27Dec23 David Knight Show Unabridged

Using free speech to free minds. You're listening to the David Knight Show. Welcome one and all to the David Knight Show. I'm Gardner Goldsmith filling in for David with a great tip of the hat to David in his entire family and to you thanks for believing in freedom, one and all. We've got a very busy day today on this as we round off December. So many stories to discuss. Let's find out what's on tap for today twelve, twenty

seven and twenty three. Thanks for joining me, everyone, and again, thank you to David and everyone in the Night family, and to you the audience and all the people out there who've supported the David Knight's Show and the principles of individual liberty so well. I thank you so much for joining me from today to noontime, from non to noontime, today we'll be tripping across

the world. We'll be running across the world and checking out major stories that might have a bearing on your freedom, plus historical context that might allow us to carry away some intellectual ammunition to defend freedom. I'm really glad you're here, one and all. You can join us in Rockvin in Rumble and on Twitter and on d Live, and I hope that you are having a very good morning as we round off this twenty twenty three year, and what a

year it has been. We'll take a look at some of the things that are big on my list for the year. On front tomorrow, Tony Arterburn will be filling in Tony of course of Wise Wolf Gold and Silver Exchange, and I'm looking forward to hearing from him. He and I have been chatting with each other and he was going to be able to take tomorrow to take that chunk of the morning out, so I'm really anticipating his wisdom. It's

always great to hear Tony. His knowledge of history and politics and philosophy is amazing, amazing, and it's incredible to think that I can be in touch with such people as David Knight, as Tony Arterburn, and as many of

you in the chats as well at Rockfinn and Unrubble. And by the way, if you are watching on David Knight's Twitter feed, you can comment in there as well, because now the streaming system that I get to use also allows me to see the comments as we're streaming live on David Knight's X feed, which of course is at Liberty Tarian, that's at Liberty Arrian. So welcome everyone to the program. Nice to have you, long for the ride. Let's see what's on tap for today, the David Knight Show for twelve,

twenty seven, twenty three. Yes, indeed, one and all. Let's see today we're gonna be discussing an issue I did not get to discuss yesterday because we just ran out of time. And it's a big one and I think it has maybe some echoes of what we might have seen with the Heller decision that might be hidden within it. And as I mentioned here, it's called Bruin versus gun rights. This might be surprising to some conservatives.

After almost two years ago the Supreme Court delivered its decision in the New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruin. That's of the New York state government gun rights Supreme Court's decision, and a lot of people thought it was a real positive. Well, they thought the same thing about Heller, And perhaps in the immediate it might seem as if it's a positive. But just like

the Heller decision almost what fifteen years ago, not necessarily the case. We'll talk about what Bruin hides in plain sight, as the Illuminati expression might go. We'll also discuss Biden meeting the Mexican president and what that might entail,

and a story that really hasn't gotten a lot of attention out there. But I have to say big thanks to the MRCTV team and the higher ups there allowing me to write a piece on this particular sort of hiding in plain sight, maybe not so much in sight issue about the United States government its border policy, which is just amazing and insulting almost every day. And then we are going to look at what the United States government was proposing to do just

a couple of weeks ago inside Mexico. Yes, if you thought today was going to be a charge of caffeine espresso, you are right. Then we're going to talk about rand Paul's Festivus list, and I have mixed feelings about the Festivus List, but I have to say again the MRCTV team, they're so gracious to me. They let me write a piece on this one with a lot of major quotes, and I would love to get your ideas on what you might add to the list of government grievances, especially regarding what Ran

Paul lists as waste, and that is the key term everybody. Then we'll talk about a big new book and I want to hold it up for you and show you what I have been reading and what you can enjoy as well. If you go to the Libertarian Institute's website and check out the great work of the mighty James Beauvard. This is Lost Last Rights, the sort of sequel to Lost Rights by mister Beauvard. James is a friend of mine, a hero of mine before I got the opportunity to meet him, and then

we became friends. And on the back I think you will see what he might be discussing inside, Yes, police state tactics, police state approach, and mentality of course, the loss of rights and what might be coming in the future in the United States. It's amazing. It's voluminous, and I've picked out three subjects that we might be able to discuss starting at eleven o'clock. Who knows, we might not be able to get to all of them.

But if you have items that you want to discuss, put them in the chat at Rockfin and Rumble, and don't forget everybody over at Rumble until the end of the year, if you want to contribute, I believe that Rumble is not taking a percentage of those contributions. Everything will go to David and the Family and David's show, which of course is only listeners supported through donations through things like subscribe star and through the Davidnightshow dot com store, the

Davidnightshow dot com store. And by the way, not as if I'm hawking anything, but since I was praising the MRCTV folks yesterday, as tra Night knows yesterday, after I finished the show yesterday, and thank you everyone for all the kind thoughts about hosting the show yesterday, I thought everything was really

fun. It was terrific to get all the insights from people. And that really is not a fatuous, blowing smoke sort of statement, because I see things from people who are covering stuff that I am not getting, and it's just fantastic or insights or thoughts or philosophies the way people were brought up, and it gives me windows of images or ideas, logic that sort of stuff that I can take away with me. So again it's intellectual ammunition I really

appreciated. But yesterday talking about MRCTV, I got together in a meeting. I told Travis, I said, all Travis, I'm going to be away for a little while. I have to go to a meeting. And so I got together with the director of MRCTV, Eric Shiner, and Eric and I sat down. We were hanging out for quite a while, chatting, having a great time. And he's just a really, really good guy. His whole family is terrific, and he's a big fan of the Monkeys.

He's probably one of the top four Monkeys fans with knowledge of the Monkeys. Not the great apes, but the band and the television show that sort of was musicians and actors who ended up forming a band themselves after they performed on other people's music. And Mike Nesmuth and Peter Torricardi had done their own music, and of course Davy Jones was a very well known Broadway actor and Mickey Dolans actually was classically trained on guitar and then he had to learn drums to

play. But he brought me this, so this might be a little something for today's theme, and I'll show you if I can hold this up. It is the Monkeys banana nut soda. It's I think it's recent. I don't think it's old, and in line with many of the other interesting tie ins and promotional items that the Monkeys did with things like rice Krispies and things like that. They now have Monkeys Banana Nuts, soda and one of the

greatest sets of music ever put out, The Great American Songbook. Really can be heard within the Monkeys' music, everything from pop songs to psychedelia with things like Zor and Zam and Daily Nightly and the soundtrack to their film Head. Working with people like Carol King and Neil Diamond and Bobby Boyce and Tommy Hart just amazing, amazing songwriters of course, Mike Nesmith and Peter Tork writing their own, Mickey Dolan's writing some great stuff, Davy Jones's performances on vocals,

and so they were absolutely wonderful. And I'm not going to open this one up, but he says it tastes like banana nut bread but in liquid form, and it's not a beer, it's just a soda. So I want to thank Eric Shiner the bad and thank the whole team at MRCTV. That

is something else. And yes, for a while I collected food that really should not have been made like there was a product from a Hostess called Grizzly Chomps, which was essentially their Hostess cupcakes, but to save money they made the product smaller and lighter by pretending that there was a bear on the involved with the cupcake who had taken a bite out of each of the cupcakes, and two cupcakes that came in the plastic container, so it was called Grizzly

Chomps. I also kept a container of Australian vegemite. This is for you, Harps and anybody else who might be watching from Australia or be a fan of vegemite or marmite if you're over in the UK. I was, I think personally, just to give you a little insight into the what I'm thinking about. When I got to visit Australia, I didn't know what vegemite was,

and I had heard the Minute Works, you know. He just smiled and gave me a vegeamite sandwich and he said, I come from London, you know, Okay, great song great stuff, and a great band men at work, amazing musicianship, amazing songwriting, you know. But when I got to Australia, I thought vegemite was just like ground up vegetables, like on peter bread with like maybe a like a salad dressing oil type thing. I thought that was a vegemite sandwich. I didn't know what vegemite was.

So I got to Australia, and you know, it's twenty six, twenty seven hours of flying from the East coast go to LA. We had to switch planes at Lax, so I got to see La from the airport. Maybe it was safer that way, I don't know. And then I flew a flow out and some flights stop in Hawaii, but others just go straight over. We went to New Zealand and I had a torn gluteal muscle. So the entire flight, everybody else was sleeping. I didn't sleep a wink

on that plane. And I was in such pain. I was in the middle of a row at a certain point where I couldn't get water and I had I was in such pain. I was dry swallowing ibuprofen tablets and not you know, a lot, but you know, trying to keep pace. I'm like, oh, geez, it was. It was rough as Rodney danger Field was safe. I tell you, it's rough being me. I gotta take ib give it to me an iv oh my doctor, doctor Finnie boom butts eh. I love the one from Rodney and he saysh I was

young. I got no respect. Even as a kid. I told my dad, I said, Dad, I'm tired of running around in circles. He said, shut up, or I'll know your other foot to the floor. I'll tell you it's rough. My wife, Oh, she's such a bad cook. We leave dental floss out on the counter. The cockroaches hang themselves. Oh man. Anyway, I used to do Rodney Datidfield depressions. One of my favorite comedians, and he was great with other comedians too.

In fact, I think it's Jim Carrey credits Rodney really forgiving him a chance taking him on to Jim Carrey was living out of his car and Rodney saw him doing an open mic and said, hey, hey kid, why don't you come on tour with me. Ronnie was awesome. He was just a really really stand up dude. And so and by the way, if you haven't seen Back to School with Rodney Daviefield, you got to see that man. A lot of people look at Caddyshack and stuff, but you got to

see Back to school. That is a phenomenal film. So we get to Australia from New Zealand. We stop in New Zealand. We get into New Zealand and it was the most glorious thing. They had hot showers in the bathrooms at the New Zealand Auckland, New Zealand Airport and you didn't have to get jabbed. I was like, what huh, I felt like Scooby Doo. It was great. So I got in the shower and the hot water

on the you know, the tour mustling. Oh, it was just and after being in the in the plane and just feeling slimy, it was terrible, you know. So then they flew us. They hopped us over from ou clond to Brisbane and I stayed one day. It was a rotary group locally, they picked like young people to switch over in a rotary group. I'm not in the rotary but they just picked local people to do a cultural exchange in Australia and it was great. I was there for like six weeks.

It was amazing. And so so they flies into Brisbane and I'm all backwards. Everything's upside down. I'm on the other side of the planet. I don't know what's going on in Harps. I think you're in the rock fin Chat, so I think you know what I'm talking about. You know, I've mentioned this before on my Liberty Conspiracy show, and I haven't even plugged the show yet. We'll do that in a little while. Let me

just spend some time with you, everybody. So if you are on, if you're in the Northern Hemisphere, this will show you what it's like talking about normalcy bias if you're raised every day with a particular sort of pattern, that is the sun coming up in the east going down in the west. Okay, we're pretty much reliably using abductive reasoning that's deductive and inductive and can

kind of figure Okay, I've observed this thing. I'm sort of using my mind now in inductive reasoning to say I think I can therefore come up with a pretty good theory about what's going to happen in the empirical world. So that's just for the philosophy students out there. But so in the Northern Hemisphere, if you're looking at the sun, and by the way, the camera here is on the north sort of north northwest, you are in the north

northwest looking at me sort of south southeast. So if you're looking at the sun, you're sort of looking south. So east is to your left and west is to your right. Okay if you're in the northern hemisphere, but if you get in the southern hemisphere, it's switched. So everything. For the first I don't know how many days I was there, I was completely confused. I would go running and get lost. It was nuts, because

if you're looking at the sun in Australia, east is that way. You're looking north and west is that way, which is actually one of the errors

that they made in those C. S. Lewis films. They shot in many of the areas in New Zealand where they shot Lord of the Rings, but they didn't so in the Narnia books, the Ice Queen is coming down from the north, but they didn't take into consideration that when they were facing north, the people in the Northern Hemisphere were seeing shadows that didn't line up.

They were seeing shadows that looked like they were coming from the north, which didn't make any sense because they literally were pointing north when they shot that film, and you can see the shadows are coming from that away. What you would think would be the north. It's totally messed up. It's very strange. They did it right in Lord of the Rings. And also, by the way, on Planet of the Apes that that cliff with the you know what, that's in the sand at the end of Planet of the Apes.

That's supposed to be the eastern coast facing that statue, so you're facing sort of north. The producers understood that they had to shoot that at a certain time to make sure that it looked like the sunlight was at the right angle for Charlton Heston's character to look like it was the sun was coming up, when actually they shot it on the west coast the sun was going down, but it looks like it's on the East coast, as it should.

So just a few things from my film background working in television at Star Trek. But it's very interesting because the folks hosting me gave me some vegemite,

and I didn't know what it was. I was sitting there at the kitchen table and they had toast in the little toast things and they had these little packets like you get at the ihops and stuff, the little plastic packets they had, you know, blueberry jam and strawberry jam and stuff like that, and they had one that said Craft on it, and you know, the craft label, and it was this inside of it. I looked at the

bottom. It was like this viscous brown stuff and I'm like, what's that And he goes, oh that and I was like yeah, and he goes, oh, that's vegemie and I was like, that's vegemite. He said oh yeah. I was like, well, you know, what do you do? He goes, oh, yeah. We put it on a toast and I was like all right, So I said okay, So I opened it up. He goes, ah, yeah, yeah, but it's very strong. It's very strong, very strong flavor. And I'm like okay.

So he goes, yeah, put got put it on real thin. So I put it on very thin and he goes, ah, nah, now as much too thick. I was like, oh, he goes you'll say, So I scrape it off. There's like a micro millimeters worth, like a nanometer on there, and I put it in my mouth and literally, other than maybe the name Nancy Pelosi, it is the dirtiest foulst thing I've ever ever had on my tongue. It was the worst tasting stuff. And I'm sorry Harps or anybody in Australia, but I said what I was.

It was one of those like whoa, whoah, you know, but I didn't want to do it in front of the hosts. And I was like oh, and he's smiling at me because he knew, and he goes, I told you it was strong, and I was like oh. I was like, what is that stuff? He goes, well, you know when you make be and I'm like yeah, he goes, well, we scraped the inside of the barrels as a scum and we scripe it and that's vegemite. I was like, well, he goes, yeah, we scripe it

and we eat it. Like what Wait a minute, Wait a minute. I thought this was some unique thing to Australia. I was like, you know, we could do that in the United States, we could scrape the interior of the barrels and put it in our mouths. We don't do that. So I realized what's actually going on if you ever go to Australia. It's a giant national joke against all tourists who come to Australia. They don't actually eat vegemite, right, I mean, who in their right mind would

eat vegemite. They gotta be insane. They got to be like you know, people who would lock down their their citizens and not let them move from say Victoria to Queensland. You know, they would mandate travel passes and arrest people for not wearing masks. They would never eat that stuff. It's a giant national joke, this said. There's a ah, we got another one. I got him to eat that crap. It's the same thing in England with marmite. So there you go, everybody, and harps, I know

you are in Rockfinchat. I thank you for being there. Brian de McCartney, thank you for being there. Karen Carpenter, thank you so much. Angus, Angus Mustang, Brandon Bennett. Boy, what a crowd. John henry Man, I love it. I love it, love it, love it, and welcome to the program. One and all. When you watch, please remember that you can go to the Davidnightshow dot com and see what's happening over there, and of course when you do, please consider going to

the store and finding out what's what over there. Well check in on rumble chat in a little while, but right now, let's find out what's on tap for today on the program, of course Bruin versus Gun. So let's start off. I think we need a little something special and for that, I'm going to turn to one of my favorites. Everybody with a man who played basketball for the Boston Celtics. He played professional baseball. He was of course six foot five. He was the riflemen gun rights one and all Oh

Riflemen second one, Chuck Conners. I gotta say the best thing. The best thing about that is when Chuck Connors looks up for the second time. That's the best part. See you see Chuck Connors looking at the screen, right, he looks at the screen and then says the rifleman, and then he looks up like he's heard the announcer like hey, what are you doing. He gives you that nasty look like whoa, that's Chuck Connors. You

don't mess with Chuck Connors. And then after they say starring Chuck Connors, then he looks back up again, so they say sorry, Chuck Connors. And then he looks back up again and he's like, hey, you're talking to me, and then he kind of gives you a little bit of a smile. It turns into a little something kind of friendly right there. He starts to smile, his bottom eye eyelids starts to go up, and you're like, he's a good guy. I don't have to worry about him trying

to wipe me out with his rifle. What a great show. Shot with some of the best film noir cinematographers. They actually brought many of them over from Germany. If you watch The Riflemen, it is really one of the most beautifully shot television shows. I mentioned Route sixty six yesterday, it's one of the most and they intentionally shot it in black and white. They knew that it was going to look really good for lighting and so on. They

really wanted it to look terrific. Did a lot of wonderful exterior shots. And boy Chuck Connors with his guest star that the boy who played Mark became a pop star and he just passed away. He was elderly when he passed away, had some dementia problems. The young man who became a pop star who played Mark, But he always credited Chuck Connors for being so kind to him and mentoring him for years, giving him great advice so that he could

avoid the pitfalls of stardom. Chuck Connors, what a guy. And also if you get to see Soiling Green, he does a great job in Soiling Green. So let's find out if the government is doing a great job for us or not. Oh, that's right, it doesn't matter. They're going to take our money, ha ha. And everybody has different views on what the government should do. So maybe some people think it's doing a good job

for them and others don't. Well, when it comes to rights, the incipient mindset behind government is that they can break your rights supposedly to protect your rights. Yes, that's the anarchist voluntarist in me. So please check out Liberty Conspiracy at six o'clock Monday through Friday. If you'd like to dig in more with the voluntarist philosophy, look at history, look at economics some more. After the David Knight Show today, after our three hours together, maybe

you want some more, head over to Liberty Conspiracy. We're on Rockvian, on Rumble and on my Twitter feed which is at guard Goldsmith. I should have mentioned that earlier, so you'll see here. This is the MRCTV website and this is the latest one from yours truly. It was released yesterday thanks to the great team in MRCTV, and it says Federal District Judge rules Massachusetts

gun band constitutional, seriously. And this is why I've talked on my show with Toby Leary, who owns Cape Gunworks and Hyenas mass sadly very close to the Kennedys and the living living quarters around southern Massachusetts and on into other places like Rhode Island for some of the Kennedys. But I got to say this one reveals, This peels the onion on some of the problems that I saw

coming and you might have seen coming. And I think also Toby Leary, who is one of the co owners of Cape Gunworks, who fights very very hard against Massachusetts encroachments into gun rights, the right to the natural right to keep the bear arms for self defense. This is what many of us saw coming. Let me enlarge this for you so you can see it on the screen. And just in case you want to get a you know, a fine keepsake photograph of me in the corner, you know. But here we

go, Federal District Judge rules Massachusetts gun band constitutional seriously. Now I want to hit this one first and then we're going to go into Joe Biden's breaking news story, the breaking news of Joe Biden meeting with the Mexican president. But I think this one might have a little bit more weight to kill with you. The other one is just something that is sort of a leap issue, a leap news story that lets us dive into other issues that are connected

to this, which has to do with the border. So the actual meeting of Biden and the President of Mexico might not have any immediate effect on your life. It might be a publicity thing. Maybe they'll come up with policies, but it does open the door, or open the window. The open window Assaki might have written wonderful little short story that he wrote. It opens a window into discussing the immigration issue and what is constitutional, what is not,

what is ethical, what is not. But let's hit this gun issue right now. As I noted, many saw this coming, and I noted the Supreme Court ruling in twenty twenty two, many people who were proponents and defenders of the right to keep bear arms, they have been issuing warnings as

I often have, about the bruined decision that came down. It was the new York Rifle and Pistol Association decision in twenty two, and the key facet of it, everybody, was this two tiered so called scrutiny that the Supreme Court invented as their so called lipmus test to see if state infringements, which ought to be enough to tell you no, no, thank you on the

right to keep in bear arms, actually are infringements. Well, as I mentioned, this second tier has become the slippery slope of government inserting itself in the right to keep in bear arms and infringing on it. It's this second tier, I said recently. The second tier standard just invited a lower court to say that it is perfectly fine for Massachusetts politicians to ban guns. So I don't really understand how the second tier comports with the first tier. Well,

let's get into it. Nicky Brown reports for CNN. Quote, a federal judge ruled a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons. So called love that term it's undefined and amorphous is it's whatever they think is scary, so they can gin up fear in the public, and somehow government has to protect you against these things that assault weapons. This Massachusetts ban on assault weapons is somehow consistent with a recent landmark Supreme Court decision that established firearms so called regulations, which

is a euphemism for government threats against you engaging in peaceful activity. That these established firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation's so called historical tradition. So again, that is the second tier of analysis on the so called Bruin standard. Okay, so I said. This focuses our attention on the two levels

of so called scrutiny provided as the new precedent in Bruin. First, the Supreme Court in twenty twenty two ruled that gun grab statutes and anything associated with the right to keep and bear arms otherwise known as licensing waiting periods, you might have red flag so called statutes in there, that they must be studied with regard to the strict wording of the Second Amendment. Okay, that ought to be enough. Right, what else do you need? You got the

second Amendment. It's the strict wording. Hello, I think we're done here, Thank you, Let's move on. No, they always have to leave a caveat, just like they did in the two thousand and seven two thousand and eight Heller decision with Dick Heller. Second, the Scotis in twenty twenty two in Bruin ruled on this second level that these right rights infringing statutes must be checked according to their resemblance to any early US gun rights infringing move by

a government. So let me get this straight. They're saying, First, you've got to check the rights in infringing statutes according to something that says shall not be infringed, which means you should be done for the day. You can have lunch, dinner, whatever, go home, bye bye. Right, But then they say, oh yeah, and by the way, you also have to check it according to other infringements of rights that might have come in American history, and see if there's a president that might have been said.

So what they're saying is, if you can find other areas where the Second Amendment has been infringed and say that those are part of American history, which if they have been have been committed against people, they are part of American history, then they say, if those are analogous to the contemporary statute,

then that's fine. What yeah, I said. Second, the Supreme Court ruled that these rights infringing statutes, which ought to be a non starter, right there must be checked according to their resemblance to any early US gun rights infringing move again a non starter by a government local, state or federal that can be viewed as analogous to the contemporary statute. And here is what Judge F. Dennis Sala the foth I guess the other three just weren't good

enough. They had to have the sequel. That's district Chief Judge F. Dennis Saila the fourth said, quote, the relevant history affirms the principle that in seventeen ninety one, as now, and listen to this language, as now, there was a tradition of regulating dangerous and unusual weapons. Well, that's quite loaded and left up to interpretation and subject to viewing, isn't it

dangerous and unusual weapons? Says the judge, specifically those that are not reasonably There's another term that they leave open for government interpretation, because the government determines what's reasonable. As a former New Mpshire Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court told me, he later went to Congress and goes, oh, yeah, we insert reasonable into statutes, so it gives the government lots a room to interpret what's reasonable, Like oh, isn't that nice? I feel so safe

now, thank you, bye bye. So he says reasonably necessary that are those that are not reasonably necessary for self defense. So if the aggressors of government determined that your item for self defense against the government is not, in their eyes reasonable to have, well then they can set their government goons on you, and they'll have their tax funded guns to go after you. So that's what he said on Toy's Day. So I said, let's employ some

logic, history, and ethics to pierce this smoke screen of socialism. Notice what the judge claimed that in seventeen ninety one, at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, there was a quote tradition of blocking ownership of unusual so called unusual firearms. This exposes first the illogic of the man to claim that any firearm that isn't widely owned is to be distinguished from others. A few Americans own personal canons, and Paul Revere used to make them

he with his son. Second, this shows us that the Bruin second level standard of is their historical precedent for an analog to this contemporary kind of rights infringement has nothing to do with rights or justice. It's an opening for government to point their tax funded weapons at us while simultaneously pointing to their rationales previous instances of other government officials targeting people in their own eras. I mean,

how much more fatuous could you get? I said. Third, this fallacious language from the judge reminds us that the second level of bruin has nothing to do with the strict wording of the Second Amendment or the first level of bruin. I said, That's all that should matter to a person operating under the

Constitution. If the Second Amendment strictly asserts, nay mandates, that no body of government can infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, then it doesn't matter who in the Supreme Court or what federal judge creates an exception for one or two or any number of weapons that they don't like. The second level of bruin actually contradicts the first level, which requires that strict that particular strict reading of shall not be infringed. So they contradicted themselves in their own

Supreme Court ruling. They said, yeah, you gotta have a strict reading. That's our first level, and our second level is well don't have a strict trading It's absurd, it's so stupid. I said to cap that off, one might go beyond the constitution. And again, thank you MRCTV for publishing this. I said to cap that off, one might go beyond the

constitution. Again, I'm a libertarian, Christian anarchist anarchy, not being the socialist nineteen twenties adoption of the term anarchy, which didn't apply to socialists because they were collective as they favored government for their purposes as the left wingers always have. You know, many of the piece nexs of the sixties didn't want to dismantle the state. They just wanted to take over the state, and of course engaged in their own war mongering. Just ask Bill Clinton, asked

the Somalis, ask the Iraqis, ask ask the people in Serbia. So I said, if we go beyond the constitution, and we actually see that the constitution was signed by people who never got our permission to sign it for us, They just signed it. And generationally people are like, oh, yeah, it applies to you. Really, when did I give my permission for that? Oh? I never did, So you can't say that right.

Well, the only people to whom the Constitution applies are the politicians who swear ohs to abide by it. But again by swearing it out to abide by it, gives them no more so called authority to dominate our lives in any way because they've signed up to a document. We never signed We never agreed to it. So they've signed on to something that says, yeah, we can play with other people's lives people who never agreed to this. To me, that's called aggression. That's a mafia system. That's one of the

reasons why I'm a voluntarist anarchist. I'm in favor of what's called agorism, voluntary associations, and what many people might see as a black market, free

market decisions apart from government meddling with people and pushing them around. So this gets us to this extra point, even if they were to amend the Constitution, folks I said, to cap that off, one might go beyond the Constitution and wonder on an ethical moral level, how a group of political players can claim the power to so called make rules, including so called constitutional rules, even if they amended the Constitution. For others about how, when,

where, and of what kind of firearm? They may own. I said, of course, one can wonder, but they in the halls of government claim authority over us. And when you hear people say, well, there's no constitutional authority for that, I hope you'll keep in mind that distinction. The Constitution has no authority over anybody who has not voluntarily signed onto it.

And by saying well, you haven't fled to another place, you're still here, So that tells me I'm claiming I'm setting the parameters by you not fleeing government aggression under even the constitution, that means you accept it. Since when has that been the deal? And you're walking down the street and a robber puts a gun to you and he says, well, you're not running away, so you must accept me. Give me your wallet. And this isn't

robbery? Now, how is that at all morally acceptable and logical? It's not, I said, of course one can wonder, But they in the halls of government claim so called authority over us. So we are relegated to the posts of constant fighters, constantly vigilant to beware the machinations of political predators. In the case of Massachusetts, this judge is entirely on the side of

government. What a surprise. In fact, Judge Sailor took it upon himself to decide that the amorphous, undefined term assault weapons so called, can apply to what the state decides. And he also thinks these evil weapons aren't suitable for self defense. He thinks, so, so you must comply with what he thinks. Get it? You have no control over your own tastes and

interest quote. The assault weapons, as he says, prohibited by the Massachusetts are not suitable for ordinary again interpreted by him self defense purposes, and pose substantial dangers far beyond those inherent in the design of ordinary firearms, the judge wrote, end quote. Remember that I said, Remember that when buying a rifle to protect your home from intruders, when buying a rifle to protect your farm or woodland abode, or when you get a rifle to protect yourself against

potential government attackers. Ah. But government exists only by attacking and taking the fruits of our labor. How dare we, like the people at Lexington and conquered in Massachusetts? How dare we as they did it in April of seventeen seventy five, want to own our weapons to defend our rights? Against government goons like this judge who might attack us and our progeny with words that would trigger the government to go after us, or those government agents with the tax

funded guns. Massachusetts was the home of the shot heard around the world, operative impertinent words being shot and heard. Those ought to be enough for the judged sailors of America to see why the Second Amendment was written. Perhaps their death to the echoes of fights for liberty. Perhaps they, like even the majority on the Supreme Court, are blind to the meaning of rights and the wording of the Second Amendment. But we are not. We see and understand

that the fight for our rights against conniving tyrants never ends. So I hope that was aoka for you. Let me know your thoughts in Rockfinchat and Rumble Chat and I have to say Audi is in the chat modern retro radio creator. Check it out. He's chatting with Jason says, I mean, if we're going to have a bill of rights, how about the ones who take an oath to abide by it? Yes, at least we can ask those people to be honest about their o's. But of course they use it as

a smoke screen. They use it as a Beard. So let's look at how one senator is now trying to find her way into further invading gun rights. Of course, she's from Maine. She's Senator Susan Collins, a supposed Republican and as you can see here from wmtw in Portland, where by the way, don't forget in Augusta, Maine, they were going to have their meeting just before Christmas to decide on mandating the evs on people, and they

couldn't have the meeting because they didn't have power after a storm. That's great logic on their part. So here it is. Now this has to do with the military and this mass shooting recently in Lewiston from a person who was in the US military. So here we go in response to the Lewiston mass shootings. Of course, it's always in response in response. Well, of course, he picked soft targets. A bar where they served alcohol, they

didn't allow firearms. Bowling alley didn't allow firearms, had the signs on the door. And as John Lott has noted, the presence of guns in areas tends to get criminals who are interested in violent criminal acts against people to go elsewhere. We'll talk about that again in a little while, just the sheer consequentialist argument, the logic of it, we don't even have to talk about

the morality of it. But this is a very mixed bag because the morality of it is blurred because this is about members of the military, and it gets us into this idea of what is or is not acceptable for a mandate or investigations of people, or constrictions on people who enter the military voluntarily. It's a very interesting story, and Susan Collins is really trying to find an

opening here. So if you're in the military, if you're, of course, as Jason Barker is, just out of the military, let me know your thoughts. If you know people in the military, let me know your thoughts. Or of course, if you're paying for the military, Oh yeah, that's all of you. Ah, let me know your thoughts. In response to the Lewiston mass shootings, main Senator Susan Collins, aren't you glad you pay her salary? Is working on a bill that would require branches of

the military to utilize state level weapons restriction laws when appropriate. Okay, so those state level weapons restriction laws are otherwise known as infringements on the right to keep in bear arms. The right to keep in bear arms shall not be infringed. It seems pretty plain. But what happens when you're in the military.

Do you still read the Second Amendment the same way? That gets us to start thinking about what is or is not the militia and how warped the perception is today of what is the army the army of the so called the United States, because in the original colonial period, in the founding period, there was no army of the United States. There was an army of the

Potomac. There were various branches of the military that fought against the British once they pushed out the Articles of Confederation and they brought in the usurpation of the Constitution contrary to the very rules under which they had agreed to the Articles of

Confederation. After they threatened an embargo on Rhode Island to get them to vote for the Constitution to adopt it. Bill of Rights was brought in because people like James Madison were worried, and they established the Second Amendment, which was a double layer, mentioning again again that certain rights they wanted to make sure don't forget, do not infringe on these things, and then they said anything that is not an enumerated power for the federal government is left to the states.

There was no enumeration in there for a standing army. The idea of the standing army was restricted to it is us, we are the militia, and only when there was a declaration of war could the militia be called up or as I mentioned in the constitution. And we'll talk about this in a

minute when we get into the immigration issue with Biden going to Mexico. Only if a governor or a state legislature asked for militia aid under the president's help, could militia members from other states got under the president, go into another state to suppress an insurrection, rebellion, or hard violence that would threaten their constitutional way of governance inside that state. So the second Amendment should apply at

all times. There's no standing army. It's only and as I mentioned, you can look at one of my mrc TV articles who look at the California Constitution, you'll see it noted that there is no standing army. It's the militia. They're under the governor's control up to that point until they might be called out on a declaration of war. And even then you don't have to go. They can't just pull you in, you know, they can't. They can't create some force that's going to pull you in. And and you

know, cause cause you to be drafted into it. You have to decide if you're going to go. And so compulsory military is not part of the original concept, and neither is standing army. And of course there is the amendment in the constitution. Third Amendment prohibits forcing us to pay for the housing, forcing us to house soldiers. And I would look at paying for the

housing of soldiers as basically the same thing as housing soldiers. So if I have to pay for standing bases outside the United States, that I think is housing a soldier on my I shouldn't have to do that to me. It's all coercion anyway, it's all morality, but it's all immorality. But on the constitution level, I think that that can be stressed. So Senator Collins, I think is off base. Here. Let me give you more of

the story. According to a statement from a spokesman for Susan Collins, it appears military units Lewiston mass shooter Robert card was associated with to be very very poorly written with which he was associated did not act to use New York's Red Flag Law or mains Red Flag Law. Okay, so the first thing we have to ask is are those red flag laws constitutional? No, they are

not. They abridge the Second Amendment. They infringe on that, and they also infringe on the fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth Amendments because they are taking property from someone without just compensation. They are also infringing on due process. They're infringing on the right to a speedy trial. They're infringing on the right to a trial in front of a jury of your peers rather than kangaroo courts. They're just taking property. They are punishing people without a trial,

which is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. So they are all massively unconstitutional. New York's Red Flag Law also has seen the killing of one innocent man in the first year of its establishment. Main's Yellow Flag Law is also unconstitutional. But can it be applied to members of the military in some other way under military commands if there is a federal law statute that has passed to adjust the way the military operates. Well, if you

can't have the state statutes. What if they try to say, we're going to write our own federal statute that will be a red flag statute for anybody in the military. That's not the approach she's taking, but I want to

introduce that to you as a thought something in the thought process. Despite numerous warning signs that led to mister Carr's hospitalization and psychiatric hospital in New York and the Army's decision to prevent him from having access to weapons, ammunition, and participation in live fire exercises, said Annie Clark, communications director for Collins. Well, where's the rest of that all? They didn't put the rest of that in the report? Again poorly written, but despite that, of course

he was able to get his hands on weapons. Well, he was a sniper trainer. He trained for sniping, and it says Cards Army unit from Saco train cadets at West Point in New York for several years and July Card was taken to a psychiatric hospital after behaving erratically. Well, of course, Susan Collins has an idea, she says. Her office says work on the bill is expected to resume in January, and they want to make sure that the state red flag laws apply. A person who helped draft Mainz Yellow Flag

Loss says Collins' bill would close a so called safety gap. So if it doesn't apply to members of the military, now why does it not apply? Isn't that interesting? I think that Susan Collins is off base branches of the military utilizing the state statutes. The state statutes being unconstitutional would negate the military

being able to use them. But again I pose the question to you, what if the military were to say you can't own a firearm, Well, if you're not currently called up by the military, how can they you?

Again, it's that question of does the Second Amendment universally apply? And if we look at the contemporary view of the military, the concept of the army, Navy, air Force, marines is really not the original concept For many members of the founding era, Yes they could form the navy, yes they could have ships, but the idea of a standing army was not part of

their lexicon. And so if you are going to be calling people onto a ship and they're in the militia, then I can't see how even if they are called to service, the government can infringe on their personal right to keep in bear arms now. Folks in Rockfinnchat are mentioning. Brian de McCartney says, spot on guard. Thank you, Brian deb thank you two to two viewers in one and Brian de McCartney says that guy was a total mind controlled

operative. He definitely had some major problems. That is for darn sure. Want to check out rumble chat and see what you have to say in rumble chat as well, and thank you all for watching. Matthew Ronson says on Rumble a weapon in every pot, Thank you very much. Dragon Dragon Grieta on Rumble says, with militias you can remove criminal politicians in your state. And Matthew Ronson, good point. V thank you. I want to make sure I mention this if I dropped that the Navy is the only service called

called to be standing maintained constitutionally. And how nine thousand Watson again one of the most catchy and memorable nicknames on any chat that I see that amazing reference to the evil of IBM during World War Two Illuminati shooter card and here we go a great statement, and I definitely want to mention this, especially because David Knight often we'll mention this really really overlooked egregious attack on the right to

keep them bear arms and attack on the separation of powers, the assumptive power, the power assumption of Trump. Stealth Patriot unrumble everybody. If you're just watching on Twitter, I want to give this to you here in the David Nights Show, Stealth Patriot says, it's sickening to see how many people make excuses for Trump's bump stock band. Absolutely, he should have been impeached instantly for that. That's a criminal threat against you. If it was Biden who

did that, they would have grabbed the pitchforks and torches. So true, and how thank you. You are welcome very much, Risha M. Thanks for being there. Risha M says, good morning, Guard and DK family. Absolutely right, and I have to say it's really a heartwarming thing to be here with you and share these things with you. So let's roll some

more. But while I have the opportunity, let's take this opportunity to again remind you of the great work and don't mean that with a pun intended for the Illuminati, the great work of David Knight and what he does every day and what you do in the audience, And so with that, I want to offer you the opportunity to check out a little something that I actually put together from my show, A little interlude from the Little Drummer Boy from a

little Liberty conspiracy show that I think you might enjoy. Hello, Hello, Hello. I like that donkey. He's a okay, good donkey. And of course I put that together just recording a little something from a music box. I bought a bunch of music boxes for the family, different songs like when Irish Eyes Are Smiling and Frosty the Snowman and things like that, and gave them to my family members, little wind up ones. I love those things. And I can't come close to the amazing powers of David Knight and

his musical compositions. His ability to play music, to compose music, is knowledge of classical music and all sorts of wonderful stuff on contemporary music as well.

And so I want to give you the season's Greetings from New York as a way to sort of spoof myself, to remember, folks, I can't come close, but I hope I'm providing you with good news and information filling in for David Knight today, And of course if you want to see my show, It's Liberty Conspiracy Monday through Friday at six o'clock on Rockfin and Rumble. And I didn't intend to make this like a little plug for my show,

but I should do that actually. And if you want to find my substack, you can go to the substack and that is Gardner Goldsmith substack. And if you're just listening in your car, it's gar d ne R. Goldsmith like Gardner Mass and yeah, you can check that out. And on Sundays, the Sunday News Assembly has at least twenty stories that pertain to your liberty. And I try to put in contextual information to draw out those lessons

of liberty. Philosophy has history, economics, and I don't look at it as one of my classes or anything like that, or I might be teaching some philosophical thing or bringing up a term in economics. But I try to draw in some of those themes from the classes so that people reading these things can get that ammunition and arm themselves for future instances of these sorts of encroachments.

So thank you very much, And again, if you want to join the show Monday through Friday, you can join us live on Rockfin and Rumble and on my Twitter feed which is at guard Goldsmith g r d Goldsmith and you can also see my work at mrctv dot org. But please join us on the show and after the fact you can see the show give it the thumbs up. And you know we're not even a year old, and so

I really welcome everybody to join us. And again remember if you want to contribute to The David Knight Show today on Rumble or Rockfinn, everything goes to those folks and the David Knight family and they are purely supported by you and your appreciation for his amazing, amazing news gathering, news analysis capabilities, every day news resources. So let's continue and keep trying to spread the word about the David Knight Show. In fact, since I played that little piece,

I want to show you what it's really about. With the David Knight of Course Christmas Album. I'm delighted to present something born from my love for music and the Christmas season. Christmas Night is a perfect companment for anything from family gatherings the moments of peaceful reflection. I hope is to provide a fresh take

to the soundtrack of Christmas. This collection of twenty instrumental songs brings new life to timeless Christmas classics with original orchestrations alongside lesser known, yet equally enchanting carols. For the listeners of The David Knight Show, this is more than music. It's part of our shared journey. Christmas Night is available at the Davidnightshow dot com. May it bring a little extra joy and peace to your Christmas

season. Thank you for your unwavering support and for joining me in this new musical adventure. Merry Christmas to all and all a good Christmas night. Beautiful stuff from David, and boy is it wonderful. It's absolutely fantastic. His musicianship is unparalleled. It's really really great, and it's just symphonic. It's it's heartwarming, and I'm gonna be listening to it all year long. It's

gonna be one of my favorites. And now we're gonna hear from another one of my favorites, a little theme to get into our next news item on the program, Everybody, We're going across the Border with alfjord h m HMUs go on. Of course, this song about selling weapons in a Spanish civil war, when what the ways the ghost found the clouds turns direct and silver on the b on my Wall, What a great song on my wall, the colors of the maps surround me. I loved the chorus. In the

village where I grew up, nothing seems the same. It's just the patterns that remain an empty shell. Just amazing lyricism. Al Stewart, of course you're the cat his biggest hit, but on the Border, and that Spanish guitar. By the way, the man who played it had never really done Spanish guitar before, but he happened to hit something as they were sitting together working and Al Stewart had this idea. He said, you know what this is about Spain and he had an acoustic He says, can you do a

little Spanish guitar riff? And the man said, well, yeah, I could try that. And it ended up that it became so popular in the songs that he would do a solo live and people would go crazy. So he became a Spanish guitar player. Really a remarkable set of musicians working with Al Stewart. So let's talk about Joe Biden going a ross the border. Everybody meeting with the Mexican President here's the story from Reuters. Here it is there. They are. Yes. Indeed, President Joe Biden meets with Mexican

President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. I think tomorrow he's going to add one more name to his name. I'm not sure it's inflation. You know, you need more names. But this headline reads Biden Mexico's president agree more border enforcement needed. Well. Part of the reason why I played on the Border rather than one of my other favorite songs Mexican radio today, that, of course, being Wall of Voodoo, was because on the Border mentions weapons, arms

and ammunition. And that lets us think about the great Eric Holder with the fast and furious idea of going across the border with weapons so that they could first slow walk. And there was originally an idea. It wasn't fast and furious, but the idea was generated under the Bush administration, George W. Bush, and they wanted to bring weapons into Mexico, get them to the drug cartels. Awesome, they love you so much. They really care about

that so called war on drugs, don't they. That's why the military was guarding the poppy fields in Afghanistan so long. And as we know, Haraldo Rivera interviewed a man named Lieutenant Colonel Brian Christmas about twenty years ago, and they were standing in front of the poppy field because, as you know, the War on Terror was so important that they had to sit inside and occupy Afghanistan for twenty years and see the United States military guard the poppy fields so

that the percentage of the world's opium actually increased from sales from Afghanistan. And they claimed in this interview, and I'll show it on Friday. Remind me, I'll show it on Friday to show just how contradictory the policies are. As the politicians tell you that they're working for your good, kind of like the fallacy of the state, that it's there for your protection, but of course it can only exist by threatening you and your property. Just enjoy not

paying sometime and see what happens for that wonderful protection service. Yeah, see how comfortable and safe you feel by your protectors from your protectors. But he's interviewing this man and he says, well, if we don't, if we don't guard the poppy fields, then the Taliban will just take over and they'll they'll get all the money from these things. So we've got to guard the

poppy fields. I'm paraphrasing. Essentially, he says, we've got to do this because the poor people who own these fields, they owe money to the to the Taliban. They've got to pay off the Taliban. Otherwise talban are just coming and take over everything. Okay, So what happens now? The United States has left in that wonderful way that Joe Biden left with billions of dollars worth of military equipment on the ground there, you know, people dying.

Oh, it's just it was a classic classic you know what, you know, cluster, you know what. But the percentage of opium is no longer at ninety seven percent under the United States tutelage and guarding, which rose from ninety percent where it was before the United States got in. You know, while the United States is engaging and it's so called war on drugs unconstitutionally giving US civil asset forfeiture when we might talk about that with James Board coming

up in the eleven o'clock hour. But something peculiar seems to have happened, which is that the Taliban took over those fields and they destroyed many of them. They destroyed them. So regardless of one's view of one group of people destroying the property of others, that I should have nothing to do with that. I should have nothing to do with my neighbor's choice to ingest anything that's made from opium or anything like that. I should only have a say on

my defense. I can't charge somebody else to provide for my defense. I can't for somebody else to not take a drug. I can't threaten him or her to make sure that he or she does not ingest something. And of course by doing so, you get a black market. And of course we saw that in the United States with their war on drugs, which against which they were fighting with the US military, and you were paying for both.

Isn't that great? Yeah, So here we've got the on the border theme from Al Stewart reminding us about what Eric Holder did, and that saw a border guard getting killed with a firearm that had been brought down into Mexico in Operation Fast and Furious. So that's awesome because Eric Holder is out there talking right now about justice and our rights about firearms. He's the guy who said many years ago, we just have to continually repeating, keep repeating gun control

messages and just basically brainwash people. And he used the word brainwash people into agreeing to further government attenuation on their rights. But that's not the point. It's not that you might agree to an attenuation on your rights. It's that you're agreeing to get the government to attenuate somebody else's rights. That's the problem.

So, yes, we can be upset about their attempts to brainwash, their pr spin their Edward Burnet's propaganda, but we also can remember that typically when people are talking about gun control, it's not for themselves voluntarily, Oh I'm going to give up my guns. When was the last time you saw a politician walking around without armed a federal politician walking around without some sort of armed protection. In Congress, they've got armed protectors all over the price.

I think Nancy Pelosi doesn't have armed protectors while she votes to take away your firearms right. So let's find out what they discussed in Mexico. It's just the first blush, but as I mentioned at the start of the show, it opens up a much larger panoply of issues that we can discuss, one of them being very important. Mexico City, Washington, US President Joe Biden and his Mexican counterpart agreed during a call on Thursday that more enforcement at the

border for you got it, immigration between their countries, is needed. Okay, so let's not forget that when Jim Jordan and he always seems to talk a good, good game and then doesn't seem to kind of pull through. He has some hearings, we get some good television footage, but nothing's ever done. Maybe it's because Jordan doesn't have enough sway to be able to get

some legislation passed to change some of these things. After he is involved with some of the questions about oh, say, January sixth, the footage there, or the jabs or that sort of thing. Okay, you know, I appreciate at least what he's getting out. I wish he would be more forceful. Maybe he just can't get enough people to support him. Thomas Massey always on the right side of things as far as the issues go down there.

I don't support the state at all, but if you're going to have a guy involved with the state, at least try to stop the state from growing. US President Joe Biden and his Mexican counterpart agreed during a call on Toy's Day that more enforcement at the border, at the border and that right there is a misnomer between their countries is needed. The White House said this as record numbers of people are trying to cross and they have disrupted trade.

Top US officials including oh, by the way, yes, that's Alijndro. Majorca's was not responding to Jim Jordan's request to find out not the number of interactions that Majorcas keeps using as a cipher to draw attention away from the real numbers of how many returns, arrests and returns. That's what people want to

know. He keeps saying, well, we've had this many interactions. Well, that's not too helpful to people who might live, oh, say, in the Midwest, and your interactions are seeing the border agents who aren't even supposed to be on the US border in places like Arizona, because it's supposed to be the Arizona border guarded by the Arizona government. But we'll get into that. They're not even talking about shipping people on the buses. Those are

their interactions. They're putting them on buses, they're giving them plane tickets. We saw just a little while ago Ashley Saint Clair from the Babylon b took footage in an airport as people were at a delta gate. Every one of them she could tell was an illegal immigrant. I mentioned yesterday on my program the United States government is now allowing this is the TSA in the airports.

They're allowing illegal immigrants to use their arrest charges, their arrest warrants as id so as you have to go through the Gelian dialectic of being scanned or grow having your face scanned, which, as I mentioned, people seem to be very upset when Right Aid Pharmacy was engaging in that, but they are not speaking up in arms and crying out foul when the US government does it contrary to half the Bill of Rights. It's like you don't have to go to

that drug store, but the government imposes itself between you and the airline, which one is actually immoral? How about the goverment the other one? You can decide do I want to do it or not? Is this their policy? Well, I don't want to go right now. If it's surreptitious, then that's different, but on the part of the drug store. But if they make it an open policy, you can decide and they can rise or

fall based on their policy. Government's going to keep getting your money, and of course for this bogus homeland security stuff, and Alejandro Majorca's even Jim Jordan can't get proper answers from the guy. Well we've had this many interactions. Well we're not talking about interactions, we're talking about how many returns have you

done? Geez? So yes, Alejandro Majorcas and Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln and Homeland Security Advisor Elizabeth Sherwood Randall, Yes, and she gets applause for the hyphens. We'll travel to Mexico in coming days to meet with President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador on the issue, White House National Security spokesman John Kirby said in a briefing with reporters. So pretty much every one of those people are

almost comical. The visit will focus on efforts to stem migratory flows. Who's paying for that, I don't know, and how the two countries can work together, Kirby said, later, adding that the leaders had spoken about what could be done from Mexico to slow down the process. Quote, there's probably more we can be doing, Kirby said. Dozens of major US agricultural groups on Wednesday urged the US to reopen two rail crossings on the Texas Mexico border

to restore trade routes closed due to the rising migrant crossings. Well, how about the trade routes that have been closed due to the Jabman dates. Yes, Joe Biden picked up that baton from Donald Trump and just ran all the way to the border with it. On the border. The White House then said it was working with Mexico to resolve issues that led to the closures.

Okay, Conservatives, again, let's just mention that if you think it's a really good idea to have central command and control, that runs against most of your philosophy. I thought you liked decentralization. I thought you didn't like central command and control, Soviet style decision making. I thought you didn't go for that. Well, let's turn to MRCTV. There's my ugly mug over in

Brighton, England, when my first novella came out over in Brighton. And let's look at this this story from the Biden administration, Biden border patrol to work like travel agents inside Mexico. And this is the one I mentioned at the beginning of the David Knight show this morning that I really don't think a lot of people are discussing, so don't mind me, everybody. I think I'd like to make sure that I give you this information. And again big

thanks to the MRCTV people for letting me put this story out. Let's just give this a quick one right now. Oh, there's going to be stop. Did you know thousands of Americans are piggybacking off an IRS? You know, Albert Einstein often receives credit for observing insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, And conservatives might want to reflect on that aphorism, especially when discovering this new wrinkle in the increasingly distorted, nasty face

of federal control over immigration. Hi. Everyone, I'm Gardner Goldsmith for MRCTV and here's the absolutely crazy story. Joseph Simonson reports for the Washington Free Beacon. Quote. A senior official familiar with the plan told the Washington Free Beacon that the Department of Homeland Security wants to dispatch customs and Border Protection agents to

areas of Mexico that has seen large influxes of migrants there. Documents obtained by the Free Beacon show law enforcement would begin the screening process for migrants and expedite their final journey across the Southern board. Such a program is virtually unprecedented and represents an escalation of what critics call the Biden Administration's facilitation of illegal immigration.

Indeed, in just the last few months, Americans already have seen the Center for Immigration Studies exposing a Biden administration program offering to potential migrants and app that they can use to get air travel tickets that will bring them virtually anywhere in

the US, allowing them to land and avoid federal border checks. Altogether, Americans already have seen Capitol Hill arguments and accusations about Biden's border patrol withholding data related to the numbers of migrant encounters relative to the number of US government returns

of the migrants. And even this past week, we saw Senator Jony Erst, a Republican of Iowa, remind Americans that Massachusetts Democrat at Governor Maura Healey's verbiage about a migrant emergency in her state kind of runs counter to her previous statements in favor of virtually unlimited immigration and counter to her continued support for more migrants coming to Massachusetts Senator Earnst told viewers of Fox News not to forget that

Heale had used tax money to subsidize the housing of migrants and hotels near the stadium where the Big Army Navy football game took place Saturday, December ninth.

Senator Ernst correctly made reference to the fact that Healey's recent rhetoric about an emergency seems offered merely to turn on the nineteen eighties Massachusetts statute that upon a governor's declaration of an emergency for shelter, the statute mandates that the state give shelter to anyone asking for it, and it facilitates legal and medical welfare for said

recipients of the shelter. It also facilitates Heally calling on you got it, Homeland Securities are Alejandro Majorcas to send her more nationally collected tax cash, regardless of there being nothing in the US Constitution allowing that. Now we get the lovely insult to the supposed rule book of the United States, the Constitution,

and to US taxpayers. In this new story, Simonson reports, quote, what the Department of Homeland Security wants to do is send customs officers to Mexico so we can pre clear surges of migrants, ostensibly in hopes they stop crossing illegally. The DHS official told the Free Beacon they would be doing background vetting so migrants can be waved through, but the plan could put further strain on border patrol, which already faces a staffing shortage ahead of an expected winter surge.

Staff who spoke with the Free Beacon said miles of the southern border have gone unguarded because agents have been relegated to processing migrants well. The standard conservative observation of the Biden narrative has been to question how many of the migrants who cross the border are apprehended and returned. Then added to that, there's the question of the FEDS and various state governments like that of Massachusetts literally subsidizing people's

moves. When was the last time your move to a new locale was subsidized by someone else's sweat and toil and tax money at Simonson quote. President and Joe Biden has overseen the largest immigration crisis in US history, with law enforcement recording more than five million illegal crossings on the southern border since he took office.

Blue state governors say the record number of migrants coming to their cities is straining their welfare systems, and cities including New York and Chicago, are considering budget cuts to offset the cost of housing and feeding migrants. The Department of Homeland Security declined to comment. Of course, the DHS didn't respond. In a constitutional America, there would be no DHS to respond to these questions because

the DHS is massively toweringly unconstitutional. In a conservative America, the border would be handled according to the wording of the Constitution, meaning that state governments would handle the matter. Doesn't it strike conservatives as odd that a senator from Iowa should be talking about hotel rooms and political problems in Massachusetts? Or should one recall Einstein's admonition here? Conservatives generally talk the good talk when it comes to

opposing central planning and central government. They oft promote the Founder's ideal of decentralization and federalism. Yet nowadays few conservatives acknowledge a key fact about their US Constitution.

The words immigration and immigrant do not appear in the US Constitution. The only passage of the Constitution from which one might infer a link to immigration is in Article one, Section nine, and this provision tells readers that prior to eighteen oh eight, Congress could not write laws regarding the migration into any of the original thirteen states from outside the US or from other states in the Union.

The Founders understood that immigration was not a federal purview. If a state legislature or governor should call on the federal government to lead the militia from other states to that state in order to protect that state's republican form of government from violence or insurrection, the Feds are constitutionally bound to respond. And ironically, Governor Greg Abbott of Texas has done that, and of course Joe Biden,

well, he hasn't responded in any constitutional fashion. In fact, we now witness the possibility that Biden's border so called patrol will head to Mexico to make it easier for migrants to come to the States. Perhaps conservatives can see that the problem is not just Biden. The problem is the reliance on central command

and control and the discarding of the original Constitution. What else is needed to awaken that spirit of constitutionalism of the Founders and see conservatives resist the temptation to centralize immigration. What else do we have to see when this issue has been mismanaged for so many years, and now we're starting to see this in Mexico as a possibility. Big lessons about history, morality, ethics, and freedom. Thanks so much for watching. Everybody, please like and subscribe, and

so there you go, everybody. I thought the team at MRCTV they're great guys, really good guys. I was just looking at my bright red here. And yes, Jason Barker, this is in honor of you and so many of the other people who know that. I did my scriptwriting time at Star Trek Voyager, and yes I am a Red Shirt, but I guess statistically the Red Shirt guys weren't killed as often as people say on Star Trek, so hopefully I'm not the sacrificial lamb for freedom out there. But yeah,

it was great that MRCTV allowed me to put that out there. And I'd like to amplify on this story that you know, this story about Mexico, the Mexican President, Joe Biden and so on, this story really is It's just superficial. It doesn't really mean very much right now at all, but I think it indicates that they're going to be trying to do something. They're going to do some other really bad thing. I don't know what it'll

be. We don't know whether or not they're going to be issuing these you know, working as travel agents in Mexico, but it probably is going to have something to do with sending money to Mexico. They're probably going to try to shell out money down to Mexican go for something. I don't know what

it'll be. We'll find out, but it's the first blush telling us that yes, they're getting all set up for some pomp and circumstance, uh to engage in some other bad central government border border patrol, cross cultural Mexico America arrangement. But I'd like to amplify on what you just saw from MRCTV because, as I've mentioned to numerous people, I think a lot of conservatives. I've mentioned this before when I filled in for David. I've had great conversations

with Pat Buchanan and Tom tan Credo, JD. Hayworth a little mini debates in a very free, friendly spirited uh you know, you know, exchange of information idea concept where I have explained to them. I said, guys, I understand that the the supposed care that Democrats have about immigrants is really that's just a smoke screen. Everybody knows that. For years they have wanted to use a sort of variation on cultural Marxism to try to make it look

as if there for the downtrodden immigrant. There for the person who's going to be coming in and working the fields and doing the day labor. They they don't want to see people having to work as under the black market and things like that illegally. And there might be a small percentage of the Democrats, but the Democrat politicians you could tell for years anybody who's been working in Washington. I spent a summer in Washington doing journalism there. You know what the

Democrats actually want for immigration. Their policies don't come from the heart. They don't come from an understanding of the Constitution. They come from wanting to come from their desire to get more people onto what they think will be the government dole, to get more supporters for their party, to get more people who would support their ideology and vote for them. That's what they want. It's about votes. For the Republicans, it's a bit of a mixed bag.

You get some conservatives who culturally maybe they think that there's a problem. They want the culture to be a certain way. But that's a tiny, tiny portion of people, because, of course, there have been a lot of different types of cultures that in America. You know, many conservatives have learned, and even many people who come up from Cuba are very conservative people. So conservatism and antagonism for different groups of so called racial groups and things like

that is not necessarily the conservative line that the Democrats constantly tell us. But okay, let's say there's a certain percentage. I think the larger percentage of conservatives were concerned with a that they thought that the border was supposed to be controlled by the government, the federal government or or a Another alternative is that they worried about welfareism and possible crime schools being overloaded and things like that by

immigrants. Okay, then there's this sub portion for both parties that they get these give and take on whether or not the migrants will be so called stealing American jobs. On the economics side of that, Okay, so the Republicans generally speaking, for a long time, we'd talk about we don't want these people adding to the welfare roles, which is what the Democrats seem to want. But even Anne Colter, and I've met her, she's a very pleasant

woman. She's been recently speaking out about abortion in terrible ways. I don't like the fact that she wants Republicans to drop the abortion issue. It's like, please this, we're talking about human life here, the fourteenth Amendment. If she as a trained lawyer, she recognized the Fourteenth Amendment should stand for

the protection of all human beings. State statutes prohibiting murder should apply to all human beings, and fetuses are human, and at the moment of conception, they are being That's when it starts the great natural arc that leads to our natural demise thanks to God deciding right human beings interfering. That's taking a human life. Simple. It's a basic syllogism, you know, And she should get it. But I'm sure she does. But I don't understand why she's

making those calculations. But I understand the differences between the parties, the differences that people have. But oftentimes Conservatives will talk about welfare stuff, and it's almost as if they're accepting now of welfare for Americans. They're saying, well, these are foreigners, they're getting welfare. They shouldn't be getting welfare. They don't pay taxes. Well, in many cases, they do pay taxes

in various forms, whether or not it's income taxes. There might be property taxes that they're paying indirectly, gasoline taxes, sales taxes, a lot of different kinds of taxes they'll be paying if they're up here, right, That's just those are just how many angels can dance on the head of a poisonous pen. You're not getting to the root of the issue right getting to the

root radical radii radish right in the Greek. So let's get to the root of things right now and talk about amplifying a couple of those issues that I mentioned. At eleven o'clock, James Boulevard will be with us and he will be talking about as I done, My Spectacles, My spect Spectacles. Yes, we'll be talking about his book of course, Last Writes, just out

from the Libertarian Institute. Great stuff. And by the way, in addition to getting that book from the Libertarian Institute, my sister gave me Tom Woods's latest one with a forward by Jay Batikaria, Diary of a Psychosis from you

got it. The Libertarian Institute, formed by one of my friends, Sheldon Richmond, and of course hold on second, okay, yeah, well, I'll go into it later on. I don't know, don't want to get too far into but great people, great people at the Libertary Libertarian Institute. I was going to mention Scott Horton and start talking out about how great Scott Horton is. But okay, let's get into a little amplification from what you got to see on that. And if you're joining us for the first time

in the David Knight Show, thank you for doing so. I'm Gardner Goldsmith filling in for David. And what you just got to see was an MRCTV production of this story that we don't know whether it's going to happen. We'll find out. But people who are very upset about the thousands of folks coming over the border, they are justified to be upset. But I think that

conservatives are making a mistake when they're looking to the central authority here. And I noticed there's some great, great comments on both Rock Finn and Rumble. Michael Silvio says, slave labor. Yeah, and that's one of the other things too, Michael. I was going to mention the other part of it

is, you know, the competition against so called Native workers. Union people don't want the immigrants coming in, and by making it prohibited, those people who are now working and coming to the United States, they might be having it relatively better than where they came from, but they can't turn to any above board, recognizable so called authorities to get any sort of compensation or adjudication over a work dispute. So many times they can be preyed upon in much

easier ways than if they were legal. And I use the terms legal and illegal very carefully. By the way, Yes, banks that hopefully I do look like Nosferato. I used to pretend I was Nosparati at times. So let me go into this for you and offer you a bit of information about immigration. Now, I wrote in two thousand and six about something that was in dispute in the Senate at the time, and so I want to go

into the Constitution and talk about what is in the constitution. And you saw in that video, and there are portions of the argument that actually aren't in the video and could have deserved amplification, but they had to cut them out for time. So I'm going to amplify on this now and give you the rundown from my book. This is from my book Lived for Your Die if you're looking for it, and it was published in two thousand and seven,

I believe. And again if you've never watched that, my father has quotes inside this as well. That's my dad when he was in the Navy in World War Two, taken in Hawaii. That's my father, Paul H. Goldsmith. So he has different sayings and aphorisms that he has in here.

But I said, let's look at the Constitution. I said, Article one, section eight of the Constitution gives Congress the power to control naturalization, a provision which has often been mistaken for the granting of power over immigration itself. As if to meention on my own show, Mark Levin does this all the time, Mark Levin, I'm very upset all the time. I can't stop talking like this. Can you imagine being his wife? Hi, honey,

good morning, good morning, Okay, okay, Mark. Anyway, that naturalization provision often has been mistaken for the granting of power over immigration itself, and has been used to promulgate heaps of premicious legislation for decades, despite the fact that there is a profound difference between naturalization becoming a citizen and immigration being

on the soil of one of the United States. Many so called conservatives have taken it upon themselves to mix the two as they attempt to justify federal immigration law. For example, Mark Levin, well known radio host in New York City an author of Men in Black, has stated quote, the first effort to control immigration and naturalization came with a Naturalization Act in seventeen ninety when Congress set the residency requirement for the US citizenship at two years. In seventeen ninety

five, the requirement was increased to five years. Did you notice what he did there? He included immigration, He said, I'll read it again. The first effort to control immigration and naturalization came with what the Naturalization Act.

It had nothing to do with immigration at all. Unfortunately, for many conservatives and for mister Levin's claims, the Naturalization Acts of both seventeen ninety and seventeen ninety five pertained strictly to what was constitutionally granted to the Congress the power to determine citizenship requirements. The acts had nothing to do with whether people could be in one of the many United States the power over immigration was a state purview,

and the founders knew it. To try to mix the two is either a mark of an amateur historian or someone who is attempting to mislead his readers. The only place where the concept of immigration appears in the US Constitution is Article one, Section nine, and that's the concept of it, not the word, and that's the one that's mentioned in this But the tail part of my point was not in this video. So I want to give it to

you. And that reads in part, the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing, that's the thirteen States, any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand, eight hundred and eight period. Now why did they do that. It was a compromise for the Southern states

because they didn't want the federal government interfering in the importation of slaves. It had to do with slaves, the importation of slaves or the movement of slaves from one state to another state, so that their states would not be turned into Djura by law free states by the Congress blocking the importation of slaves into there, and eventually people the generations passing, and they're having no more slaves, okay, So I said, this provision of the Constitution tells the careful

reedo that prior to eighteen oh eight, Congress could not write any laws regarding the migration into any of the original thirteen states from outside the US or from

other states in the Union. Such wording and the philosophy of the founders themselves would imply that unless the Constitution was amended, Congress did not have jurisdiction to right laws dealing with immigration in the original states before eighteen oh eight, and did not have the power to write laws pertaining to immigration in any states that

subsequently joined the Union. This is just basic logic, I said. This is an important dist one lost on most so called conservative politicians, and sadly one also lost by Supreme Court justices very early in US history. And so I've run through this with Pat, I've run through this with Tom tan Crado,

and they've been very friendly. They've listened, we've exchanged I've listened to them, and then they let me go through the other portions of this and they all end up agreeing well, Gardner, I can't fault your argument. You're right, and I know, I know I'm right. I've done it. I've gone really in depth on this. But then they always fall back to but and then they go on and it's like, oh, you guys,

so let's go through a little more here. So it was not until eighteen seventy five, with the Supreme Court decision in the case of Chi Loong v. Freeman and the passage of the Page Law subsequent to that in Congress, that federal control was established regarding immigration into more than the original thirteen states. As one would expect, and as we have seen with the push to restrict immigration today, the driving force behind this nineteenth century shift in power was

political economics. In the West, native US workers were upset by the growing presence of lower cost Chinese labor in gold mines and on railroads. The Transcontinental Railroad, even though it was a boondoggle, was built in no small part by low priced Chinese workers. As a result, they lobbied This is the native people, not the Chinese people, but the so called Americans at that time. They lobbied their representatives to restrict their foreign competition. Such activities seems

very familiar today, just as the unions. In eighteen eighty two, the so called Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in the United States. It barred entrance into America by Chinese laborers for ten years, halted Chinese non labor immigration for sixty years, and prohibited entirely all naturalization by Chinese people, just like today, as members of the United Auto Workers and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York tell us that only certain kinds of immigrant labor are acceptable, those that in

no way stand to compete against their excessively high wage rates the politicians, and that's money that consumers could keep and then spend on something else. This is why the expanding economy also includes trying to keep your labor costs low part of your process of manufacture, whether it's the raw materials, labor time, whatever it is. In our contemporary battle over immigration, the unionized mercantile interests find

odd allies in the conservative wing of the Republican Party. And that is something that I found problematic with Pat Buchanan's presidential run. So now I want to add to that a little bit more. Well, I can go into the economics of immigration at a different time. But now I want to tell you a little bit more about the constitutional side of things and go beyond just that. So let's start talking about Oh, I have a little thing from the

rotary here. I'm talking about rotary in Australia. That's interesting. I went to speak there after I went to Australia. They're just so nice to me. Those guys are good guys. I really appreciate that. So now let's go into a little bit more on the constitutional side of things. I said in the preceding arguments about immigration, it has been noted that the US Constitution explicitly grants the federal government power to control immigration or migration migration after eighteen oh

eight, and only the states that existed at the time. I've received some criticism for this observation and engaged in some rewarding friendly debates with some who disagree with my analysis. For the record, those who believe the US Constitution grants the federal government the power to control immigration in every state must grapple with a

few important facts. First. Under any strict reading of the Constitution, the immigration issue is verbally tied to the important importation of slaves Article I, Section nine. According to the Constitution, Congress was forbidden from regulating the importation of slaves or other people into the states existing at the time, and there was a very powerful political reason for this clause. If it had not been written,

the Southern states would not have been likely to approve the Constitution. Here's the layout as it stood at the time of the Founders. By the time the Constitution was written, the Northwest Ordinance had already banned slavery in the Northwest

territory. Southern agricultural interests were reluctant to sign on to the Constitution without some kind of assurance that their way of life would not be immediately threatened by northern states exercising great power in Congress. As a result, the famous three fifths compromise was soon established, each making each slave count as three fifths of a man for the purpose of congressional representation. And I noted we can discuss the

disaster of slavery at another time. After the Constitution was written, the Missouri Compromise was achieved, and this is very important. This set. This compromise set a standard for the process of admission of states from the territories of the Louisiana Purchase whereby the northern free territories and Southern slave territories would alternate in admission.

If the federal government could set the rules regards guarding new state importation of slaves i e. Immigration, as they might try to say it out from. If they could do this outside of those original thirteen states, then there

would be no reason for them to have had the Missouri compromise. There would be no need to decide which kinds of territories could gain admission in what sequence, because the territories themselves, upon becoming states, could then see Congress place restrictions on them regarding slave importation or general immigration if people wanted to expand it beyond slaves. It is unlikely that the Southern states would have accepted such an

arrangement when debating the Constitution. What the South wanted was an assurance that Congress would not be able to stop importation of slaves in any of the future states that might be admitted beyond the borders of the Northwest Territory. If one reads Article one, Section nine, he sees the use of the term of the states now existing, and that was intentional. The exclusion of future states was

intentional as well. The ninth and tenth amendments then set the bar higher for any assumption that Congress could adopt this power or make it up Stronger than the opinion I offer is the fact that Thomas Jefferson took this view on immigration in seventeen ninety eight, when he forcefully commented on the Alien and on the Sedition

acts in the Kentucky Resolutions. Kentucky Resolution number four quote resolved that alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are, that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens, and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments of the Constitution

having also declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively and to the people. Therefore, the Act of the Congress of the United States, passed the twenty second day of June seventeen ninety eight, entitled an Act Concerning Aliens, which assumes power over alien friends not delegated by the Constitution, is

not law, but is altogether void and of no force. You often hear people talking about the Sedition Act and how terrible that was to say that you can't criticize John Adams, but it's okay to criticize Thomas Jefferson. And if you're a newspaper person, they're going to arrest you if you criticized John Adams. And Jefferson reversed all that paid people back. Well, they did the same thing with the Alien Act. After he was elected. Jefferson pardoned all

people captured under the law, and Congress paid restitution. Later, President Grant of all pace people held the same view. Quote responsibility over immigration can only belong with the states, since this is where the Constitution kept the power, he once said in a letter to Congress. In Texas, the state constitution, approved in eighteen sixty nine had an article in it establishing a Bureau of Immigration headed by a Superintendent of Immigration for the state. Consider this riddle me,

this batman. If the people of Texas believed Congress had the power to control immigration in the New States, why would they have bothered to include such a provision for their own state government. It's doubtful in the least. In numerous Supreme Court cases of the early nineteenth century, for example Milne v.

New York, Smith v. Turner, and Norris v. Boston. Participants cited numerous laws enacted by the state legislatures that put restrictions on the kinds of peace people such as poppers, that shipmates could allow in the respective states, and many of the laws were passed after the adoption of the Constitution. There was debate as to whether the states could impose taxes on such imports, or

if such taxes infringed on Congress's power to impose levies and tariffs. States can impose teriffs but they must get permission from Congress first, according to the Constitution. There was debate about that about putting a price tag on those imported people. There were also controversies about whether such state taxes could trump federal treaties with

other nations. But there were many non monetary restrictions placed by states on the immigrants that were imposed by the state legislatures that were never questioned until the Chi Lung v. Freemen in eighteen seventy five, dated before it was the Supreme Court. Malfeasans and congressional politics in the late eighteen hundreds that brought about the federalization of immigration policy. It was not the US Constitution. This is something

supposed to conservatives ought to remember when debating. Now, the next phase, as I've sometimes mentioned, the next phase comes when we get responses from Tom tan Credo and Pap you Can and JD. Hayworth. They've all responded with the same thing. They say, yeah, but Gardner, it's an invasion. We are being invaded. Of course, the all inclusive government. You're

part of the part of it, whether you like it or not. Social contract fallacy of the royal Wei now is the so called representative or democratic government when if you want to be left alone, you can't be left alone. They're going to make you part of the wei. So, in other words, it's a pronoun of aggression. The royal wi under the state. So they say, we are being invaded the United States, so therefore you've got to have some sort of border. You've got to have protection of the border.

And I say, okay, look, let's look at your logic, let's look at your terminology. And if the United States thinks that, if people of the United States think the United States plural are being invaded, then what is the proper constitutional answer. JD. Hayworth was a congressman. Tom caam Cradle was a congressman. Pat Buchanan was running for president. More than once, they've looked at the constitution. Surely they swore os to the Constitution

two of the three. So what do they say, Well, the answer is, you declare war against the nation state that you claim is invading. And if these people are not uniformed combatants from another nation state, you can't declare war against those people because they're not officially part of the government of that nation state. So you can't, in traditional parlance declare war with the capital

w against those people because they're civilians. So therefore you respond with the second phase, which is the president can lead mercenaries under letters of mark and reprisal. So if you can't declare war against the nation state, like let's say they don't want to declare war against Mexico, but you're seeing people coming in from Mexico through Panama and so on up through Mexico, whatever, swimming over

or not even swimming but rafting over from Cuba. Whatever. Let's say you want to stop this group, that group, all the groups I don't know right, Well, then you can't declare war against the nation state, but you can have Congress issue letters of mark and reprisal, which lets the president hire mercenaries to then go after those people. Okay, they haven't done either,

clearly, right, So what is the only other alternative. The only other alternative is what I mentioned about Greg Abbott and how the Constitution you saw that in the MRCT video. The Constitution does allow for federal so called federal troops that would be the militia, to be called up to go into a state if the governor, if the legislature of the state calls for help to protect their constitutional form of government against invasion, against insurrection, rebellion, or

violence. Okay, so if we look at the Constitution, let's now go over into article Let's see Article four. I'll just read the pertinent clause for you. Okay, so you can probably see the scrolling on my face. Article four, Section four here it is all right. Now again, I'm an anarchist, I'm a voluntarist. I never signed this document, and just saying, hey, if you just want to play fair, you know, even in this unfair world of government imposing it on me, at least just

look at the rules, just do it this way. So this is the only way that the federal troops could be brought in on the border. So right now, the border patrol even fifty seventy five miles inside Arizona, pulling people over as they're trying to get to work, being able to control the dogs to jump on the cars. The dog got a signal, so now I can check your car. Contrary to the Fourth Amendment, none of it. It's absurdly unconstitutional, it's laughably unconstitutional. It's a farce. It's an

absolute clown show game. But they are wearing guns. So here it is Section four, Article four. Section four. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion, declaration of war right and on application of the legislature of that state, or of the executive of that state, if the legislature cannot be convened, against domestic violence. So this actually is what Greg Abbott

did last year. He asked Joe Biden to protect Texas. Otherwise it's supposed to be Greg Abbott. And as we saw one other sort of echo of constitutionalism a couple years ago, even Ron DeSantis said he had agreed to supply militia units National Guard to go to Texas to help the protection of the border

in Texas. Greg Abbott has officially asked Joe Biden to carry out and he hasn't even cited Article four, Section four, but he's just generally asked and it conforms, it comports with anybody who wants to be strict on the wording. It does work. He's and that's on their constitutional level. He's asking for help on the border to protect them against the violence and the instability there.

Joe Biden has not responded properly, and in fact, they have worked to stop Greg Abbott, who just last week was going to call up state police units to help on the border. The Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department are trying to stop Greg Gabbott from handling things on the border.

Right now. You've got the central government Conservatives. If you think that you're going to have the border patrol being done your way, contrary to your claim that you are constitutionalists, Let's say you're willing to let that drop and say, well, yeah, I'm a constitutionalist. Accept Let's say you're comfortable with that even if you're comfortable with that, the consequentialist practical outcome of what you are proposing and aspiring to is that when somebody gets in there and you don't

like him, the policy's going to change. Do you really really want to have some unconstitutional system of central command and control like Soviet Russia deciding what happens on the border to the extent now where Joe Biden is giving people phone apps to get on planes to fly to the Midwest, this is what your central your focus on the central authority, has rot. You're not gonna get it a lot better. You thought Donald Trump was gonna do something. He's singing

the same thing. He's whistling the same tune as he whistled before he got elected the first time. Oh, we're gonna put up the wall. It's gonna be the best wall. Meanwhile, he's occupying. He was occupying Syria. We got it there to Syria. We're on the best oil. It's really nice. I use it in my hair to keep it down in the wind. It's really good. Best occupation of all time, except for the Afghan occupation, which I helped end. But you know, we let it

go on. We didn't just pull out immediately, which we should have constitutionally. This reason is absurd. The whole thing is a farce. So that Article four, Section four is the only out. And again, if we look at the breaking news about this Mexican meeting, what does it mean? It doesn't really mean that much, right, we don't know what's going on, but it can signal a learning opportunity. Right, this is the leap point. This is when you're at the punk rock show and somebody's doing a

stage dive, iggy Pop's jumping out at you. You got something happening there, and it's a big deal. It's a very very big deal, whether or not. You know, I'm not gonna win my arguments, right, I'm not gonna win politically. I'll win the argument, but I won't win politically. I'm not going to see anything change. But for you know, I get satisfaction out of just trying to get the information out there. Maybe

that's why I've enjoyed teaching. You know, I think it's great you make a connection with somebody and they say, oh, yeah, you know, okay, that's cool, And it's not necessarily it's a satisfaction of like, yeah, I think I've proven my point. I think everybody might get that satisfaction, but it's more in I think I've presented it in a in a logical and understandable way, and maybe somebody else will find this valuable. Right. I think I'm holding my side up as it might be holding up my

side for truth. Right. So yeah, I've got my fingers crossed that people will like that. And yeah, we will see how things play out with the with the elections. I wouldn't expect much whether it's Trump or Biden.

And please don't forget you know, Trump's emergency order in March thirteenth to twenty twenty, that's what brought up so many of the lockdowns the state legislators and state governors imposed with the Model State Health Emergency Plans, and you know, massive infringements on the Bill of Rights, added onto what they did after nine to eleven with the so called Patriot Act and even the FISA, the FISA Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the Drug War, all

those things, year after year, layer of tarnish upon layer of tarnish on what seemed to be that shining babble of the US Constitution. You know, let's take an opportunity give you a little more wonderful music from David Knight. And when we return, we're gonna be joined by our guest, none other than James boulevard Erbit listening to the David Knight Show. Wow, wonderful stuff

from David Knight. Remember you can get the Christmas album over there a couple of days after Christmas, but they had the Feast of Saint Stephen's was it yesterday? So you know, keep the spirit alive everybody, and remember anything you contribute over at David Knight's Rock Finn channel, everything goes straight to the show. I'm Gardner Goldsmith guest hosting, and I just you know, it just is an amazing and wonderful pleasure to be here with all of you in

the chats online wherever you might be in. Thanks again on the backside of Twitter at guard Goldsmith for the kind words from yesterday's show. I really appreciated that, and I want to say a big couple words of appreciation to Karen Carpenter and the Rock Finn Chat. She mentions that satisfaction of teaching. One day, I gave a lecture about heart attacks to second graders because they were curious about it. I drew pictures of the circuitory system. It was spur

of the moment, but what a who The students were enthralled. And some also some great comments from Wes Robertson talking about what Greg Abbott can do. Abbott can end the illegals coming through his state anytime, constitutionally just by nullifying federal dictates. Well again, you know, I hope that the outlines they gave about the Kentucky resolutions. And James Madison also in letters mentioned that it's

supposed to be a state purview. That eighteen seventy five chaw Long decision is as bad as the dred Scott decision, as bad as the Roe v. Wade decision. It warps the perception of the constitution and so many people start to think that that's the way it should be. And then of course everybody starts to argue over the one size must fits all. So very interesting stuff.

I really want to thank everyone in the rumble chat as well. That one person says, too bad Bitchoot doesn't have the money behind them that Rumble has. Bitchhoot has always been solid. I like Bitchoot as well, and high boost mentioned Trump, and he says Trump used Facebook twenty sixteen to win, but it was used against him in twenty twenty. Kind of funny. Well, yeah, you know, I think it's going to be very interesting to see what happens in this next election. But I have no vested interest

in this whatsoever. I do want to welcome, however, a man who has been watching this longan than I have, and has been one of my big heroes for a long time. He's our guest now on the David Night Show. He is James Bouvart, coming to us from just outside the swamp of Washington, d C. On The David Knight Show. James, welcome to the program. I see the symbol for you. I think we've got audio and welcome and congratulations on your new book. Last, writes James Beauvard.

Thanks very much, thanks for having me on, having me back on, and thanks for plugging the book. And yeah, I was trying to figure out whether or not to use the video today and I thought it might overwhelm viewers that have two photogenet guys on the screen. Well, thank you, thank you, James. I don't have the beard. I couldn't grow the beard the way you do. But yes, I know we would probably count your blessings on the beard. Isn't that what? Isn't that what the

Ministry of Truth is all about. Nina Jenkovitch was there to stop us handsome guys from getting too much airtime, right, I don't know and Tomy what she was supposed to do, but she was. I mean, she was great for comic relief. I mean, it's always good to have to have a woman who's whose videos included who asking who exactly? Kind of filled the blank to become rich and powerful. Yes, I wouldn't use that verb because you've got a family friendly so but it was great to see online. It's

like, you know, I guess you know the Biden White House. When they were vetting her for that appointment, forgot to ask one important question, does she sing? Maybe they'll have to put that on the application for him from now on? Right? Well, the nice thing is once they booted her, everybody thought the Ministry of Truth was done, but it wasn't. They brought in Michael Chertoff. Well, yeah, I mean, it's just it's amazing that he would have any credibility in washing after the things he's done,

and the lobby lobbing he's done. But uh no, I mean you've heard. I'm sorry, go ahead, No, No, I heard Jim that he wants people to pass through an airport scanner before they can get online to speak. I think that's his new gimmick, just to saw more scanners. Yeah, well, you know you're got to find some use for those damn airport scanners. Hell haven't done any good as far as catching weapons and bombs. So I mean, I've you know, I've had I've had some

memorable experiences for those scanners with the TSA. And that's right. I've tried to settle accounts. Hey, I tell you, James Bovard is our guest. Folks, go to Jimbouvard dot com and follow him at Jim Bouvard on Twitter. And the new book is great. And I know that you wrote about your recent experiences with the TSA. It hasn't changed. That's not any

more secure. We know that every few years they would have their studies on how many bomb like materials would go through, and even ABC News would do their own studies. It never changed, despite the increasing budget, despite the daily, minute by minute, person by person encroachments, into the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the sixth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, so many things. And that lets us look at Last Rights. And I want to

bring this up to all the audience, everybody. Last Rights the latest from James Beauvard and has a picture of the Capitol building with the razor wire and the fence just in the foreground and of course on the back. I showed this at the start of the show. Everybody, the armed goons protecting our liberties. Isn't that? I'm sorry, They're protecting the politicians from we people they tell us are free. James, You've got a lot in this book.

First of all, I know you've been working on this for a long time. How long ago did you start to think, Okay, I'm going to get this book out, because this is a crucial time to have this book released, shortly before COVID. Actually, I was trying to tie a lot of things together that I've been writing about for years. I mean, this is this is a flashback to nineteen ninety three, ninety four when Lost

Rights came out. The book that preceded this, it's and it was a roundup of a lot of the federal state and local atrocities and abuses back then, and folks said I was much too cynical, And it's kind of like, you know, I don't think so. But it's sad to look back in the nineteen nineties almost as like if it was a golden era for freedom. Oh isn't that? It's bizarre, isn't it. I mean, it's like it's like going, it's going. It's like going from one abusive relationship

into a worse relationship. And let you know, and then you say yourself, gee, I I had it better off when I was, you know, when I was getting beat up this way. It's ridiculous. It's like going like drowning in water versus drawing a quicksand it gets worse. It just gets worse. And and you know, they keep using these rationales where the

government gets caught at something. You know, we see James Clapper testifying in front of Ron Wyden, and Widen already knows that they're surveiling people because they've got this snowed in information. It just hasn't gone public yet, and all of a sudden boom. What happens, he asked him, is the NSA collecting data on people? No, and then Ryden gives it. Widen gives him a chance to get out of possibly perjuring himself, which he just did, and he says no, and he said, well not knowingly, like

no, you were doing it knowingly. That's what the is about. That's what the whole face the thing is about. And it's not just Section seven oh two. It's a very concept of it's not in the Constitution. It's strictly prohibited. And the prohibition doesn't mean that it only applies to the government invading Americans rights. It's anybody's rights. They don't have the ability to scan somebody in Sweden, just like they don't have the ability to scan somebody in

New Hampshire. They just don't have the power. It's amazing to me, James, you have so many things here. Can I run through a little bit? Thank you so much. Pardon the spectacles here. I just wanted to make sure I look like Charlie Robinson, the great Charlie Robinson, a great podcaster, and so in the book Everybody just released from the Libertarian Institute, and I hope you will check it out at the Libertarian Institute website.

As you mentioned here, you have in the introduction tyranny comes to main street. Americans today have the freedom to be freedom in quotes, and this is very very important to me, James. And I'm so glad that having you know, as a teenager, I picked up one of your books. You know, I'm like ten years behind you or something like that, and I'm like, I like this guy. And now I know you, and I'm like, I like this guy. And you always Yeah, you keep getting

the bat on the leather, you keep hitting it. Man, It's great. Okay, that's a new Hampster phrase. Yeah, absolutely is. My daddy used to play for the Red Sox, their farm team. Yeah, yeah, they used to do. They were called the Hooligan Squad. It was before World War Two. And he never Yeah. Yeah, it was interesting. Americans today, you say, have a quote freedom end quote to be fleeced, groped, wire tapped, injected, censored, ticketed, disarmed,

beaten, vilified, detained, and maybe shot by government agents. Politicians are hell bent on protecting citizens against everything. Accept Uncle Sam. It's that wonderful social contract, isn't it? As America? Is America becoming a cage keeper democracy where voters merely ratify the latest demolition of their rights and liberties. And you cover in this book. It's not just a wide array. It's as if you're using a logical syllogism from point A down to point fifteen.

What letter is that? You know? M something like that. You talk about seizure fever, the war on gun owners, licensed to kill, the COVID crackdown, catastrophe, School's gone wild, ten thousand czars, subsidies and subjugation dominate, and yeah, be careful what you wish for. States and

corporations dominate, intimidate, control, taxation and tyranny. No place to hide, see no evil democracy, mindless ministry of truth, ah, the Singing Singing Spirit, Spirit of Nanny Jenkowitz, American Gestapo, ronamok and last Chance for Liberty. Concluding things with tons of endnotes. So James, you put this together, it's a lot of work. In addition to the articles you write. I don't know how many articles you write every week. Do you

have a certain set number that you put out every week? James No, I'm you know, with the book being done, I'm aspiring tout have three or four out for week. But I have a question for you on the book is that a paperback or a hardbacked version. This is the hardcover Okay, okay, because I haven't seen that. I was trying to find it. I mean, Amazon was supposed to have it and they you know,

I don't know, but so where did you order that from? I can't remember if I got this through the Libertarian Institute website or I went to Amazon just so I could get it shipped over more quickly. Yeah. Well, you know, it looks good. I'm just I was trying to get some hardbacks and I've got paperbacks, but I will track those down. Oh, this is absolutely fantastic, James. I got a few of the items I'd like to discuss with you, and I've bookmarked each one far away. Okay,

we've got chapter three, the War on gun owners. Of course, I was talking about the way that so called red flag laws or contrary to half the Bill of Rights, punishment without any trial, Second Amendment, third Amendment, fourth Amendment, fifth Amendment, sixth Amendment. Then we've got license to kill. And this is really something else. It goes back to the nineties a lot of different things with the Justice Department and how so called reform

was never actually instituted and as they often do. The reform that they claim actually give them permission to do even worse things to us. Then we're talking about the American Gestapo run amok. That is the FBI. So if you'd like to pick any one of those for our audience, and if anyone has any questions for James Bouvard, put it in the Rock Fin or Rumble Chad.

And if you're watching on David Knight's Twitter feed, I can also check those in a little while, but we'll go with Rock Fin and Rumble Chad. James, is there any one of those you'd like to hit first? You know, I don't have any specific preference on the FBI the American Gestapo. That was a phrase from President Truman right in his diary, I think in late nineteen forty five, maybe forty six. He said he was worried that the FBI was becoming a Gestapo and that America did not need that.

That was just after the defeat of Nazi Germany. Yeah, I see here, we want no gestapo or secret police. FBI is trending in that direction. Nineteen forty five you wrote, yep, yep, And that's so he was aware of the damage of the danger, and other politicians have had some very eloquent statements on that over the subsequent decades. But the FBI, you

know, still has vast unchecked power. The FBI tried to throw the twenty sixteen presidential election to Hillary Clinton. The FBI had a huge role in helping Joe Biden win the twenty twenty election. And I don't know, you know, there hasn't been any effective effort that I know of to put a lease on the FBI for the twenty twenty twenty four presidential election. So you know, yeah, I don't see how I don't see how democracy survives this.

Well, you know, it's amazing because you can roll back so fluidly in conversation to some of those things, and every one of those things you mentioned the twenty sixteen right, So one of the things on which I was reporting an MRCTVS was the so called DNC hack. Right. We know that the DNC didn't give the computer to the FBI. Initially, they gave it to CrowdStrike. CrowdStrike run by this guy Aparamov or something like that. I remember

the Atlantic Council. They came out with their report which is absolutely ridiculous. Bill Benni has mentioned that there's no way that the data could have been transferred as quickly as it was transferred if it was done through phone lines. It

had to have been done on site with data sticks, flash drives. And then this guy aproa Vamach or whatever comes out and says, oh, it was the Russians, and that entire Russian the Russians interference Russian thing carried through as the Portman Murphy bill was circulating in twenty sixteen and got pasted in that last NDAA that Obama signed in December of twenty sixteen, which created the Portman Murphy Countering Foreign Propaganda Act, which helped give a lot of this money to

places like News Guard and Election Guard and all these different agencies that we found were actually being funded by the FEDS. Simultaneous to that, we see the FEDS now hiding information about like the Hunter Biden laptop and literally reaching out to the New York Times to say, don't talk about this thing that we know the hard drive had the chain of possession already set up. They knew it

was authentic, but they didn't want people to know about this. And that is that's one of the softer things, but it had incredible implications, and I was amazed that many people were unaware of the FBI's role in that. Yeah, I mean that's something the New York posted great work on and they

have dogged that issue very effectively. It's it's frustrating to see how much yes, the government still gets away with and talking to folks who were moderates, liberals, democrats, or even undecided, their knowledge base on these scandals is very low. And it's sort of like caught a conservative about the torture scandals,

like what that never happened? Right, So it's just you know, and this is part of how the how the outrage is snowball, and you know, they turned to precedence and there's almost no way to put a leash

on them. It's amazing, you know, we know that prior to say this contemporary era, we might be looking out a twenty sixteen, there were all sorts of problems with the FBI, as we know, you know, whether it was the Black Panthers, Martin Luther King Junior, and so many of the different things that were instituted with the creation of the FBI right on

through. It's always been very very sketchy. It's always been something where the FBI, on the surface carried this sort of mantle of pride and all this is and a lot of the guys we go into the FBI think I'm going

to do the right thing. But there have always been very dark factions to the FBI and a lot of questions constitutionally about well, is it really excusable to create a police agency for crimes that might happen across borders, or is it really just the maximum that the Feds would do would be to facilitate extradition between states, And that's sort of the fundamental question about the FBI. But

there are other things that have happened recently. We've seen the FBI, and of course the Department of Education being implicated at the Justice Department as well in possibly investigating concerned parents who go to school board meetings and investigating Catholics who are

traditional and Catholic masses. Would you like to amplify on some of the other things that you discovered as you wanted to put this together or throughout your life some of the things that stand out for you about the FBI and just how inflammatory it has become or how bad it was in the past. Yeah,

that's a very good question. Uh. The giption. Going back to the the FBI and the Catholics, it came out earlier this year that the that the FBI in Richmond other places had a secret campaign to infiltrate church services to quote identify the bad Catholics. And you know, I don't I'm not comfortable at all with the FBI setting themselves up to be secret judges of who is

and who is not a good Christian or a good Catholic. You know, this is you talk about a Pandora's box, and this is something it wasn't just one knit with FBI agent who did this. This is something which got approved at multiple levels. But one of the things that sticks in my mind most vividly on the FBI was Ruby Ridge. You had the FBI send their snipers out there. You had the FBI, you know, the FBI snipers were given an order to shoot to kill, basically shoot on site for the

adults that were being besieged federal agents. And then the FBI sniper guns down Vicky Weavers. She's holding her baby in the cabin door. That age lawn. Harryucci, Uh, never was never received any sort of uh uh, any sort of punishment. In fact, he got advances after killing right yep. And so that was something I wrote about and it was fasting to see the pushback. FBI Director Lewis Free condemned me in public for for slandering FBI

agents and the FBI itself. But I later got hold of a five hundred page confidential Justice Department report on their analysis of Ruby Ridge, and the Jests Department had many of the same condemnations of the FBI that I had as far as their their conduct and their cover up of Ruby Ridge. But you just said it publicly. Uh. I set up publicly, and the FBI chief I thought that he could squash my reputation like a bug. Well you know

you are. You are, James Bouvard. And by the way, as we talked about last writes, I want to mention I remember at that time Ruby Ridge. G Gordon Lettie was doing his radio show. Oh he was. He was great, yeah, and he was excellent on that Ruby Ridge issue, and he would mention what you were talking about. I remember him

talking about your work on his show. And I got to meet him a number of years ago, and he was very very nice to me, and Uh, you know, I obviously going to prison after the Nicks and Nixon issues and things like that, but he really did a splendid job talking about Loanhara Ucci, Ruby Ridge and Randy Waver and his family. And I really

appreciate the fact that you you stood up for those people. You know, David Knight was down there with UH with the UH down at Bundy Ranch when the Bureau of Land Management was trying to wipe out the Bundy Ranch and take that over. They were sabotaging the water pipes and so on. David was there at the standoff as the snipers had their guns trained on them. He

was right there. Yeah, there's a section in the book on the Bundy Ranch case and the FBI just just it's it's incredible, and I don't it's it gets me choked up a little bit sometimes to think about just how far people have it. You know, you get these little, these little bubble ups of people standing up for what is appropriate. They're standing up for their

rights. These people at Bundy Ranch had a land agreement when Nevada was a territory, and as I've mentioned, there is no provision for the United States government to run land other than Washington, d C. Territories and militaried garrisons. And as you know, when according to the Constitution, territories become states, they're supposed to enter with, as they say, all the rights and privileges of any other state. And there is no mandate that they have to

seed land to the government. And even if they had to seed land, even if they wanted to seed land to the federal government, they the federal

government has no provision in the Constitution to manage that land. So all these areas Grand Escalante as I mentioned yesterday and David's show, or the Bears, the Bear's Feet, or the Anwar, anything like that, all these areas where they've opened up national parks or you know, closed off Anthracite to help the lip Bo group for the Clinton administration, any of those things, those

were supposed to be up to the states. And since the Bundies had an agreement from that territory of Nevada before it became a state, they were grandfathered in, their family had grazing rights, and Feds were trying to wipe them out. And it's amazing to think that the pop media could portray people who were just trying to mine their own business, were just sitting there who got invaded by federal agents, the FBI, the BLN them with their tax funded

guns. They can portray the the bundies as the flipped out aggressors, as the wild gun totals, and they were just defending their property and that sort of I love to correct the record on that sort of thing, especially for peaceful people like that. James. Yeah, and it was fascinating to see the evolution of the federal court cases and the federal judges on that issue. Yeah, there was a I think Judge Navro, maybe Gloria Navro, Yeah,

it was. She started out very much leading in favor of the FBI and the fedes, but by the time at a certain point there were there a number of very late revelations the FEDS made that blew their credibility to pieces, and she basically threw the case out of court and gave the FBI a very thorough cussing. Yeah, the discovery process there on every one of those

was so important. And of course, you know, I think James, it harkens back to back to the days when they would try to have the kangaroo courts during the Revolutionary era to take people away from their local juries, and they you know, they try them up in Nova Scotia. That was one of the things you wanted to have jury of your peers. People hear this information. Even judges sometimes will stand up and say, you know what, this is just wrong? Uh and and and yeah, good for judge

Navarro. I was. I was really pleased about that, James, any other thoughts in the FBI. I'd love to talk to you a little bit about something tied to the FBI, that the war on drugs and things like civil asset forfeiture. If that's sure, go for it. Okay, Well, let's let's talk a little bit about the so called war on drugs, you know, starting up with Lyndon Johnson, but even before that, certain statutes, a lot of the old jazz musicians finding that they, you know,

were running into problems with the law. We've got an idea that somehow the person accused with some crime against to others just for possessing a substance, which is not a violent act of aggression against anyone, just the possession of a substance or the sale to a voluntary, willing participant of a substance like drugs, whatever it might be, that somehow, first any state agency, agency of the state, in its normative sense, should be involved in stopping

that person from engaging in that peaceful activity. But on the constitutional level, the superstructure of this, on a national and historical level, for the United States, James Boulevard, we've got the so called war on drugs that has incentivized local police forces, and even the Obama administration threw down a smoke screen with Eric Holder in there, and you talk about some of this, some of Eric Holder's background on this, the so called war on drugs, the

seizure of people's property, and how it incentivizes the local police to engage in these types of raids because they can make tons of money. They get to keep people stuff. Can you talk a little bit about the concept of civil asset forfeiture and how you approach it in last rites James Boulevard, Yeah, civil asset forfeiture means that the government come in and confiscate your property based on a mere allegation that it might have been misused at some time in the past.

And there was I think a dea agent wh would say that the Great thing about asset forfeiture is is not up to us to prove anything, and so so so, the if a government agent stops you walking down the street and he says, let me take a look at your wallet, and so he pulls he pulls out your cash, and then a drug dog comes up. The drug dog alerts to the drugs supposedly on the on your currency.

Boom, that's sufficient for the government to seize your currency. However, the vast majority of American currency has micro traces of drugs and suffici to trigger a canine alert, and judges have known that for thirty years. Judges have been condemning this a canine dog currency seizure as a bunch of crap, going back to probably even before Bill Clinton's presidency. Right, but you know it's still there, and it's it's almost like a Monty Python tests of whether or not

a woman is a witch. If she weighs more than a duck, So she's made of wood, that's it. That's it. Got a drowner. Maybe she was eating crunchy frogs. I don't know. Yeah, yeah, that's I've always avoided. Yes, yes, and James h let's I I mentioned this before you came on. I've done this on my Liberty Conspiracy Show, but I'd like to show this for the David Knight audience as I fill in for David Knight. James Bovard is our guest on the David Knight Show.

Everybody and place your questions in Rock Finchat after we show this, get to its thoughts about the conflict, the seeming bipolar problem between the so called war on drugs unconstitutional of course, and the so called war on terror, which has seen such a destruction of so many of the rights that are supposed to be protected by the US Bill of Rights. And James, I'd like to turn right now to this. There might be a little ad that pops

up. This is from twenty years ago. It's Heraldo Rivera on the ground in Afghanistan as US soldiers guarded the Heroin poppy crop. The fact that the Dural government is here and is the opium trade the Taliban is using it to intimidate the population. Joining us from Helmand Province is Haroaldo Rivera. Good morning to you, Haroldo. Tell us what you've seen during your days there in Afghanistan. Hi Allison, Dave n Clayton. Yes, in some ways.

The Marines brilliantly executed invasion of Marja, this town in the middle of Helman Province was the easy part. The hard part now is governing this province and province as you suggest, that has become addicted to opium in many many ways. That is the principal crop that is being grown here. The Taliban lend the farmers the money they are indebted to the Taliban, they have to grow

the opium. Now, the Marines, in their success, are in a sense of victim of their success because now the population is you know, they have these opium fields and we are tolerating it. We are tolerating the cultivation of the opium because we know that if we were to destroy it now, the population would turn against the Marines and it would be a real security risk. Let me introduce Lieutenant Colonel Brian Christmas. He's the commanding officer of the

third Battalion, six Marines. Really a wonderful group of Marines here. I know that you care deeply about this contradiction, the fact that here you have one of the best fighting forces in the world ever mounted and in the sense you're watching as this opium as being grown. I know it grinds at your gut. How do you deal with it? What are you doing about her? Well, frankly, this is part of the culture. So while my grind and my gut, it's what they do. So it's very interesting,

James. I bring that up, of course, knowing that they were unconstitutionally there. Ron Paul offered a declaration of war. He got three votes.

Of course, he was not going to vote for it himself, and I thought that it was important to bring that up because we have this bipolar situation of the US government telling us they have this so called war on drugs, then invading a foreign nation, occupying it for two decades, and as they're occupying it, seeing the opium coming out of there increase and the proportion of

the world's trade going up to near ninety seven percent coming from Afghanistan. Now, James, just a few weeks ago, I was reading about how the Taliban, and again I'm not in favor of one group destroying the crops of anybody, but Afghanistan is no longer number one on the export of opium poppy

products. It's now something like me on mar or something like that. They've dropped because the Taliban did get in there, and rather than doing what the government told us they would do, which would be to take over the fields and run them themselves, they're destroying the fields. And it is amazing to me because we got people who are accustomed to the United States being in Afghanistan, even some military members. I've spoken to them, and I've been at

airports. I've seen them in their fatigues and I say, oh, are you heading out somewhere. They're like, yeah, I'm going to Afghanistan, going to Iraq. And I say, listen, if you don't want to answer this question, if it makes you feel uncomfortable, that's okay. I don't want to make you feel uncomfortable. But I know you swear an oath to the Constitution. Yes, you will answer to constitutional orders. Yes, there is no declaration of war. The only way the president can send troops

out constitutionally is if there's a declaration of war. How do you feel knowing that you swe to the constitution but they're sending you out in a breach of the constitution. And their answer always is well, I do what they tell me. And I think that that is sad and of course, very frightening. And I hope that you know, I don't want to be too explicit on it, but I hope that people will remember this is the type of

policy what we see right here on the screen. This is the type of policy you get when people don't try to keep tabs on their own ethics and what is right and wrong and contradictory based on government policy and what they were doing there. I wonder, James, if anybody could say, gee, you know you are guarding those fields. Now, we're going to come in and do civil asset forfeiture on the US military now, because of course you're

involved with a crime, we can just take your jeeves. You think they would do that, James, Well, I think it might be difficult to collect if there is something. And I don't know how long you can stay with us, James, But I do want to ask a couple questions from rock Way. Excellent. Excellent, So let's head over to rock Fin and Rumble Chat and see what you have to say everybody here on the David Knight Show. And here are some of the points that are brought up over at

rumble a rock Finn. We're seeing Okay, they're talking about Heraldo Rivera. Now, yes, someone brought up the plandemic, the pandemic and the lockdowns. Love for you to be able to address some questions on that. Regarding civil liberties James, and Michael Desalvio says we should just grow it here in the United States. Very good point and hal nine thousand, Watson, I'm

sure you understand the reference there, James. A little dig on IBM, says, oh American way, and they also say no war on farmer drugs. Those are subsidized and protected. Let's talk about the lockdowns for a second, James, you saw what was going on, and then we'll talk about the Capitol Building maybe January sixth, because you visited there and just seen the stark in your face police state appearance and practice there and how things have changed.

Do you have any thoughts about the United States government, including various governors most of them, and legislatures, cracking down on people's civil liberties, choosing essential non essential businesses, shutting things down with vaccine, passports, the border. You've got to be jabbed, all these types of things. There's a solid chapter in the book on the COVID crackdown, craziness you know, I think one of the clearest lessons of the pandemic was that in the long run,

people have more interfear from paul fish than from a virus. You have so many politicians who gave themselves dictatorial power. There were some great Supreme Court

dissents during the early part of the pandemic. I believe it was just just as Gorsuch, who was who was mocking the state of Nevada for putting very very low limits for church attendance, but there was there was a much larger limit for going to the casinos, and he said, it's really difficult to reconcile the First Amendment with the He had a very good line afterwards, trust

me on that one. But there were lots of lots of good court decisions, but the hysteria by the media, most of the media, not all of it in favor of unlimited government power. And to see how the media made saints out of people like Falci in spite of all of his contradictions, in spite of his flip flops, it was almost as if groveling to the government was the only way people could be saved. Absolutely absolutely right, and his elitist el seignor approach, looking down his nose at people, you know,

the way that you know. I wish ran Paul had gone farther. I hope he continues to do more, not just questioning the gain of function, but questioning any of the United States government involvement in the JAB research. And of course they called those countermeasures, claiming they could do that as a DoD type of preparatory thing against a potential attack by some foreign nation developing a virus. But they're the ones who developed developed the virus and directly through Eco

Health Alliance, moving it from North Carolina over to Wuhan. So all of it is unconstitutional. And here's the quote on page seventy seven, folks from Neil Gorsuch, James writes in his new book Last Rites, available at the

Libertarian Institute, also on Amazon James Bouvard at Jim Bouvard on Twitter. Politicians effectively promised to banish all COVID risk by obliterating individual liberty, but according to the Centers for Disease Control, most Americans still contracted COVID despite quote the greatest

intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country. End quote as Neil Gorsuch declared in twenty twenty three, those lockdowns destroyed millions of jobs, spurred hundreds of thousands of bankruptcies, and sparked far more suicides, alcoholism and drug abuse JIM. Everything from local schools and the teachers' unions pushing for even

more outside the school so called education. Everything from parents speaking up about that sort of thing and the way that they were speaking up about wokeism being detected by the DOE, then working with the National School Boards Association to try to concoct a narrative that the concerned parents were somehow potential domestic terror threats, and then getting the FBI to investigate them, which was halted supposedly but not really

when they got discovered. To the lockdowns, the JAB passports, and as I've mentioned, the use of HIPPA the nineteen ninety six Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act supposedly to protect our privacy, but in between pages seventy five and ninety five of the PDF, people can see how the head of HHS can demand medical records from anybody who is medical in a medical profession, who accepts Medicare Medicaid patients to things like the people bringing in things on trucks from Canada.

You've got to be jazz to all sorts of things. You can protest for BLM, but you can't protest for your own rights to protest unbelievable, unbelievable encroachments, and they cannot be forgotten. These sorts of things have to be remembered, and they have to be fought. They have to be fought on a local, state, and federal level. And it just amazes me that so many people just allow these things to come out and the lies.

Fauci openly saying well, yes, I lied about masks, and now I'm giving you a spurious reason is because I think they're so important to have masks when everybody knows the masks aren't important. Just absurd. What were some of the standout things as you went back on this, because there's so much regarding the lockdowns and the lies from the federal government and the constitutional side of things

and people's rights. Well, yeah, I've got a section in the COVID chapter on how the Biden Whitehouse brow beat the FDA to force them to give full approval the Pfizer vacks for COVID because they had to have that before Biden imposed his mandate for all Americans working for large companies to get VAS and to

see the absolute contempt for anyone who did not roll over in command. Shortly after Biden gave his speech in September twenty twenty one on his vax mandates, Biden showed up on CNN and he said that the only reason that people weren't getting vaxed because they want their freedom to kill you with their COVID virus. And this is and these are lines which have a lot never really showed up

in the media radar screen. People do recall that Biden promised that if you get the injection, then then you won't get COVID and that was a false statement even when he said it, because the CDC knew there were a torrent of breakthrough cases, but the FEDS were covering them up. But then the cover up collapsed absolutely. And we know that even in the during the early testing, they then got rid of their their control group, they ended up

giving them the injection. The whole thing was absurd. And again, you know that goes towards my libertarian argument of don't put your faith in the central authority. That then can be gamed for rent seekers to try to make sure

their stuff gets through, especially when you got that revolving door. And as we you know, we've discussed with your amazing book, the fair trade fraud, some of the biggest corporations have big incentives to make sure that their competition is knocked out and they get either government contracts or tariffs that will protect them or mandates to say you must use this product. And this is exactly what

Biden did. It's amazing to me to think that people think that this sort of thing can be reformed without actually at least questioning the very moral and ethical premises on which these people base their arguments that you must be forced to pay for your own protection, because it doesn't work. It never works that way. You're not going to get any satisfaction if the agency that is supposed to protect you can just take your money at any time. They're actually a protection

racket, you know, yeah, you know. And this is something which compounds with the censorship stuff because okay, so the Biden folks come in and Binen was hell bent on persuading people that the COVID vaccines that were had only emergency use approval. Were panaceas. And so what the Biden Whitehouse did was cracked down on Twitter and Facebook and force them to suppress people making jokes about COVID vaccines. If you only made some kind of meme on Twitter, it's

like, boh, you were suppressed because it was like that. The it was as if the COVID vaccines would only were a freedom of speech was destroyed. That's absolutely right, James, absolutely right. And I'll point something out to you. I don't know whether you've gotten to see his tweet today, but Glenn Jacobs mentioned this on Twitter. I'll see if I can find it,

very very quickly on Twitter he brought up. I retweeted it that since he is mayor of Knox County. Of course, he's the former pro wrestler who played Kine and bench press was funny here in New Hampshire bench press five I was. I was talking to him once at a conference. He told me he's bench press five twenty. Wow, are you kidding me? No? No, Holy So I'm not going to argue with him. All right, Well that's excellent. Yeah, let me see if I can find this

tweet. I don't I could paraphrase it, but let me see if I can just give this to you, because he mentioned that Deborah Burks joined him and other people who were involved with government in Tennessee in a closed door meeting, and he mentioned that she told people that a lot of the information they had about And I don't want to be too explicit here because I'd rather read what he said, but I'll see if I can find it here. Yeah, Burks came to Knoxville in September twenty twenty. Is that the one?

Yes, that's it? Do you have it on yours? James, Yeah, I have it on this Yeah, yeah, feel free to read that and yeah yeah. Just quoting Glenn Jacobs, he says that in a private meeting, Burks told us that bars and restaurants should be closed. She admitted that the data didn't support it, but said it was necessarily to quote send a message about the seriousness of the virus. That's marketing, not science, says Glenn Jacobs. Job, Glenn, and he is a great, great

guy. In fact, I think we might have met either the year you were up here for the uh Libertarian Pork Porcupine Festival and Naomi Wolf was here, or it might have been the year after that, but yeah, a very good guy. And of course he lives down in Tennessee now and yeah, it's it's amazing to see the stuff that was going on. And and Glenn fought tooth and nail to try to prevent those sorts of mandates in his in Knox County, and good for him. And you know, uh,

it's it's you, you guys that come from the country. James, You're still holding up the side for truth. It's redneck heritage. Yeah, and you know, I have some comments that were they're also showing comments now people are watching us on Twitter. Previously, it would be difficult to comment on Twitter. You would have to go in, and just now people are commenting, I've got thank you so much for watching The David Knight Show Chs.

Eight four to three on Twitter slash x and he mentioned Freeway Rick Ross and of course you know the terrible things that happened to Freeway. Rick Ross cleaned up his life. He says Trump might push for NATO to be closed as well. Well, I wouldn't. Don't count your chickens before they hatch on that one, my friend. I don't think they were going to see that

happen. But who knows you can always be hopeful. And let's see over on rockfinchat Scott Atlas had some very interesting things to say on the highway or about Berks and Company. Scott Atlas was talking about the inner workings there and how he kept getting shut out. They would start to have meetings even without him. They wouldn't even call on him once they found out what his position would be, he wouldn't be there. And yeah, there's so many,

so many interesting things to discuss, James. What do you think stands out as you think about all the stories that you have in there? Is there something that you would want to really stress to the audience One or two items here before we close things off with you, and thank you very much. If you have to go, go for it. I mean, thanks,

thanks for all your kind comments, thanks for the excellent questions. I guess the the over overview I'd want folks to take away is just the fundamental principle of what happens when politicians and government officials can claim control of your life, and then once they have that established, it's an unlimited series of often idiotic dictates. I mean, you think of TSA, what you've got to do.

When you're flying, you think of the COVID lockdowns. You think of a lot of other federal mandates that are helping wreck this country, wrecking our prosperity. You think of how the government is destroying our currency. And people in DC don't give a damn because they're mostly all very well paid. Uh. And there's just so much damage that the that the political class is inflicting on the nation, and people need to fundamentally reevaluate how they look at the

US government and American politicians. It's interesting. I was commenting on Facebook someone in I'd had some posts from a few years earlier, and so I said, I was replying to someone and said that said something like, well, well, I hope that we can whip the political rascals in the coming years. And Facebook gave me a warning for saying talking about whipping the political rascals, and I was thinking, Okay, I guess that they're not familiar with

Thomas Paine saying that politicians were the most rascally group of humanity. But there is there is this concervative effort to make people deferential to the ruling class and to make it seem like the real problem is that people who talk about whipping the political rascals, not all the lies and abuses from the Washington elite. James Beauvard at Jim Beaouvard on Twitter, your website. Great conversation recently with

Tom Woods. There's just awesome stuff. Libertarian Institute. Everybody check out the Libertarian Institute. This is a Libertarian Institute publication. And James, before you go, I'll refer once more to that page seventy seven because you have that quote in there, and this should be sufficient. Just this statement should be enough for people to say, Okay, I need to fight back for truth, because we knew this was false the minute he said it. Quote,

You're not going to get COVID if you have these injections. July twenty first, twenty twenty one, President Joe Biden, and you wrote the COVID nineteen pandemic opened up Pandora's box of perils to freedom, prosperity, and health. Though judges torpedoed a few despotic to crees, politicians fanned pandemic fears to seize nearly absolute power. Despite pervasive abuses, not a single government officials spent a

day in jail for the most politically exploited pandemic in American history. And James, their excuses about so called public health run not only in conjunction with the nonsense of that man, Joe Biden, but run counter to individual liberty. It's a consequentialist view, and they have excused the attack on everybody's individual rights.

There's no such thing as public health. There's only individual health. And the minute someone tells you, I'm in a group of people, we're in charge, and we are going to decide what the public health is and what we can do to you, they're immediately negating their own argument, because you

are just a member, as everybody else is of this group. And if they can threaten you, if they can threaten you, they can threaten somebody else who's not threatened today, they can threaten him tomorrow, because they're always going to be there. Yep. And so this is so important this book. Thank you, Hey, thanks so much for the kind of words. Thanks for doing a great job of pulling out some of the best parts of the book. I really appreciate that. Gardner, you got it, James,

you got it. You know sometimes I get I just I just get so appreciative of your work, James, any any thoughts people, just to mention where people can find you as you head off and continue working on various places. I've been doing quite a bit lately for the New York posts. I've done some stuff for Meazies Is Toude, Brownstone American Conservative Magazine, other places which I should not be forgetting, but I am. Well, no

problem, James. James Bovard is with us, and James, next time I bring you on, maybe i'll play that Rifleman's soundtrack in honor of a great show guy. Uh came from good country country stock and fought for for goodness. Or maybe I'll play Uh, there's a song called high on Drugs about the drug war and uh all on drugs. Hey, Hey, I'm I was. I was trying to follows help my boy scout image that you

know that well well, James, thank you so much. Next time we'll also talk about some of your personal reflections as you watch around the Capitol and saw some of the very things that people can see just by looking at the cover of your book, The Razor Winter on the Capital. Just a quick

comment. The photo and the covers was one that I took when I was on a hike going around the uh uh, the capital when it was uh, you know, thousands of National Guard troops with M sixteens and camouflage, and it was like, you know, I felt like, ah, American democracy, it's finally being been perfected. Well, how dare you engage in photography without a license, you Charlottean You you evil man? Don't you understand? And how dare you put these pictures out on social media? Nina Djenkovitch

is gonna sing at you, my friend, you better watch out. Well, it'll serve me right. Thanks so much, Turner, Thanks James James Bovart, Folks, thank you James Bovart so much for being a guest on The David Knight Show. And boy he calls up the Glenn Jacobs quote right

off the bat. Great stuff. Everyone, have a terrific day. As we round off the program of The David Night Show tomorrow, Tony Rdeburn of Wise Wolf Gold and Silver Exchange will be here and Handy says this of course Handy's profession and EMT work says, I have a hard time even using the word COVID when I've never seen anything worse than what looks like a cold slash flu. But I've seen the jab name and kill several harps in Australia. Have some marmite for me, my friend. Have a great day, everyone,

stay free and great show guard. Thank you so much. Karen Carpenter says, I like to learn. Karen Carpenter, many hearts to you, Little John, Thank you, Accult priestess watch a cult priestess on Rock Fann. She is amazing and what a wonderful gracious host. And Matthew Ronson, thank you. Photos Taking photos is dangerous. Hel nine thousand, thank you very much. And chev Ken three two one, thank you very much for being there. I appreciate all of you being there. Maloney, thank you,

Matthew Ronson, thank you. I appreciate that everyone. Tomorrow, I won't be here, but i'll be here Friday. We're gonna do a little countdown on Friday, and we're gonna have a little special guest for the countdown. I'm looking forward to that. It's gonna be super awesome, super mega awesome. And if you detect a smile on my face is because I'm planing something goofy. So it's gonna be on and join me tonight on Liberty Conspiracy.

At six o'clock, we'll run through even more breaking stories, news resources, The David Knight Show, The Davidknightshow dot Com. Check it out. Remember if you want to get involved with Gerald Solente's great work, check out Gerald Solente's work. And uh, if you want to get Gerald Solente's publication, then you can get a ten percent discount with Gerald Celente. And I

got to say, so many people working for freedom. You know, whether you get Trends journal or you know you're you're going to watch Redacted or whatever, you're watching my Liberty Conspiracy. Thanks, thanks for being interested. Really appreciate it. I'll leave you again with a little ad for David Knight's great music and a little something to recognize David and the kindness of them welcoming me to the show. So let's check it out. Everybody. Thank you very

much watching the show. Don't forget if you do want to contribute over on Rockfin and Rumble, everything goes to them. Still have a chance to do so, and I really appreciate it and share the show after the fact. Great to have you there, Ga boy, thank you so much, and we'll see you again on Friday. Tony Ardeburn tomorrow nine am and of course my show. If you want to watch Liberty, Conspiracy, Rumble Rock, find my Twitter at Guard Goldsmith. As the prisoner would say, be seeing

you. You're listening to The David Night Show.