.

You know the Lord works in mysterious ways, doesn't he. So you know it was a They don't want to show anything that shows the humanity of the children, right, and so that means that you can't show a live baby. And that means that you certainly can't show the pictures of a live baby chopped up into pieces, because that also shows their humanity and it shows that this is murder. But anyway, when I look at it and the fact that you had so many, you know, first of all, a

lot of them probably don't understand what abortion really is. They have thought this through. So the pastors, as Greg Glorious in, they're not really addressing they're afraid to talk about this because it's political and they don't want to get political. No, it's not political. It's more moral than anything else. And that's what he said. He said, churches don't want to talk about this due to the political nature of abortion. But this is a moral issue

and a spiritual issue. And he said, in churches are filled with imperfect people. We need to reassure her that there is forgiveness. He said, we need to show love and compassion for Christian women who find themselves pregnant after they've had sex outside of marriage, and we don't want to have abortion be compounded with that. And so he says, I don't believe that there are any illegitimate children. He said, illegitimate parents, yes, illegitimate children.

No. Now that's one to remember. You'd understand there's no illegitimate children, only illegitimate parents. He said. We need each other. We're not made to do life alone. See, that's the other part of this. You know, these are people who are going to church. Nobody is mentoring them, Nobody is telling them about any of this stuff. They don't feel like

they've got a relationship with anybody that they can talk to someone. Only seven percent of them discussed their decision to have an abortion with somebody at church. That means ninety three percent of them wouldn't talk to anybody about it. They kept it secret. Now they may have kept it secret because they know it was the wrong thing to do when they wanted to do it anyway, right, But they may have not had a good enough relationship with people. So

he says, we're not made to do life alone. So often people find themselves isolated. But you need community. We all need community. This is why the globalists are so hell bent on making sure we don't have it. This is where the church can shine like a light on a hill, because that's what we should be doing best. And of course I think we also need to show the truth as well, show that there's actually a picture here,

Travis. If you go through this article and one of the babies that was aborted that is shown in the medical shown in the ads that this woman is running for Congress, so you know it. That is an ugly picture if you can find it. But that's the one that's the article that's got greg there you go, that's an ugly picture. But if you could replace that with a baby Samuel, that's the picture of life that is there. Voters in one state war learned that a plan would let tattoo artists refer to

teens refer teens to for an abortion. Think about that, that's statutory rape. So we're talking about now an illegitimate father right because it is statutory rape and to let a tattoo artists even, you know, because this is somebody that has to do with health or something under the requirements. This is a key legal team that has been battling the Abortion for All movements since long before Biden turned and tuned into it, turned it into one of his key things.

This is a team at Liberty Council where Matt Staver explained the fear of abortion industry's giant, insane ballot proposal. He said, even a laser hair removal technician could recommend an abortion under this idea being floated by Planned Parenthood. Yeah, it truly is insane how they're trying to make it so ubiquitous and so easy to do. The Biden campaign has now put reproductive rights at front and center, and that's a CNN headline of course, talking about reproductive rights.

They're now putting murder front end center. And of course they're putting LA law front and center, because that's one of the few things that she's accomplished, actually to cover for Planned parenthood in California, when the Murder for Higher scheme was exposed by David de lighten in the Center for Medical Progress as part of that persecution, done first by Laala Harrison, then done by Javi or Bessera, and now both of them are in the Biden administration's vice president and

then HHS head. But you know the agency that he's now head of NIH without you with Francis Collins, that was that's under the agency HHS that Sarah's head of. They were customers of Planned Parenthood and they were doing the murder for hire, because that's how this operates. They want the babies born alive at a certain stage of development, late stage of development. They must be murdered by the organ extraction. That's how it always works when they do these

donor programs. Young voters, by the way, are saying that legal rights begin in the womb. This is another poll that has just come out. This is polled on by you gov, polled none by Students for Life. They say sixty five percent of voters say they support at least some limits on abortion. But you need to show them what the full truth is and then it's not even going to be a contest. But Biden is very much set against any kind of religious expression. If you look at what is coming up

Easter some people call it Passover, as many people call it. They have a White House Youth Art Easter egg decorating contest for children of National Guard service members. But the Biden White House has now banned any religious themed eggs because even though you know, the egg stuff is really kind of in the Easter

name and all that is really kind of hearkening to a pagan origin. Lit alone, the Easter Bunny, you know, which is last year you had the Easter Bunny costume character was kind of following Biden around and giving him directions and stuff like that. And of course this comes after their nutty nutcracker Christmas that they had. But they avoid anything that's religiously themed, like a vampire

voids across in the Hollywood movies, you know. But they don't want anything even though these eggs are going to be displayed during Christian and Jewish Passover or direction. Okay, you know, either way you look at this, they may this is the rules. They may not feature quote religious symbols overtly religious themes. Contest rules state that entries quote must be consistent with the image and the values of their sponsor. Sponsor The values of the Biden administration. So

that means that can't have anything that's religious because they absolutely hate that. And then we have the Nevada County Commission has now opened with a meeting and Satanic prayer invocation that ended with Hail Satan. At least one member walked out before this is phenicied and this is the sham religion that exist solely to troll and to nullify the free expression, the free exercise of religion that is not only

are God given right, but specifically protected on the Constitution. You see, there is actually even an organization called the Freedom from Religion that tries to shut down the exercise of religion. But that is not what the Constitution says. You know, it is freedom to exercise, it's not freedom from religion. But that's what that organization is about. And that's what the Satanic Church is about. And my question is how long are we going to allow them to

do this. They say they don't believe any of this, and this whole thing is set up just to nullify our you know, our exercise or religion. He did a quote unquote prayer that lasted nearly two minutes. He spoke of Lucifer and Satan who he does not believe in, and then finishes with Hale Satan. When he does it, it's phonny and that ought to be the basis on which we oppose it first and foremost. Printal Rights. Printal Rights Bill has now moved to Wisconsin Senate, but when it has already passed

in the House, and so now it goes to the Senate. All thirty five Democrats in the House voted against the legislation. You have the author of the legislation that would support parental rights, Representative Robert Whitka said, parents deserve to know and have a say and why their children are being taught. What's the name for that. It's called homeschool. You're never going to get that from a practical standpoint, even if you get them to pass legislation, even

if you get Supreme Court decisions, you will never have that. You'll have the illusion of that. I spent so much time earlier in the program talking about what's going on, what the constitution says, and then what the reality of our government is. The reality is is that you put your kids and the status and they're going to be taught whatever that teacher in that classroomant was to teach them, And they have defiantly said this publicly, over and over

again on TikTok and everywhere else. We will teach them whatever I want to teach them, they defy. Even if you can get the state government, the county, the school board, the principal, even if you can get all of them on board, it still comes down to each and every one of those teachers. Do you know what those teachers they're teaching your kids are

like? What have opponents said about the legislation? While Democratic lawmakers argue that the bill would cause psychological harm to children who asked to use different pronouns but don't want to tell their parents. Utter nonsense, Utter nonsense. You want to talk about projection, No psychological harm. Who's doing the psychological harm? These people are grooming the kids. Again, A diverse coalition is asking the Supreme Court to protect parental rights at school. Why isn't this more of an

issue to the virtue signaling GOP that really doesn't care about this stuff? Yeah? Again, it's like, oh, we're going to impeach me Orca, but they keep giving him money, so even if told to do so, they're not going to do this. That is the naivety behind all of this, when we look at every one of these things. Oh well, we told them that they can't do this, and of course they want. Here's the reality of what's happening in the schools. This is from the epic times,

the Coole James furries are infiltrating our schools. This is how crazy it is. Nicole says, as I said at Christmas dinner table, I found myself enrolled in an impromptu seminar on the curious world of furries, courtesy of my teenage relatives. I'd heard whispers about the subculture, but the depth and the fervor of this phenomenon had previously eluded my grass. So what in the

Dickensian landscape of modern subcultures are furries, well, I said. As defined by a scholar at the University of Rochester, a furry is an individual who finds themselves spiritually aligned with, or even adopting the traits of a specific animal specie. They call it a persona. She said. The teens that were there at the Christmas dinner said, well, here's what's actually happening in their academic jungle. Peculiar breed flourished students who, in the early wilderness of years

seven through nine. Okay, so we're talking about thirteen to fifteen years old, donned their furry personas with the fervor of a Shakespearean actor and a sold out show. But as the curtain fell on year number nine, these fur

clad Thesbians seem to vanish into thin air. Had they retreated to more domestic pursuits, such as purring on the lapse of doting mothers or honing their mousing skills, Well, the three teenagers really didn't know, but they said the truly baffling aspect, as relayed by the narrators, was that these people who are these kids who are dressing up in furton character costumes, would never break

character. Not in the halls of the school. Nowhere, speech was forsaken for meals and barks, answers to teachers questions were met with stoic silence. These furry affecionados eschewing the drab garb of school uniforms adoring themselves was sewn on

tails and headbands crowned with furry ears. One of the one of the kids told this writer, one who was in year nine So this is about a fifteen years dared to bark at a furry and then found himself chastised by the teacher, who sternly reminded him to respect the feline identity of the student folks. This is the insanity of these institutions. Now she's talking about this in the UK, same thing that's happening in the US. This insanity. And

there's a purpose to this insanity. She says, this started in the United States, but now even Brits are hopping on the bandwagon, and so she's looking at it from that perspective. But again, this has been going on and began in the United States. What is the purpose of this. It's the same purpose as this transgenderism. It is to push them into transhumanism, into a virtual reality, a VR world where they if they want to pretend

that they are something, they can spend all their time doing that. The teachers just let them do their things, said one of the kids, conspicuously absent from the city's private education. The girls are now in a private school, but that's only going to be a temporary solution. All of this stuff migrates from these these government schools into the private schools along with the curriculum, and there is a reason for this, but again looking at the homeschooling revolution.

Last November, the American Federation of Teachers president Randy Winegarden annoyed the vast American homeschooling community, expressing bafflement about why anybody would take their kids from a school like this, right, and this is only you know, the most ludicrous visually ludicrous, but equally ludicrous is their their racism, their Marxism,

their antipathy towards Western civilization and history. All of that is equally ludicrous to dressing up in some kind of refurry co what's behind the increase in homeschooling? She posted on Twitter. Thousands of people replied to that. One of them said, the answer is in your mirror. It's kind of like, you know, what is a It was a GK. Chesterton said, what's the matter with the world? Is that me? That's a Randy Winingarden is definitely

an answer that in the affirmative. The numbers are impressive. The blue of the state, the higher the interest in homeschooling. In California alone, over fourteen hundred public schools lost more than twenty percent of their students since twenty twenty, with homeschooling up seventy eight percent between twenty seventeen and twenty twenty two,

depending the narratives that homeschooling is done only by religious or wealthy families. Of twenty twenty three, analysis by The Washington Post admitted that homeschooling's surging popularity quote crosses every measurable line of politics, geography, and demographics. The public school systems make fretful attempts to lwer parents back into the comp complacency, usually in the form of hiring more teachers to get a lower teacher to student ratio,

but this has proven difficult as teachers are leaving the profession and droves. You see. The problem is is that the institutions are rotting from the top down, and that is especially true when it comes to education. We're going to take a quick break and when we come back, we're going to talk about climate, because again climate is at the very center, and there is an

amazing development that something that I've seen happen before with Michael Mann. And we're going to talk about what Michael Mann, the father of the hockey stick, is now doing. He's suing somebody that you know, for defamation. We'll be right back using free speech to free minds. It's the David Knight Show. Sometimes your day needs a little smoothing. Check out the Jazz Channel at apsradio dot com and the APS Radio app and leave the stress behind well.

Snow is marketing most of the United States right now very cold temperatures. It's time for us to remember RFK Jr. And his two thousand and eight prediction that kids are going to grow up without ever seeing snow again. There's absolutely no way I could ever have gotten on the RFK junior bandwagon because I knew about that. I knew about the fact that he wanted to lock up the people who spoke out against this. He doesn't support free speech, and he

hasn't given us a sufficient explanation of that. But it was sixteen years ago. He blamed the lack of snow then on Sarah Palin, and he's that's right. People were saying, who yeah, the lack of snow was blamed on Sarah Palin and nobody was going to ever see it again. Pull up this picture Travis. Global Warming North America and snow coverage hits a decadal high

for several decades. And they've got a meme there of Greta twenty sixty five, Greta Thunberg as an old lady, and the speech bubble there says we only have one month to save the world. There we go, that's Greta Thunberg twenty sixty five, talk about a turnaround or a versatile fortunes. North America snow coverage goes from record low to highs for decades in just a couple of weeks. Isn't that funny? The weather changes, and yet you never

see any change in the narratives from these other people. There is no warming trend. If you've got an honest starting point, it is not a warming trend. They cherry picked the starting points, and of course they cherry picked where they put the measurements, and they don't have a long enough timeline for the measurements. And even if all of that were true, and even if they proved that there was some kind of a warm there's still a long way

from proving any connection to your car or your stove and the weather. So again, the deep freeze is continuing to move south. They've got ninety people dead, they say, Texas. Of course, couple of years ago, was two hundred and fifty people died when the windmills froze in Texas. It's

no storm, But I wanted to talk about this particular thing. As I said, Michael Mann, the father of the hockey stick lie that was used by Al Gore and his film Inconvenient Truth, a guy who was the American that was most caught up in climate Gate that came out of the University of East Anglia's climate department in the UK. You know, that was where they were passing around emails to each other saying, our models don't work. We got to find a way to hide the decline in temperatures, and they were

casting around for ways that they could do it well. Michael Mann was part of that, and as I've spoken about many times, I was with a group that tried to get the data that he'd put together for his hockey Stick as part of the climate Gate release of these emails. We wanted to We

knew that they that they were committing fraud. We knew that they knew that they were committing fraud, and so we took the University of Virginia, University of Rginia finally gave in and said all right, we'll give you the stuff. And then he jumped in and got into the lawsuit and said, no, you can't have it. At that point he was at the University of Pennsylvania. All of the research had been done publicly, paid for at the

University of Virginia, done on University of Virginia computers. There was nothing, no intellectual property to be protected. At that point, all of his conclusions had been published. But of course you can't see the data that the conclusions were published on. He didn't want that exposed, and so he claimed that this is going to violate his intellectual property. No, he was paid by the state and after he published it, it was used to craft public policy,

and so the public had a right to know. Public had paid for it, the public had suffered from his lies, and so that was part of a suit there. Now he's got a suit against mark Stein. And you know mark Stein, I think from Canada they used to sub for for rush limb ball. And he's got a defamation lawsuit against mark Stein because mark Stein, you know, basically showed that Michael Man is a liar. You

know, he's trying to cover up this stuff. He doesn't want a scientific debate, and so he's got a defamation lawsuit against Mark Stein, against Rand siem Bergen engineer, and finally began in earnest this week in Washington, d C. Michael Mann alleges that Stein and Simberg libeled him over a decade ago with their criticism of his work on the infamous hockey stick graph and the Penn State universities seeming cover up the science that made the graph possible. It's not

any seeming cover He had a lawsuit to cover up his data. Man used proxy data, specifically tree rings, to arrive at data points for a thousand years before switching to actual temperature data at approximately nineteen sixty nineteen sixty. Yeah, their data is not as old as I am. The resulting graph resembled a hockey stick and showed that temperatures have increased rapidly since the Industrial Age began in nineteen sixty. Oh, wait a minute, it didn't begin in nineteen

sixty. Dinner. The same graph featured prominently in the climate gate email scandal, when Phil Jones at the University of b Singlia Climate Research Unit referred to Michael Mann's method as quote Mike's nature trick is nature trick. It's a trick. There's a slide in. You're not allowed to see how the magicians do

their tricks. You're not allowed to see Michael Mann's data. So Snein criticized him in a blog post on National Review, and he compared Penn State's cover up of Man's methods to the cover up of the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal, which also involved Penn State and was ongoing at the time. In addition, Stein referred to Man's work on the hockey stick graph as quote fraudulent,

which it is. Man and his legal team originally included in the suit National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and they were also involved in the lawsuit that we had. Chris Warner was the lead lawyer for that, and he worked for the Competitive Institute, and he also worked with a group that I was involved in. He wrote a book called Red Hot Lies, talking about the climate lies that are out there. That is a great title. Yeah,

Competitive Enterprise Institute was there as well. Stein quoted what they had said in his post. Both of these entities were dropped from the suit in twenty twenty one because neither Stein nor Simberg were an employee of those companies. Stein is acting as his own attorney while Man is represented by a team of lawyers. Now, this is not a good thing when you represent yourself. I know Mark Stein is very intelligent, very clever, He's very well spoken.

I really do believe the adage that anybody who represents himself in court as a fool for a lawyer, you know, and as a client or wherever the goes. Anyway, on the plus side, they said we may be treated to Stein being allowed to question Michael Mann in court. That would be That would be doune In Sein's opinion, Man's harassment is not only an attack against him but against the very concept of free speech. And he's right I agree with him on that as well. And by the way, mark Stein has

been severely punished for speaking out. It is a bit late, but he did didn't pull any punches when he started talking about the vaccine. He got purged from a conservative network in the UK for talking about vaccine. So Mark Stein is you know, he's got the character to stand up to this, and he's doing it. He says, in my world, I can write something, and mister Man can write something, and you're free to read all of it or none of it, and you can decide what weight to attach

to all of it or to none of it. But in mister Man's world, there is his take, and everyone else has to be hockey sticked into submicion, into silence. He says, this is a classic exam a guy who conditioned out but can't take it. Stein brought up the fact that Michael Mann claims to have won a Nobel Prize, a claim that is disputed by the Nobel Committee itself. In reality, Man was part of the inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change, the infamous IPCC out of the UN, and that

got a Nobel Peace Prize. But Michael Mann has never been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. And that is a direct quote from the director of the Nobel Institute in Norway. He said he's not a Nobel Prize recipient, a decade after he was told to cut it out by the actual winner of the Nobel Prize. Man continues to promote one of the most brazen scientific frauds, that he is of the same rank as Albert Einstein, Marie Currie, and Francis

Krik. Actually he's more like Fauci and that's not the most brazen scientific fraud. The most brazen scientific fraud is his hockey stick nonsense. Man's suit against Stein is reminiscent of his failed attempt to pursue a libel claim against the Canadian climate scientist Tim Ball. Ball had made statements that Man and his cohorts at East Anglia were possibly guilty of fraud for their research on the hockey stick graft.

Ball eventually prevailed in the suit in twenty nineteen after a judge found that Man and his legal team engaged in inordinate delay. As the judge said of the proceedings, Man was ordered to pay Ball's legal costs, but never did. As this is in Canada, Canadian court dismissed the case. They had no way to force the American to pay this in Canada. And Stein is

saying that they're doing the same thing here with him. They're stretching this out because they want to run up legal fees for him and make it difficult. That's why he's representing himself. And the question I guess is what does men get all of his money to hire these legal teams to run forever and ever? But absolutely, it was such a classic case, just like Fauci. I will not show you the data. It is what it is. Because I say so, I won the Nobel Price. Thank you for joining us.

Let me tell you the David Night Show you can listen to with your ears. You can even watch it by using your eyes. In fact, if you can hear me, that means you're listening to the David Night Show right now. Yeah. Good job. And you want to know something else, You can find all the links to everywhere to watch or listen to the show at Thedavidnightshow dot com. That's a website.