Fri 29Mar24 The David Knight Show Unabridged

Using free speech to free minds. You are listening to the David Knight Show as the clock strikes thirteen on Airstrip one. Welcome to the David Knight Show. I'm Gardner Goldsmith, filling in for David today on this good Friday, and I hope that your day has started beautifully. Birds are chirping outside the studio here and I'm enjoying the blessings of God. Thanks for joining us on this the twenty ninth day of March twenty twenty four. We've got a lot

to discuss today. Our guests will be Jacob Hornberger, the founder and president of the Future Freedom Foundation, in the ten o'clock hour, and in the eleven o'clock hour, Eric Peters of Eric Peters Autos will join us as we explore the world and get lessons of freedom. Wow, it is a beautiful day out there, isn't it? Wherever you are, I hope that you

can find a beauty there. And Welcome to the David Knight Show. I'm Gardner Goldsmith, blessed to be here with you in the audience on Rockvin, on Rumble, on d Live, and on David Knight's Twitter slash x feed liberty terarian. Of course, you can find The David Knight Show at Ddavidnightshow dot com every day and listen to the show Monday through Friday live at nine am Eastern times, straight through to noontime. The best news coverage from the

best newsman and philosopher, David Knight. And I'm just delighted to be here with you today. Everyone you might know my work from MRCTV, and I want to thank all of those folks at the MRCTV offices just outside of the Swamp in Washington for what they do. Eric Shiner terrific guy chatting with him a little bit yesterday via text, and I look forward to getting your comments inside Rockfinn rumble Chat. And I'm really looking forward to hearing what you're thinking

about some of these stories. So for the next hour, we're gonna do a quick news update, dig into some of the breaking stories, and reflect a little bit on Good Friday. I have something special that I put together for you today because I was looking forward to filling in for David, and I want to thank David and Travis and the entire Night family for being so gracious to me and to you the audience, and just showing such incredible affection

and devotion to principle. They're just terrific people. And chatted with David a little bit by a text yesterday and Travis as well, and I hope that they're having a terrific day today. Absolutely, and I hope you are too. On this the twenty ninth day of March twenty twenty four. Let's see what's on tap on the program today, everybody for The David Knights Show three twenty nine, twenty four. Wow, we're almost headed into April. I

don't do April Fools jokes anymore, that's for sure. But on April second, I'm supposed to see adam Ant play live. I hope I can make it. I hope I can make the show, as well as Dave Wakeling from the English Beat. So that'll be a lot of fun boy. What a great team up that'll be. Well. I'm looking forward to today, a very special day for Christians. Today on The David Knights Show, we're going to be covering a lot of information the bridge collapse. And remember yesterday

I asked the question of is it constitutional collapse? As well well last night on My Liberty Conspiracy Show, and I should mention. I do a live show every Monday through Friday at six pm, a breaking news story show where we break apart the breaking news and derive long standing lessons for freedom out of that I've lectured in political philosophy and economics and things like that take a very

strong pro liberty stance on things. And so we take a lot of these news stories and we try to derive some long standing intellectual ammunition that we can then apply to future instances where there might be something very similar. And then we look back at history, talk to great people like Tony Ardibyrn, who has an amazing sense of history and great wit. And in fact, from Tony Ardaburn's wit, we're deriving one of the terms that I started to use

last night about the bridge collapse. We'll talk about the bridge collapse. We'll talk about whether or not there is a narrative collapse or it's just bad management from of course, the central authority in Washington, DC, because everybody knows collectivism is great. Oh my goodness, I shouldn't laugh about the situation coming out of that terrible tragedy, but what can you do? It's another example of really really bad management or is it an example of something more nefarious after

the fact. I'm not talking about how the bridge collapse happened with the shipping container ship hitting the bridge, but I'm talking about the way that the politicians are handling this. And we saw some of that as politicians jumped on and immediately decided they were gonna send federal funds over there where there's nothing constitutional to do that. We're also going to take a look in this hour at Good Friday. It's the good and the bat Okay, the good, the bad,

and maybe the ugly. But we're gonna try to look at the good. We're gonna look at Good Friday not so good for some cultural Marxists. They don't seem to like Good Friday. I know you might be shocked. I don't want to be too assumpthing, but maybe you too are not too surprised. We'll look at the Russians versus the Deep Staters on the Moscow attack, as the Russian spokeswoman and recalls the US working with terror cells, and we might get into the Canada made the courts and more, plus perhaps the

Supreme Court on the MAGA defamation suit. But I might put in a couple other things there, So let's check out what's happening right now with you. Feel free to drop your messages inside Rockfinn and rumble Chat. It would be great to see you. Let me know that everything's going all right for you, if the sound is good and so on and so forth. Want to make sure that that's all set for you, and I want to say hi to everyone in the chat. Jason Barker is there of Nights of the Storm

of course, does great work and is working with Freeworld dot fm. They are all just putting in their own time. It's just something where they are creating. Thanks to Billy Ray Valentine and Tony Rdeburn, they're creating an audio platform for people who want to speak about freedom. And Jason Barker has been very very helpful in helping other people get into that to be able to get their technologically to be able to get their shows broadcasting live on Freeworld dot fm.

So if you want to listen in your car, it's very easy and it doesn't take as much buffering. You can just listen to the audio stream. So thank you very much Jason Barker for what you do and Knights of the Storm and of course in the Foxhole, great research on every one of his shows. Check out Jason Barker. It's real Jason Barker on Twitter slash

x Steve Swan, thanks for being there, and Harps from Australia. Greetings mate, good to see you as well, Dougalug and boy, I'm just so pleased to see so many fine, fine folks in the audience out there. And yes, Jason, I wore my red shirt in honor of you today and your Star Trek Star Trek interests because yeah, people might not know, but I did. I won't say I did some time. I had a great time working in the the offices of Star Trek Voyager, so it

was a really good good time. We'll check in with Rumble Chat in just a little while. Let's find out what we're going to be talking about for our first story now when I do Liberty Conspiracy Monday through Friday at six pm on Rockfin and Rumble, just look it up or go to my Twitter slash x at Guard Goldsmith. I often opened the show with the news flat and so I turned to as I mentioned on David's show yesterday, I turned to this little clip. Sometimes not all the time, but almost every time as

part of our montage for the news flash. It's from a little film that I did with some friends called Skippy Benderman and you can see it on YouTube. And yes that is me. I am the one in the white body paint with the white tuxedo and the black tie and the black wig. It was a spoof of cartoon superheroes along with my friend Spike who played Alan Granny Liquor Spindle and supposedly we were masters of the sguise who could go anywhere because no one would recognize us. So it's time, one and all, it's

time for the news flash. Yes, oh hell, hell who Mary's parents? Oh second, Mary's parents last year? Wait a minute, I know you guys, sure from the news splash? Oh man, what's on tap? First? Well, we're gonna go with a quick warfare update. There's some important information that I think is important. I'd like to give it to you, get your thoughts, and maybe again break apart some of these stories to get some long standing lessons about history or perhaps hypocrisy on the part of

the United States. I know, I know, a shock on the part of the US government. Absolutely what oh yes, yes, I would have enjoyed to see Edwin star. What a voice. What a voice, I mean, even more soulful than the Godfather himself. Yes, indeed, I gotta say I would have loved to have seen everyone star. That would have

been really, really, really cool. So let's talk about these stories, and of course, do let me know inside the chat if you're getting the audio, if the tech is looking good, and so on and so forth. And thank you very much. I really appreciate your feedback. Rumble We'll check him with rumble chat in a little while. But let me give you a couple of these stories I've been watching and get your feedback on these as well. First off, let's look at anti war dot com. This is

a positive so and this is not the first time this has happened. You'll see this from antiward dot com. The great and amazing yeoman's work of Dave DeCamp. State Department official resigns over Biden's support for Gaza slaughter. Anne Shalen, who served as a foreign Affairs officer in the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, has resigned from her post, and she

wrote in an off ed for CNN of all things amazingly. For the past year, I worked for the Office devoted to promoting human rights in the Middle East. I believe strongly in the mission and in the important work of that office. Well, it'd be nice if that were constitutional, but pretty much not. However, as a representative of a government that is directly enabling what the International Court of Justice has said could plausibly be a genocide in Gaza,

such work has become almost impossible. Unable to serve an administration that enables such atrocities, I have decided to resign from my position at the State Department of

State, she wrote. And oftentimes, as we know, especially as we have seen exemplified with such stark clarity under people like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, the State Department is a facilitator of the CIA, the Atlantic Council, and NATO in overthrowing nation states, starving people like those in Iraq, as we saw with Madeline Albright, and causing havoc all around the world by communicating and working directly with terrorist ties everywhere. Just look at the groups that are

involved with the United States as it occupies a third of Syria. Sheilin said she did not initially intend to make her resignation public, but did so after being encouraged by colleagues in the State Department. Quote. When I started to tell colleagues of my decision to resign, the response I heard repeatedly was pleased. Speak for us. She's twenty five years old, and she is the third now just in the past few months to resign from the Biden administration on

this particular issue. So just that is a positive. But of course there are some negatives. Let's go with a little bit of the negative. The hypocrisy of the United States government when it comes to their position on Israel, Gaza, Dave DeCamp, children, and now the state of things that There's been the Saudi who the ceasefire, but now the US is bombing Yemen and in a bombing campaign that's not supported by the Saudis. They don't want anything

to do with it. And new US sanctions are now blocking a peace deal in Yemen. There's that, and there's the next story. This next story is about the United States smearing the author of an Israeli genocide report and claiming, of course that that person is anti Semitic. Let's go with it, Dave DeCamp, So I'm sure she's not happy about that as well. All

right. So the next one here, the US smears the author of an Israel genocide report as anti Semitic. So the State Department on Wednesday suggested the author of a UN Human Rights report that says there are reasonable grounds to believe Israel's committing genocide is anti Semitic as a way to dismiss the allegations. So the author of this report, Francesca Albinize, she's a UN Special rappertoire to the occupied Palestinian territories. She presented this report to the UN Human Rights Council

on Tuesday. She said, quote, Israel has committed three acts of genocide with the intent causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the

group. End quote. And they definitely have done that, considering all these assaults on hospitals, and if you remember, they actually left babies to die at one hi Freet what hospital that was at but just horrific nick h babies that were left to die and never found decomposing. I mean in the incubator. This is very heavy stuff, obviously, but I want to make sure that I cover it. And by the way, those of you who might

not be familiar with, you know, watching my show or whatever. My last name's Goldsmith, and I attended Boston University, which is like, you know, ninety percent school population of Jewish people. But I'm not Jewish. It's an old English name like nailor or smith or farmer or anything like that, you know, so one of those professional names sort of thing English and Irish. And I joked around the other day I said, yeah, so on Saint Patrick's Day, I yelled at myself in front of a mirror for

my own terrorism and my own imposition of government. But I want to turn now to a clip that I think will show you the fatuousness of the US administration. And this is an example of many US administrations. Even those people who support Donald Trump, I hope would recognize that Donald Trump was not exactly the peacemaker that they thought or heard that he was, as he occupied a third of Syria and instituted and conducted extra judicial murders of drone strikes all over

the world. So let's take a look at Mark Miller. I want to show this to you, some video that I've collected and make sure that I can get this together. Yeah, here we go. Now, I don't know who this man is. He's a reporter who often speaks back against White House folks people. But I want to show you the US double talk on

Gaza. When it comes to a ceasefire. There could be a cease fire that the United States could initiate in the Middle East right away and could stop the Israeli occupying force which it is, from committing many, many more murders and genocide with what I think is genocide with US made weapons that our tax money and future generations are paying for from the United States, they could just stop sending them weapons. They could conform to their promise to uphold the US

Constitution. For goodness sake on Good Friday, at least we could ask for that. At least we could ask for a modicum of honesty from those people. But do we get it, No, we don't. But there are some reporters who are willing to ask these people, well, you have all these agreements. Why do you have all these agreements? If you don't abide by them, and everything turns out to be a paper tiger. With all

of your agreements, why is it that they continue to give weapons? And again, I'll remind folks, if you thought that the budget that they passed last week from the House in the Senate was bad, just remember again that it includes an automatic three point eight billion dollars to go to Israel and mostly weapons. In addition to the fact that again those people who are always wearing their hearts in their sleeves with our money and our children's money, who send

aid everywhere all around the world for food and things like that. As David Crockett noted in eighteen thirty in his speech, not yours to give as charitable as they might make it look. As we mentioned with Jacob Hornberger's piece on social security recently, an excellent piece, it's not charitable to use somebody else's money to give it to a third party. That's not charity. It's called theft. You're just propping yourself up to the third party, which is essentially

what politicians do all the time. Of course, right, I'm not telling you anything new, but let's make a new spin on this because now on the contemporary current news side of this, we see that the United States Relief Agency that has been giving the Palestinians food for years and is the bulk of their food support, as the Israelis have moved in decade after decade and taken more and more of that land there and shut those people in and now is

not even opening up the gates for the food to come in on the ground. Is delaying things by building this dock, this port, when they could just open up the gates on the ground. But instead, not only are they not opening the gates, they're killing people at the gates, and they're

killing UN food workers there well. Now the United States, in addition to giving the almost four billion dollars as it has given last year, in the year before and the year before and so on and so forth, they're also not sending that food aid money to the UN and Relief Agency to give the food aid to Palestine. Now, I know, far be it from me,

but I think many sensible people look at that scenario. They're looking at those puzzle pieces in front of them on the table under the lights, and they're saying, hmm, I think that last puzzle piece maybe gives me a hint that the United States is facilitating genocide. Maybe the United States is facilitating Israel sweeping the remainder of the innocent women and children who are there out of

Gaza. And as I mentioned, if people want to use the argument that Israel can continue to attack a land it already occupies to recover hostages, and we'll see a little bit of this coming from Mark Miller, of course, from Washington. But if they make that argument, then, as I mentioned, for years, year after year after year, the Israeli government has apprehended and held hundreds, hundreds a year of women and teenage kids and people they

never charge with any crime, again, extra judicial kidnapping. So if people are willing to give the Israeli government, the occupying force a pass to say, oh yeah, go ahead, do whatever you want. In the meantime, even the Israeli forces say, well, if we kill a few of the hostages, it's for the greater good. Again, consequentialists totally immoral, and they've literally shot hostages who have escaped and tried to reach the idea with

their hands up. They've killed them. They've killed the people they're supposed to rescue for the greater good. You got to break a few eggs to make that collectivist domlant, don't you right. So it's a really troubling thing to see when the United States could stop this in a few days by saying no more weapons, because the bulk of the weapons that they're using in that area are US made weapons. So let's turn to us double talk on Israel Gaza

And again I don't know their supporter is. I wish I could mention to you his name, but you might have seen him before. He usually pushes back on a lot of this double talk. Here we go, and so what do you expect now to happen as a result of the passage of this resolution? So I think you expect that Israel is going to announce the fire. I do not. It's so if you expect that Hamas is going to

hostages. So I'm glad you get you mentioned that because one of the things that we have objected to for some time is that most of the people that call for a cease fire, we believe are calling for Israel to unilaterally stop operations and not calling for Hamas to agree to a cease fire where they would release hostages. It goes so it could but so the wa wait wait, wait, wait, but the resolution today is a non binding resolution. Okay, so what's the point why why why why did we abstain? Why didn't

so? I think that's separate apart from this resolution. We have active, on going negotiations to try to achieve what this resolution calls for, which is the uh AN immediate cease fire and the release of hostages. I don't know. I can't say that this resolution is going to have any impact on those negotiations. But those negotiations are ongoing. They've been ongoing over the weekend and they've made progress. So I don't expect you to answer this, Nava,

just stick this in your pocket. If that's the case, well, what the hell is the point of the UN? The UN Security Council? So we think it plays an important role. H absolutely nothing. Arrange every and that you're going to get what you would like to see, not out of the U N but out of SO. We believe it's important that the UN speak, uh and the UN Securities Council speak on matters of international security.

It's why we've been engaged in this process, why we thought we were going to have a successful vote on Friday, that Russia and China, unfortunately and quite cynically vetoed. But I do believe that ultimately, if we're able to achieve a ceasefire and the release of hostages is going to come not through a UN process, but through the process with which we've engaged. Yes, in dohat, unbelievable. Okay, So talk about cynical. The resolution they're discussing

there was introduced by the United States as non binding just for cover. Then the United States didn't vote for it. They stood out as not voting, okay, And they have disapproved and shot down other resolutions. And again to the point here is that the UN is the United States globalist puppet. As

he says, what's the point of the UN Security Council? Well, the point is, of course, it's an artifice for the United States to be able to do and British authorities, for the globalists to do essentially anything they want to and build up a superstructure which they have built up since the end of World War Two for interfering in all sorts of nation states and then claiming that when those nations states say please leave us alone, that they're the bad

guys. It is, of course it's just it's the gas lighting writ large globally of what these people intend. They have to continue with these offices, they have to continue with these rituals of statism all over the place, even as the United States continues to send these weapons out. And as I mentioned, David Crockett in his eighteen thirty not Yours to Give speech noted that the

United States it's forget about not even weapons. I mean, that's like the apex of it, even the stuff that people would think would be much more humanitarian, in the food aid and all those types of things. Again, just a reminder to the people who go to Washington, DC, who are typically over my left shoulder. You swear it, oh to the United States Constitution. There's no enumerated power granted in it, if you want to call

it power. Because the United States Constitution, as nice as it is, that it has the so called checks in there and promises that you won't do certain things you skirt that you flouted all the time. So I didn't sign up for it, but at least you could try to uphold your oath. Please come on, stop using me like a punching bag. Okay, so they promised to they swear an oath to abide by the Constitution, as do the soldiers, and of course they neglect it. They think they're doing something

for the nation state rather than the Constitution. John McCain, when he was running for president, said, and when I got into the military, I swear an oath to defend the country. No, John, you swear an oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution and to follow constitutional orders. So, for example, going to Vietnam was unconstitutional. Sending weapons, even sending soldiers to Vietnam unconstitutional. No declaration of war. The only other option

is letters of market reprisal to hire mercenaries. So, John, you were breaching your oath when you agreed to go there. I'm sorry. I'm sorry to say that. Then we've got the weapons, even the food, even the humanitarian aid, as they say. As David Crockett noted when he was in Congress in his second term, he said, during my first term, I made a mistake, and we saw a fire in Georgetown. This is his famous not yours to give speech. I saw a fire in Georgetown along

with other congressmen. He was from Tennessee at the time. A congressman from Tennessee, and he said, we ran over to try to help, and it was a total loss. The couple buildings, families displaced. So we said the next day we went to Congress and we put together a bill to gather a certain amount of money as some of money to help those families rebuild

and so on, give them places to stay. He said. Later, when he was campaigning back in Tennessee, he was walking along a farmer's fence and he happened to measure his gate so they could walk near the farmers. The front was behind his horse taking his plow. The farmer stopped. He said to the farmer, I don't know if you know me. I'm one of those unfortunate fellows they call politicians. My name is He says, Oh, I know who you are. You're Colonel Crockett or mister Crockett or Congressman

Crockett. I think you might have said Colonel Crockett, he said. He said, I know who you are, and I'm sorry this has no offense to you, but I can't vote for you because you broke your oath. You have no power to do what you think is charitable with other people's money. You have an amended the Constitution. You haven't granted yourself that power.

And again there's a real problem there, I think philosophically, when politicians can say, hey, let's get this amendment going to grant us more power, and yes they you know, they have a process where other factions of government, the states will then approve or disapprove. So it does sort of put in some attenuation there. But again it's all versions of the state, and a lot of the governors and state legislatures obviously will fee eat off of whatever

Washington can give them. So David Krocatt said, you know you're right to this man. He said, you know, if you will help me and maybe appear with me in a couple places, I promise you I will never do that again. I would like to do some speeches about my mistake.

And he did, and the man attended with him. David Crockett got reelected and gave that speech in his second term around eighteen thirty on the floor because at the time they were trying to vote to give the widows of some veterans in his second term a package beyond what the veterans had been promised when they entered the military, and so he said, we can't do that. We already gave the veterans and their widows what was promised. We can't add more

to that because that runs against our oath. So good for David Crockett. You know, it was great to see that he was doing that sort of thing. And it's a good historical reminder, I think, to tell us about these things. Now. I do want to mention one other thing when it comes to you know, slandering people, bull and so on and again, you know the idea that it's a cynical ploy by the Chinese and the Russians to oppose something. Well, maybe they opposed it because it was non

binding. Talk about cynical. You introduced a non binding resolution, then you don't vote for it. You continue to be the main funder of the weapons coming out of Washington, d C. Mister Miller, and then you have the gall to claim, again in a gas lighting way, that your political opponents worldwide, China and Russia are the bad guys. I see. Okay, Well, here's one more example of some of the stuff that the pop media has been feeding us. Here is a woman who made numerous appearances on

CNN. She has been exposed as a grifter and a fraud. This comes from the Grey Zone. On March twenty fifth, her name was Kochav lkm Levy, the Israeli lawyer at the center of the campaign accusing Hamas of systemic sexual violence. And on October seventh, she now stands accused by Israeli media of scamming donors and spreading misinformation, and the Gray Zone team says the allegations

appeared just days after Akam Levey received the prestigious Israel Prize. She's a founder of the so called Civil Commission on October seventh, crimes by Halmas against women and children. She's a lawyer. Alkam Levey has gone has been a go to source for Western media. You saw our image there if you're just listening, and I was a still shot of her on CNN. Media organizations pushing the narrative that Palestinian militants carried out sexual assault on a massive and systemic basis

when they attacked Israel. Alkm Levy has starred as in a factually challenged CNN special on the topic, narrated by the fervently pro Israel host Jake Tapper. Now this is not to minimize the death and the attack against civilians that the

Hamas militants committed on October seventh. But I think it's important to recognize the ways, again to use the term that Mark Miller used, the cynical ways that Western especially United States propagandists have been pushing the buttons on sexual violence and women's rights and spinning that into it when a there's no evidence that they have provided, and b it shows again the cynicism of their ploy to think that somehow they have to make it sound somehow even darker than what was committed,

that they have to cater and somehow try to play favorites with women. Seriously. So, she was in a factually challenged CNN special narrated by as they say here the pro Israel host Jake Tapper. And there was one time when Jake Tapper did mention that he has colleagues who have family members who were being killed by the Israeli forces in Gaza. So he did a good job on that, but he identified her as an expert in human rights law who organized

a civil community to document violence. Well, the publication Harets featured al kam Levy and Herets is not super bad. They're not terrible to use a sort of a high school term, They're not super bad, or the name of a movie pretty funny but raunchy movie. Haretz featured al kam Levy as the subject of a puff piece which misleadingly claimed that her work quote presents a horrifying

picture that leaves no room for doubt. October seventh, Tomas terrorist systematically carried out acts of rape and sexual violence, and of course, on December sixth, twenty two, members of the White House National Security Council, you probably detect a note of irony in my voice, White House National Security Council.

If you're just listening in audio, you definitely probably are detected. Going with your ears, Security Council and Assistant to the President and Director of the Gender Policy Council, Jennifer Klein, hosted l km Levy in Washington to hear about her work quote, to gather testimony and document evidence of the events of October seventh, and develop a comprehensive accounting of gender based violence committed by hamas.

Hillary Clinton traveled the same rhetorical path at Columbia, and that was one of the days when protesters stood up and called her a warmonger, and she had blood in her hands, as killing Joke might say, or as Shakespeare might say. And absolutely well, here's the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey might say. Now the law lawyer's public relations extravaganza has earned her the Israel Prize, the most prestigious honor any Israeli citizen can receive from their government.

We must stand firm against the stark denial and the increasing tide of anti Semitism, she declared. Well, as I mentioned, when I was at Boston University with my last name being Goldsmith, a lot of the kids there thought that I was Jewish. Most of the kids there were not practicing Jews. They were the sort of you hear the Oscar Nazi Jews. They were statist Zionist Jewish kids. And I would hear things, and I might have mentioned this when I filled in for David a couple of weeks ago. I

would hear things from them about the Palestinians, that they were animals. And when I spoke up about it, they started to say, what are you self hating jew? And I said, well, first I'm not Jewish, like, oh, well, now you're anti Semitic any way, they could get around actually discussing an issue, just you know, blackballing, painting someone trying to use character assassination rather than dealing with the facts. And you say to yourself, I would say to myself, why do I bother talking to

these people? The reason I had to keep doing it was because of the power that these people wielded propaganda and propagandistically that I would see in the media. It was ridiculous. I remember a friend of mine from college, Lina Matta, was a Christian Christian Lebanese and and she was working on a documentary in the late eighties about what Israel was doing there and it was amazing.

It was amazing to see some of the pushback that I would get at Boston University, very very strange, and some of the things people would reveal to me when they thought that I was Jewish, it was inexplicable. But now you know, it really is manifesting itself now here in in you know,

in this terrible destruction. Well, three days after she got the award, Israel's largest newspaper, why Net, published a damning expose accusing Alki of ripping off major donors, including a member of the Biden administration, spreading fake Hamas atrocity tales and failing to deliver on her promise of a major report about sexual

violence. On October seventh, the paper wrote, quote people have disassociated themselves from her because her research is inaccurate, and Israeli government officials, oh, this is yeah, the newspaper told whyet After all, the whole story is that they want to accuse us of spreading fake news, and her methodology was neither good nor accurate. So he's saying, look, if we're trying to get news stories out there, at least we could try to be accurate,

and she's harming our cause. Government officials were particularly incensed that alkm levey spread discredited claims that Hamas militant cut and sorry for the terrible footage, the terrible visuals here in your mind that might pop up cut a fetus from a pregnant woman before raping the woman, a lie first spread by confirmed fraudster y'all see Landau. That's a lie first spread by Yasin Landau of the scandal stained Zaka

Zaka organization. Quote the story about the pregnant woman who had her stomach cut open, A story that was proven to be untrue, and she spread it in the international press, the official complaint. So it's much like the incubator story from the United States trying to invade Iraq. Right, absolutely, well, let's get to a little bit more here, folks. Let's talk a

little bit about the Ukraine story, the Ukraine narrative. Just briefly. I want to turn to the bombing and some very good information from Judge Andrew napom and big is got to refresh this. The computer is going wild here, so let's make sure I can get this done for you. Okay, here we go. I think you'll like this. And Napolitano on his Judging Freedom podcast, very good podcast, and he has excellent guests every day, just over and over again. He's got great podcasts. But I want to turn

to and of course you'll probably find her familiar, Maria Zaka Zakarova. She is the spokesperson for the Putin administration. As Judge Napolitano and his guests roll into this country. All right, here's Maria Zakarova, Number nineteen Chris, the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman. Yesterday, in order to deflect suspicion from this very collective West from Washington, London, Berlin, which literally discussed in direct text, as I said, possible tourist attacks in our country, Paris and

other NATO countries. They had to find something, anything, with something, some explanations. So they resorted to isis you took this Trump card out of their sleeves, so to speak. And the White House, together with the State Department declared at the MAID stat that Ukraine had nothing to do with it. End on the basis of what data, On the basis of what information did they draw that conclusion. It is completely unclear. Only one thing is

clear. They began to excuse the KIV regime in order to excuse themselves, because everyone understands perfectly well that there is no independent Keiev regime without Western financial support and military aid to this regime. Very good, and I have to say over at my Liberty Conspiracy show Monday through Friday six o'clock at Rumbull and rock Fen and so on, and my Twitter feed if you're looking for exits

at guard Goldsmith gard Goldsmith. But I was mentioned how the United States narrative that they warned the Russians, as I read on my show, and I tried to mention to people, and also has been noted on redacted by a former CIA intel expert. There's actually the US has provided no evidence that they warned the Russians about this. That's their claim that they warned the Russians about

this, and it's very unclear whether they did or they did not. And so there's still a lot of speculation about that attack in Moscow, but one thing is certain. As I mentioned in late twenty thirteen, the United States was involved with the Miton coup and Victoria Newlan was intimately involved with working with Nazis from the Slovada Party. Ole Tiani Bak became part of their coalition government in early twenty fourteen as one of the outside people heard in her conversation with

Jeffrey Piot that was recorded. That's the infamous f the EU conversation from twenty fourteen. But a lot of the wrongdoing started in late November early December of twenty thirteen, after the reelection of Yanikovich, and they wanted to separate Russia from Ukraine. They wanted to try to stop Russia from being able to export

its energy exports through Crimea. And of course, once that coup was established for about almost ten years, the Nazis who were backed and the Azov Battalion, who were backed by the Ukrainian government, backed by the United States government, backed by billions of dollars. They not only continued to conduct training and

things like that, they slaughtered thousands of people in that area. So just wanted to bring that up with I think some questions, some major questions that still remain about the veracity of what the United States government is telling people.

Now I want to turn just briefly to some questions about narratives about as I mentioned before, thanks to Tony Rdiburn yesterday on the David Knight Show, the Epstein Bridge, because, as we noted at the start of the show yesterday when I got to fill in for David here on the David Night Show, the story about the United States government coming out two hours after the shipping container ship hit the support pylon of the Key Bridge and caused the bridge to collapse

and loss of life there, and that seems to have fallen apart because they claimed right off the bat that there was no terrorist tie to it. Well, let's check out some of the footage that they got yesterday, because strangely this footage. They only got the footage when they arrived there about a day and a half after the United States government said well, we've concluded it wasn't a terrorist attack. Now, I'm not trying to cast dispersions to say that

it was a terrorist attack, that it was hacking. Laura Logan has said that she says that many of her inside advisors that she knows in Washington say that it was a sophisticated computer hack and so on. We had that time period where they went to check the black box and the black box suddenly had a breach of a couple minutes, just like the tapes of Nixon, just

like the cameras for Epstein. And so yesterday tony Ardeburn of wise Wolf Gold and Silver Exchange, tony Ardeburn happened to mention that it's sort of like Epstein, and I said, yeah, sort of like Nixon, like yep. So perhaps now people will call this the Epstein Bridge. I don't know. Perhaps that's a little bit too light when you think about loss of life and

things like that. But there is some strange information the NTSB as they actually confirmed that they only just arrived more than thirty six hours after the Biden administration claimed they knew everything about it. They say, hey, we got there, we got to check it out. Well, then, how did you know that there was no terrorism? The Operations and Engineering Group was able to board the vessel last night and they did a walk through of the vessel,

including the bridge and the engine room. They were looking for other electronic components, any sort of downloadable recorders, any sort of cameras, any sort of CCTV. They did not find any of those things, but that search continues. Okay, well, here's a bit more information. I want to minimize

this for you a little bit here. And we ran through some of some of the information last night on the show and a little bit yesterday, and it shows that the ship was still making seven knots at one twenty nine in the morning, the moment that the VDR recording that many people saw began recording the audible sounds of the alision. I don't know. The noise continued until one twenty nine thirty three, and the pilot made a VHF call to report

the bridge collapse just shortly thereafter. Now, a couple other things that I want to bring up here. Let's go to a little bit more of what she had to say, as some of what Laura Logan had said right off the bat is confirmed. Here here we go the cargo manifest fest. We did bring in one of ntsp's senior has Matt investigators today to begin to look at the cargo and the cargo manifest He was able to identify fifty six containers

of hazardous materials. That's seven hundred and sixty four tons of hazardous materials, mostly corrosives, flammables, and some miscellaneous hazardous materials class not okay, alrighty,

well, all right, that's not so good. But of course, and I hate to make light of this because as we know, it's going to have serious ramifications for the supply chain and so on, and goodness knows that again, it's another situation where people are overlooking systematically the areas where the United States government, according to the Constitution, is supposed to have something to do with it, and the areas where the United States government is not supposed

to have anything to do with anything. Okay, So handing money over to the state of Maryland or claiming control to rebuild the bridge, it's just not in their constitution. And you know this sort of fatuous nonsense from these people. To do this sort of thing really is something I hope people can call

out. And you know, even in a way, having the information and the ability to give to other people, there's actually something that one can celebrate and find some pleasure in being able to do that to say, you know, I actually have a couple pieces of deeper information that I'd like to relate to you, my friend. Did you know that there's nothing in the constitution

that gives them this power. You know, as we mentioned yesterday, there are only three forms of land that the government of the federal governments supposed to be able to control, not national parks, as much as people might like them, and that doesn't allow people to show whether they actually want the land to be pristine or nice or anything like that. It's got to be up

to people with private property. Now, on the constitutional level, that bridge is supposed to be controlled by the state of Maryland and then the people within it. I would like to pare it down even further to pure property rights, with no taking of my neighbor's money, no parasitism in any way. I'd like to have voluntary interaction. But as far as the Constitution goes going

back to the colonials and their revolution and what they came up with. And yes, the Constitution was a user pay of the Articles of Confederation, which was much more decentralized. And I don't think we would be incurring encountering so many of these problems if they were still under just the Articles. But obviously the Articles could not stand against the machinations of people like Alexander Hamilton who wanted

to centralize things. So I think it's an opportunity to spread information about what those founders actually put together, at least with the Constitution. But of course there are a lot of powers that work against these things. And so I just want to show you a couple of things on Good Friday that I think you might find interesting. This comes from Tirin Rose Mandelberg of my friends at MRCTV, my co workers at MRCTV. Fairfax Virginia Board of Supervisors celebrates transgender

over Jesus. This last Easter falls, last year Easter or this year Easter falls on one of the left's favorite made up holidays, trans Gender Visibility Day. Washington examer and Examiner summarized this move in Fairfax County in Northern Virginia by saying that members are quote sending a message to Christians that they do not matter as they turn one of their holiest days into a celebration of an ideology that

undermines the church's core convictions. Chairman Jeff McKay announced the following after the board unanimously decided to hijack Easter and instead celebrate yet another made up holiday for people who have a delusional sense of identity. Quote. As an elected official, it should be our moral responsibility to stand up for all people that we represent, not just the people we like or the people we agree with. End

quote. So she says, so you mean to tell me that you'll stand up for people who are living alive, but not stand up to for who created you? Really? And the Washington Examiner brought up a great point when it insisted that the Fairfax heir could have chosen literally any other day to honor the transgender folk, especially considering the area as overtly progressive and accepting of the Alphabet mafia. I think that's a very good point, and I would just

bring up this point. This is, of course, the tragedy of the Commons, the tragedy of the Commons states that anything that is commonly run, not privately owned, we'll see everybody arguing over how that's going to be managed. And of course, now with inclusivity out there and cultural Marxism coming from the Frankfurt School on with Mancus and so many of the others who brought their

ideas of Marxism into the culture. And many people think that Marx was just and pure economics, he also was cultural because his disruption of things came by leveraging the resentment people had from the old feudal class system that was now being supplanted by the Industrial Revolution, but still seeing favorites being played inside, especially

the British Parliament with special Acts of Parliament. As the royals started to decline, the Parliament started to hand favors to certain still royally connected people or politically connected people. Marx was able to utilize that for the common people to say, you see, it's the business owner who's bad. It's the bad guy. It's capitalism. That's not capitalism, that's fascism, or as Adam Smith

might say, that's mercantilism. That is cronyism, crony so called capitalism, not real free markets, but Marx utilized that to gin up the hatred and really push out his warmed over Roussaianism to steal private property from people using the government. So anytime that the government runs some sort of property, you're going to see that everybody's going to argue over it. Now, again, this is not to pooh pooh anybody's claim about traditional American Christianity or anything like that.

And at least decentralization within small towns or counties or things like that, that's much more preferable. But the lesson of philosophy, the lesson of logic, the lesson of economics, all of these things, all of those lessons come together to tell us that anything, anything that has the state the pole is touching, it will include people who are having their income, their work taken from them, siphoned off for some reason, and so they're going to

want to have a say in how it's done. I'm not saying that that's good or bad. I'm just saying that that is functional. That is the way that it is, and it's actually dysfunctional. It's the way it disfunctions, you might say. And I just want to give you a quick reminder everybody of course of the Vatican, because the Vatican during this Holy Week turned off lights for Earth Hour to promote respect from Mother Earth a number of days

ago. That story from of course Life Site News. Please visit them because they've often been they've often been shadow band and torn as sunder by a lot of the woke, the Google search manipulation, YouTube things like that Life Site was pulled off of YouTube and so you'll see, of course, the Vatican

getting all Earth mothery. However, while we have the opportunity and in about five minutes, our guest Jacob Hornberger is going to join us from the Future of Freedom Foundation, one of the absolute best institutes that you'll ever find for reading about economics and philosophy and freedom. Absolutely terrific. I hope you watch Jacob and Richard Ebling every week on YouTube over at the Future of Freedom Foundation's

channel, because they have amazing discussions about great heroes and economics. Frederick Bassi, f A Hayek, Bumba Burg, so many good Carl Menger awesome, awesome people. Want to give you a little something for Good Friday right now. And this is something that is near to near and dear to my heart because I've gotten to see this this person live a number of times, and I've gotten to see him up here with his daughter. This is a little

something for a good Friday, everybody. This is Andrea Butcelli and his daughter singing a song you might know. I wanna see. Yeah, we've heard there was a secret chorder a day we played and please when you don't really m Julia gos at best, the for the fish, the butterf major, the barble cake, aboding, pl all love me, abandon all Sipersma, siri romo, prcuse Marito, sare lager guy Belitz and con and no stategia fairy and all mean to me klakma littlevia carl lu and is santonoma too hero

nom kaam no no how er londen from me? Do you spernel was here from even a sack cross in fa king Tonabay no, I bow you. I did my best. It wasn't much. I couldn't fez so I tried to touch. I've told the truth. I didn't come to fool. And even though all rongs tell me for the Lord of suck with not in on my tongue, but holluvia oh isn't that great? Just wonderful, and talk about the ability of a person to persevere. Andrea Bachelli blinded after I believe

it was a bicycle or horse riding accident. Incredible soccer prowess and so on, shifted over into vocals and singing, used to actually sing in bars and things like that. He's got music. In fact, one of his guests on his tour was the musician who used to play with him in bars. The woman you saw up on the balcony there as his wife. And we got to see him for his Christmas concert. And it actually happened over two

days. The first day in Boston at the Boston Garden, we were supposed to see Andrea Bachelli play, but there was a delay, and about fifteen minutes after he was supposed to come on, and a woman came out, just regular, you know, regular clothing and things like that, and the orchestra was all set up and all the lights were looking beautiful, and it was his wife, and she said, you know, I'm really sorry, but I'm here to let you know that Andrea has had a chest cold.

And he we worked all afternoon and he thought he might be able to do it up to the standards he wants to present to you, but we just can't do it. So we're going to cancel the show. And I want to thank you all, and I know you all. You know you came from various places and so on. You took time out of your night. We're going to come back as soon as possible. Literally, I thought it was going to be all next year. Well, she says, you know, well, well, you know your tickets will be usable. They came

back in two weeks. It was amazing. It was amazing, and his daughter was there and his son was there, and they're just a great example of people who and put their faith in God and they understand that God put them there for reasons and those reasons are constantly revealed. So happy Good Friday to you everybody. Sorry, and big thanks to David Knight for letting me fill in for David on this to David Knight's show. Now, I want to offer the opportunity now to bring in our next guest, and that man

is Jacob Hornberger. Jacob is the founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation, and you might have seen me mention his excellent piece among many about what I mentioned before about fake charity through government and of course much more when it comes to the ripoff that is the Social Security program. And so want to welcome Jacob. I believe Jacob is going to be there. Oh, it looks like he's just away from the camera right now, so we'll bring

him in in just a minute. I think, Oh, are you there, Jacob, Yeah, I'm here. Oh great, I think we don't have you on camera, but I think we'd get You're just going on audio, looks like right now, so we can go with that. That's fine with me. Thank you for joining us. Jacob, welcome to the show. Well, thank you, Gardner, but I should be that I can't understand why I'm not there with let me see, let me check on something here. We've got a background and and your name, of course, which

is great, but we do need your handsome face. And by the way, kudos to you. I recently got to see one of your brief pieces in Spanish. Hello, Ah, there you go, looking okay, They're looking very very familiar. I've watched that face and heard that voice many times on video. Jacob, Welcome to the David Night Show, and thank you joining us. That's great and Thank you for having me Gardner. It's nice here. Real pleasure, real pleasure, and you handle the text so well.

It's always so interesting. You know, we haven't met in person, and I've admired your work for so many years. And as you know, we have your friends with Richard Eveling, and I'm acquainted with Richard from his days when he was at FEE and you were. You headed up Foundation for Economic Education for a while and your education. Both of you have brought me so much. And you probably hear this from so many people, such a rich and deep, fun way of learning, from people who are positive about

so many subjects. And some of these subjects, Jacob, and this is one of them. We're going to touch on this now. Some of these subjects are very very touchy subjects, and as I mentioned to you in email, one of the things we're going to discuss today Future Freedom Foundation. First, want to talk about how people can find you, and we'll give them

a little preview. We're going to talk about immigration in the border for the bulk of our chat today, and some people might find what you have to say as running counter to what they might have heard or some of the things that they've really gotten intense about when it comes to the battle over the border and the United States policy and you know, checking the immigrants and things like that. A lot of nuances here. We're going to talk about that.

And I really like your approach because it's the peaceful, voluntary approach and it reminds people about some deeper lessons. Why don't you tell us about Future Freedom Foundation how they can find you online and on Twitter and x and YouTube and so on. Okay, well, first of all, thank you very much for having me on. And let me just make a slight correction. Richard, my good friend Richard Ebling, did serve as president of the Foundation for

Economic Education FEE. As it's known. I served as program director, not as president. Wanting to clarify that, so I founded the Future of Freedom Foundation after leaving FEE. I founded in nineteen eighty nine, and our mission from the very beginning and has been ever since, is to present the principled

and comparing case for the libertarian philosophy. And what we wanted to do from the very beginning is to take libertarian principles and put them in the context of real life issues, so that rather than just writing an esoteric article on why the minimum wage should be repealed. We take a minimum wage controversy occurring in some state and we apply the libertarian principles to that so that these principles would be more relevant. So that's what we've done for some thirty four years.

Richard and I work together from the very beginning, and we're still working together. We're very good friends who are on the same page as the importance of principle when it comes to advancing libertarianism, and we co host a weekly show called The Libertarian Angle. It is phenomenal. I've spent so much time, you know, it's interesting, Jacob. Many many years ago, I was pretty badly injured, and I got and you're probably familiar with these things.

I got copies from laissez faire books of the knowledge products, audio tapes narrated by Charlton Heston and Lewis Rukeiser on philosophy and economics and so on, and I would listen to those over and over again. Literally, I had to do a lot of physical rehabilitation, so I was lying down a lot, and then I would start to walk and I would listen to these on cassette.

I got such a great education from those things. From some free market people, and I get the same satisfaction when I get to hear you and Richard together. And what I really like about Future Freedom Foundation is again, you don't separate the consequences of the morality of the moral choice of freedom and peace leaving your neighbor alone. Because it's not just the consequentialist philosophy of the

greatest good for the greatest number. Because good is a subjective valuation in economics, it's also something we have to assess ourselves their own souls, and when it's imposed on us, that is not a good. Politicians can't tell us

what is good for us. And so from that moral core you always draw out the consequences, the bad consequences of even for the consequentialists if they want to argue, well, this will be better, No, you show how it doesn't work, and you show how freedom leads to more prosperity, it

leads to better lives for people. So the idea of the golden rule of treating your neighbor as you would want to be treated, or treating your neighbor in a way knowing that you don't want to be treated a certain way, also reciprocating that you do a great job with that, and so kudos to you absolutely, and please pass on my best to Richard. He's phenomenal to well well, and thank you very much. I mean, I've always believed that the moral case for freedom is the most powerful case. I mean,

that's what caused me to just realize that I was a libertarian. That freedom is right. It's it's people should be free to live their lives anyway they choose, so long as their conduct is peaceful. And as Milton Friedman once said that even if freedom resulted in let's say, more poverty, he would

still favor it because freedom is right. And that's my position. But what's nice is that God has created a consistent universe where good things bring good consequences, and so a free society brings prosperity, harmony, peace, freeing people to pursue happiness in their own way. So we've got all the best of all worlds. We've got the moral case for why people should be free,

but we've also got the cases. Freedom increases standards of living for people, and it frees people up to become the best of whatever they wish to be. You know, Jacob, you remind me of and you probably have read it, that short story by Ursula le Gwynn, who passed away a few years ago, the science fiction writer, and she was very much against Jeremy Bentham's concept of the greatest good for the greatest number. She was very critical

of utilitarianism in its early forms without any sort of moral tie. And again there's the illogic of describing the greatest good of someone dictating to you, well, this is the greatest good, and of course the sacrifice of the individual. She wrote a short story called The Ones Who Walk Away from Omilas, and it's about a city that's constructed in concentric circles with a tower in the middle, just like the panopticon of Bentham. And the city is idyllic.

But once a year, everybody who is young goes into the center of the city where there's a cell. And in this idyllic city, where there's no disease and everyone is happy and so on and so forth, every youngster looks at a child, one child who is kept in the cell, in the dark, in squalor and pain, and it's in a way it's it's it's the sort of metaphorical application of all the pains and anguishes, and all the troubles of all those people are transmuted to this one child who suffers for everyone.

And those people who see it and walk away are the ones who are moral because you can't just have the benefits so called benefits for everyone. But the key thing there is that you're not going to get the benefits if you don't allow for freedom. As you say, and I think one of the one of the very important things to think about here is central authorities central planning, as if A Hyak noted, as many many economists noted even before that. But you know, Hya cut a lot of the recognition and so thus

deserved as well. But central planning and the larger areas of control lead to an information problem where the central authority doesn't isn't able to get the information that we on hand could define for ourselves and express through prices and allow for resource allocation and discovery. Instead, they make the decisions for people. So let's turn to an issue that you have done a phenomenal job discussing the border,

so called uniform border. You might have seen in my emails. I've mentioned that constitutionally, the word immigration doesn't even appear in the US Constitution for those people who call themselves constitutional conservatives. But you bring up a lot of stories from your own experiences in your youth near the rio and working on a farm, and also talking about free association again the economic importance of it. And

I'd love to hear your thoughts for people. If you encounter people who are very bound up over the federal government's got to guard the border, the federal government's got to stop illegal immigration. How do you explain it to people in ways that, especially conservatives who might be very worried about the so called immigration

issue. How do you approach it? What do you think is usually the best way that you find is a productive way where they won't look at you as being some you know, excuser for so called the Biden administration or you know taking on that sort of polarity sort of thing. Yeah, well that goes to methodology. And after three decades of advancing libertarianism, I've concluded that Frank Schulteroff, who was a famous writer libertarian conservative writer in the nineteen fifties

and sixties, he got it right. He said, our job is not to make libertarians, it's to find them. Now he referred to individualists. But you know, I'm very skeptical of convincing any conservative right winger of the merits of libertarianism open borders. I really think that our job is to find the people who or receptive that are looking for a viable alternative, because the

problem with a lot of conservatives is their minds are just shut. And so i'll, you know, if they really want to gather enter into an exchange, a well meaning exchange, instead of just to argue. The first principal argument here is the argument of freedom. I mean is what I said earlier that for me that's everything. Now that doesn't appeal to a large number of

people. A lot of Americans think they're free, and it brings to mind Johann Gerta's famous quote none are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. But what I mean by freedom is the libertarian concept of being free to cross borders peacefully, to engage in any peaceful act. That's essentially the overall concept to live your life the way you want, so long as your conduct doesn't involve the initiation of force or fraud. Well, when you

cross a border, a politic you're not initiating force against anyone. You're not violating rights. I do a lot of traveling by car, and I cross borders all the time, state borders, and a lot of other cars that are moving in my direction or in the officer direction do the same thing. You don't even know you've crossed a state border. There's no big red line there that says state border. The only way you really know it is you see a sign that says welcome to the state of North Carolina. So there

is no violation of rights crossing the border. That's part of what freedom's about. If somebody interdicts you, stops you, they're the ones that are initiating force. Now again, I think a relatively small number of people respond to that freedom argument. I think most people respond to the utilitarian argument, and that is that this system simply doesn't work. It was designed to keep people from entering the United States without without official permission. Well, originally they just

put a sign there at the border. Let's just take my hometown of Laredo, Texas, which is situated there on the border. They put a sign at the international bridge saying you cannot enter the United States without permission, And that's it okay. Well, the problem is is that people have always wanted to pursue happiness by crossing borders, by going to areas where they can get a better standard of living, better opportunity, maybe even save their lives.

And so they're going to circumvent that sign and I'm just going to go around it by trespassing on to somebody's private property, by swimming across the real grand So that means the state then has to build this huge police state. And I experienced that police state. I lived almost half my life on the border. You got highway checkpoints and all this and a lot of death, a lot of suffering. It has never worked, gardener, and it still isn't

working. But rather than recognize that, people say, oh, Biden has open borders, which is ludicrous because you've got a massive border patrol, you got a massive Berlin while, you got now Concertina, wire check points, yes, everything. So it hasn't worked. The only thing that works is freedom, and that's open borders. Absolutely. And when when I think about this, there are a few facets we're speaking with Jacob Hornberger, founder president

of the Future Freedom Foundation. Find them at f f F dot org. F f F dot Org. I'm telling you, folks, sign up for the daily emails some of the literally some of the best satisfaction of your morning and your day reading from these people. And and Jacob, this isn't. This isn't to sing your praises so loudly. I could sound like Andrea Butcelly, but uh, it's just it's a real pleasure to be able to chat

with you. If I'm looking forward to this so long. You know, there are a number of facets, little vectors that come in here, Jacob, that I'd like to mention when we think about freedom of association, because if market trades, we can ask people, is a conversation part of your freedom of association? Yes? Absolutely, is getting together for a date. Part of your freedom of association. Absolutely is sitting next to someone on a park bench. Yes? Absolutely. How about engaging in a trade, a

baseball card trade or something, Yes? Absolutely? How about a financial trade? Does there's no difference there? It's two consenting individuals engaging in what they want to do with each other and not harming each other. Should someone aggressively interfere with that? No, okay, then how about will apply the same argument to I would like to buy a baseball card from someone in England.

He made the baseball card. Well, you know, we got to pick and choose here, and I think the American maker of the baseball card. Again the consequentialist, utilitarian idea that they seem to think will benefit the American maker or the baseball card, and we can apply it to human beings as well. And a lot of times, from especially union members, they would really get angry about the idea of more migrants. Now some of them would think, well, maybe we could get them onto the unions and things like

that. A lot of political machinations there, but particularly they didn't like the

idea of high immigration because they would say they're stealing American jobs. And so one of the things that I did very early on is I thought, Okay, I want to do a study myself of time periods in American history of very high so called legal immigration according to the United States government, people coming in from Ireland or Germany or Italy or something like that, and see whether or not the argument that native workers lose a lot of jobs to these people

who will work for less, whether that consequentialist argument actually held anyway. And as I went into it, I discovered that Julian Simon had already done the work, and he had already done this macro study of five other studies of periods of high immigration. So again they're skipping the moral part of it. But when we look at saying to people, no, they don't, we can work through the economics, and I often bring up the simple machines, I say, look, and when I talk to my students, I say,

I introduced them to the simple machines. I said, even cave people use the inclined plane. They might not have been sitting at a table saying I want to invent the inclined plane, you know, or I want to invent the lever. But they knew by using a tool that could increase the amount of distance they could have, they could have smaller amounts of force per distance, and one person could now do the work that it used to take

two. So now one person is free. You're not going to complain that that person now no longer has to toil to do what one guy can now do with a simple invention. You're not going to say that man is now unemployed. How awful. Let's get rid of that invention. No, if people like the invention, just like language or the growth the spontaneous growth of money as a way to communicate value to each other and give people something that

is exchangeable. If it works for people, they'll keep it spontaneously. And this is what freedom of association is why it's so important, because when you have these artificial impediments, they always get gamed. And of course in the end we see that the person who could be saving some toil with being able to hire someone for maybe a little bit less. Now you're never going to

know what happened with that money that could have been saved. Just like Frederick Bastia said in the Parable of the Broken Window, the opportunity is now lost. We're never going to know the other person who could have been employed by the money that was saved. We never are going to know what that other person could have done if he didn't have to help that one guy lift something up. And this I think translates to periods of high immigration because people didn't

lose their jobs. New businesses started because consumers could save money. And it's just like choosing a product from overseas or working with someone. If you can reduce your costs, you are reducing costs for the consumer. Why do we want to increase costs for the consumer. The whole point is to try to get more for less. Right. Yeah, your points are eloquent and insightful. And let me address the first one on freedom of association, because it's

one that often comes up in the immigration debate. Often get emails from people saying, you know, we should be able to keep the door locked or decide who comes in the door, just like our homes. Would you let anybody into your home, Jacob, Well, we're not a national home. You know, it's logical that Cuba would think in terms of a national home, because in Cuba, the state owns everything. But here in the United States, where a nation built in the concept of private property, so a

person has the right to exclude people from his private home. In fact, that's the kind of system we live in. You have freedom of association with respect to who comes into your house. You can discriminate against Jews, Catholics, Blacks, Italians, whoever you want to discriminate against, and the state can't do anything about it because it's your private property. But by the same token, I have the same right, and no one has a right to

interfere with me. If I want to bring into my home an Italian, a Mexican, a Guatemalan, or whatever, it's my right to associate with whom I want. And I would extend that to businesses. Businesses are private owners, and so if businesses want to sell to foreigners or higher foreigners, that's their right. It's their business and their money. So it's totally different from this national concept of a national home that has one door to it.

The other thing is very important that you point out that the division of labor that comes from immigration, it does increase standards of living. And at look at the it wasn't an open border of situation totally. The Ellis Island kind

of system. Government was controlling, filtering people, but they let in around ninety five or ninety six percent of the immigrants, and this was one of the major factors that led to the tremendous increase in prosperity, especially by the time the eighteen hundred starts ending up and the people at the bottom of the economic ladder here in the United States, Let's say, farm workers that have high school degrees that are working on a farm, are they displaced by an

immigrant uneducated immigrant from Mexico. Absolutely, and that appears to the farm worker, the American farm worker, to be catastrophic. Actually it turns out that he's much better off because, as you point out, the immigrants are now buying things at Walmart, They're buying used cars, they're buying us clothing, and the market there all of a sudden, as sign shows up at Walmart

saying we've got this tremendous demand workers needed here. So the Americans that had been working on the farm are now being employed at Walmart because they have educations, they're, you know, able to deal with customers better than the migrant can, and they have an increase in wages. So that's what's happened historically that when you have this open immigration, open border system, everybody's prospering, including the people that are displaced at the bottom of the economic ladder. Uh

Well, said Jacob, Can I ask you a question. I I sometimes will use the uh sort of the the UH terminology that many people found to really rub them the wrong way during the lockdowns of the the the picking winners and losers. The your job is essential, Your job is not essential. To try to translate that into things about tariffs, you know, I had James Bouvard on recently when I was filling in for David, and you know

his book The Fair Trade Fraud is just so phenomenal, it's great. And so we know that a lot of people find it very distasteful to hear these top down authoritarians telling us, well, your job is essential. What they're saying is I'm going to use force to decide whether you can work right, whether you can go and get together with people and actually offer services to other

people. Well, that's sort of same thing is translated to tariffs that I try to tell people to say, if you oppose the central authority, the central planners from not only engaging in the immoral act of blocking you from just engaging in peaceful conversations or work with other people, then how do you feel about the immoral imposition of them choosing what is an essential or non essential job? And then of course we have the economic ramifications of that of that central

planning. It never works. They are always screwing things up. And I say, well, let's translate it to tariffs, because what they're doing there

is saying we know what is essential and not essential. We are going to favor a particular field or particular workers, whether they're washing machine manufacturers in Ohio, and Senator Portman loves them, and he gets Donald Trump to impose this ridiculous tariff on imports or something else, steal or something like that, and so that oftentimes people say, aye, you know, that did bother me.

Sometimes you can't convince them. But I think the same sort of thing with this sort of authoritarian usurpation, this conceit, this hubris that politicians seem to have, and I think many people in a way use the politicians almost as avatars. They buy into this and they say, oh, yes, definitely, we're doing the right thing. We're stopping these other people for our neighbor. Well, you're picking and choosing essential and non essential. You're telling

the consumer your choices are not essential. I'm saying to you, I am precluding you from even thinking about dealing with this person. So, of course

the ramifications of that are very clear. As you say you have a police state, you have checkpoints fifty miles away from the Mexican border in Arizona, people trying to go to work and again, seeing the same people every day rolling down the wind, They're like, hi, I'm trying to get to work again today, and yeah, and you know, complete complete abrogations of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and so on. And I think it's interesting

because your experience on a farm is something that really helps. I think give examples, and I worked on a farm stand myself and worked with Jamaican migrants who would come up every summer here in New Hampshire to pick apples. Can you tell us a little bit about some of the changes that you saw as a kid working on the farm near the Mexican border in Texas. And of course people can actually watch you speaking Spanish to spread the word of freedom in

Espanol. If they're on Facebook, they might have seen your most one of your most recent posts over there. Tell us a little bit if you could, about your personal experience and how that sort of works into what you did professionally as a lawyer. And again bringing it back to today with the central planning and the borders. Yeah, let me first amplify on the two points

you made though, because they're such good points. On the central planning aspect, You're absolutely right about the protective tariffs and it's what you said earlier about Bossiat's concept of what is seen and unseen that when they tariff is just a sales tax on a foreign good, and when they impose it high enough, people say, okay, I'll buy domestically. But what's unseen in this is

all the money they would have saved by buying the cheaper product. They would have used that money for other purposes, buy a vacation, buy shoes, and so we never see those businesses that are hurt by virtue of the tariff. And you're right, it's what HYA call the fatal conceit that government officials have in terms of deciding who should be protected and who shouldn't be pret And I also want to point out that that's what immigration controls are. It's a

socialist system based on the principle of central planning. You have government officials planning the movements of millions upon millions of people in a very complex labor market, deciding what the total number is going to be, what the credentials are going to be, how much allocated each country. This is what I call the

fatal conceit of the planner. It cannot be done without what Ludig Moon miss called planned chaos, which is what we've had on the border, and then they bring in this police state, which now leads me into answering your question directly. I grew up on a farm on the Rio Grand We hired illegal immigrants when I was in high school. I was out, you know,

we were playing. We would work with the workers out there wasn't illegal to hire illegal immigrants at the time, and they were my buddies, my brothers and me, and we would play football out and there. We sometimes out sit out in the porch and eat dinner with them. They were our buddies. They lived there on the farm with us. And one day the border patrol came in without a warrant. They could enter onto our farm without any

judicial order whatsoever, whenever they wanted. If we put a lock on the gate, they would just shoot off the lock if we hadn't given them a key, And so they came in and that usually our workers were quick enough to hide, like in a barn we had there. And fortunately the border patrol never came into our home. We lived there on the farm, but they would come into our farm and they one day they came and busted our

workers, and it was a very traumatic experience for me. I mean, my brothers and I had tears in their eyes as they were carting away or workers. And that was my, I think, my real first experience with the immigration police state. Another I mean, it shows you how far back this goes. This is like in the nineteen sixties, this immigration crisis, it's nothing new. It's been going on for some eighty years. Another time, I was headed to the b each And Port of rams Is near Corpus

CHRISTI. I was meeting friends and all of a sudden the red light turns on. It's a border patrol agent and he pulls me over. No excuse at all, no broken tail light. I had done nothing wrong, no speeding anything. He just says, get out of your car and open your

trunk. This is called a roving border patrol checkpoint, of course. And so I objected, you know, I said, you don't have the authority to do this, and he says, well, you can follow me back to headquarters and we'll resolve it there, or you can open up your trunk. Well I was late. I wish I had said screw you, I'll follow you back, but I didn't. I opened up the trunk and then when you head north out of Laredo. You about forty miles, you come

over the crest of a hill and you think you're in Mexico. There's this huge immigration checkpoint there where they're stopping cars. You can be subject to a complete search there, like you're at the at the bridge, where they can you know, at the bridge, they can tell you to drop your trousers, drop your underwear, bendover so they can check your body cavities, the same with women. They have you forfeit your rights with this system of immigration

control. It's not just a control on foreigners. You go into nwobble loreto Mexico for one hour just to shop at the market, you come back, you have forfeited your rights. If you got a cell phone, you have you have to disclose your password so they can search your cell phone if they choose to do this. This is the this is the police state that exists along the border. Now they've got this Concertina wire that's designed to cut people

up. They've had this Berlin Wall, and then they finally criminalize the hiring of illegal immigrants along with the transportation of them, caring for them. If you if you're driving along a highway and you see an immigrant collapsed on the side of the road from dehydration, You give them water, you carry them to an emergency room, going to get indicted for a felony offense of harboring or caring for illegal immigrants. So it's just a horrific system. It violates

religious principles I shall love thy neighbor as thyself. It violates economic principles free markets, it violates moral principles of freedom. You know, it just it's very befuddling to me, Gardner, why Americans continue to hew to this system. And I've I've finally decided it's because we've all been born and raised under this socialist system and you're accustomed to it. When you become accustomed to something, freedom becomes a very frightening prospect. It's like, oh my gosh,

that's unpredictable, Jacob. But you know, the whole world might come here and all these catastrophic thoughts start entering people's minds. Boy, those are such great insights. Our guest on the David Knight Show, I'm Gardner Goldsmith filling in for David today on Good Friday. Thank you for joining us. Our guest is Jacob Hornberger. The Future of Freedom Foundation can be found at f FF dot org and all so on Twitter slash x. Is it Future of

Freedom on Twitter slash x, Jacob, I believe so much. Yes, yes, well we'll double check and I'll make sure that I get that out there. I've never I've never liked Twitter. So my colleague Bart handles it all. Well, what I what I what I like is anytime I share

one of your articles, it will do the at future freedom. It will recognize what you you know, when I put it out on X, it'll do the at so that you know that I shared something because I really, I really appreciate so many of the pieces that you write, and you know, you're you're always featuring great pieces by so many of the people who have been heroes to me and sort of you know, over time, as I started to lecture on economics, and I used to drive five hours just to

get to Irvington from New Hampshire when Richard was president of FEE, and I would go down there and you know, see Robert Higgs or Tom de Lorenzo speak or whatever, and it was just it was phenomenal. It was just the best time. And I have to tell you, Jacob, one time after Richard left Hillsdale, my father had passed away, and my dad was a proto libertarian born in nineteen seventeen. He had a copy of Human Action that he annotated for the kids, you know, Adam Smith. He had

notes. Yeah, and so when I was a teenager, he was giving me Hazlet and Milton Friedman, and I had a question. It's like, Dad, I think Milton Friedman's got a little something wrong here. And he goes, ah, yes, well he's not exactly. He's good, but there's some mistakes. So you know, he was right on it. And so I used to drive down to their Friday afternoon lectures, you know, and then walk over to the library and Irvington and see the statue of Rip

van Winkle under the tree and so on. And it was wonderful. And it's fascinating because when I get to see these pieces by people that I admire, You've worked for a great amount of time, so many people have been influenced by this, and I had the opportunity while back to write a piece at least to tell people as my go to as a voluntarist, my position is peace and the Golden rule, as you say, but I at least will try to appeal to people on the central planning concept. I try to

tell people that say, look in the Constitution as you can see. As you said, you start to deal with these laws and they pile up like layers of tarnish on silver, one after the other, a new regulation, and it never works. Now we've got the you know, many people complaining that the government literally the central planners that they always said, you've got to be the answer, You've got to take care of the border. Now while

it's not doing what they wanted. Now they're literally spending tax money to give ten thousand dollars debit cards to migrants in New York. They're paying for people to be housed in hotels outside of Jullette Stadium in Massachusetts where the Patriots play football. So now we're seeing so many people so riled up about the board under the central authority, but it's not under the authority they want to run the system, and they're not learning the lesson of central planning, which is

it just depends on who the central planner is. So you're not going to get what you want. You just have to And so what I do is one of the ways that I try to start things off, is you talked about seeing the legal side of things in so many cases, and you got involved as a lawyer when you went back to Texas to try to help for the civil liberties of these people. I try to bring up to people,

look, you're under a false artifice. You're under an artifice when you look at so called federal government immigration policy, because the word immigration doesn't appear in the US Constitution. If at least as a voluntarist, I'd say I'd rather have voluntary systems like the Brehon laws system or Viking Age Iceland or something like that, or even the Articles of Confederation, I would probably prefer. But according to the politicians who swear they're ohs, there's no word immigration in the

Constitution. The word migration appears in it, and it pertains to a particular clause of the Constitution that was about slavery. The importation or migration of certain persons in the states now existing, as they said in the Constitution, shall not be influenced by the Congress until after eighteen oh eight, which was a way to try to entice and conjole the Southern states to sign on to the

Constitution. And then they had the Missouri Compromise. They would never have had the Missouri Compromise if the federal government could control the migration or importation of slaves into any of the New States, because the slave state free state thing would have been negated. They could have said we're gonna make you We're going to make it impossible to import slaves there. As you know, we can talk about the evil of slavery, but as far as their functionality went under the

Constitution, then it wasn't a federal purview. And during the Sedition Act, the Alien and Sedition Act period the Alien Act, Thomas Jeffefferson and James Madison in seventeen ninety eight, they both wrote one was the Kentucky resolve Virginia resolve. For Madison, it's a state purview, And it wasn't until eighteen seventy five with a Supreme Court ruling in this case called Chi Lung v. Freeman, when basically the Supreme Court made it up out of whole cloth. It

was a California statute and it was up to the California government. As bad as I think it is, they were blocking importation of Chinese people to come into California because they claimed that the women were going to be prostitutes carrying diseases. Really it was a block against Chinese laborers on the railroads and in the gold cold mines. The gold mines. They didn't want the native workers to

have the competition. And so from there it went to the federal government, and there we get all of these things that you had to deal with as a kid as they grew and grew and grew. From Ellis Island being the port, you've got to show your documents now as you say you've got to show your phone. I mean, it's like checkpoint Charlie. It's easiness. But again, it goes towards Unfortunately, I think a lot of the media

plays on this. It all goes towards looking to the central authority, and to break out of that mindset, at least by showing people, look, if you think that the Constitution is at least going to be the functional system, look at what it says and recognize that they didn't want that sort of central authority making those plans at least go with some sort of confederation concept. But they won't buy into it. It's very difficult to convince people of that.

Yeah, you've raised a lot of good points. First of all, I got to say, I'm very envious that you learned about these ideas when you were in high school. Richard did too. I was in my late twenties when I discovered libertarianism. But so when I went back to practice law in Laredo, I just hated the system, the whole immigration system. Even though I didn't realize that I was a libertarian, I didn't know anything about

libertarianism. So I went to the local federal judge, who i'd known as a kid because my dad was a lawyer, and I said, Judge, I'd like you to appoint me to represent illegal immigrants for free. I'll do it for free because I think it's a very arbitrary, capricious system the way they're enforcing it. And it was, and I want to I'm going to challenge the constitutionality of it now. I'm going to take it to the Fifth Circuit on an appeal. And the judge is fine, So he started appointing

me. And that was actually laying the seeds for my discovery of libertarianism, because one day I was out at the detention center waiting for one of my clients to come over to me to uh to talk. And I was watching all these guys walk around, probably about two hundred guys in this detention center, and it had it had like a concentration camp environment to it, you

know, guard towers and barbed wire and the walls and stuff. And as I'm watching all these guys gardner, it hits me if if the leftists, which I was, I thought government should be helping the poor and so forth. I love the poor, needy and disadvantage so much. Why are they doing this to these people? All they want to do is work? And so I went and asked a couple of my leftist friends, how do you reconcile this? And I was really troubled by it. This was before discovering

libertarianism. And they said, oh, well the laws, the law. Well that wasn't good enough for me, because, as you point out, the Constitution create brings it to existence a government of limited enumerated powers. There is no enumerated power to control immigration. And not surprisingly because in the Declaration of Independence, one of the reasons for the break with King George was he was controlling immigration into the colonies, and that cited is one of the reasons.

That's right. I forgot about that, yeah, oh yeah. And then in the Constitution they allow for naturalizations as a way to become a citizen. But that's a totally different concept from people just crossing the border retaining their citiship, working, touring, visiting, and so forth. And so that framework was a beautiful framework. Now, as you point out, and as I've pointed out, the Elis Island system was not an open border system.

Everybody had to go through a government checkpoint, and government was vested with the power to decide who comes in. Now, they were flexible, they led in more immigrants. But then that leads, as you point out, to the Chinese Exclusion Act in eighteen eighty two, because government says, well, okay, well, we're vested with this power you have vested with us, so now we're going to use this power to exclude Chinese. Because it was

a racist law. It was designed with the idea that Chinese will never be real Americans because they don't look like real Americans. And you know, isn't it interesting, because Jacob, what's fascinating is the California statute that was exclusionary against Chinese coming into the state of California that was challenged. That led to

the eighteen seventy five Chi LUNGB. Freeman decision, which was a completely errant and destructive decision that led to the eighteen eighty two Chinese Exclusion Act on a national level. So the very people who were challenging that on a state level ended up ceding the power to the federal government, which did exactly the same thing that the Chinese Exclusion Act did in California seven years earlier. It's crazy,

and again it's central authority. I don't want to come down too hard on those people who I think rightly recognize the immorality and the injustice of central planners now actually paying for other people to move. I understand that argument, I understand the distaste that people have for that and the complexities of the confusion

that it creates in all these localities. But by the same token, I think not getting to the root of this really is a disservice to people intellectually and also on a moral level to not look at this deeper lesson and I'll translate it to something here. I was helping a young woman from Siberia actually moved to the United States a number of years ago she wanted to go to law school here, and we had met at a free State project thing.

She was dating a friend of ours, and she and I stayed in touch, and she toured around for a little while, as I brought her to various schools and so on, and a really nice woman. And so we found this Mexican restaurant in a town called Bedford. It was amazing Casablanca, just incredible. And I started to talk to the waiter and he didn't really speak English all that well, and I said, gee, you know,

I'm really glad you're here. And we got on the subject of immigration, and he actually let us know he was not here legally according to the statutes. Now the price is at this place and the service at this place, we must have saved ten or fifteen dollars every time we ate there. We ate there over and over and it was so good, it was incredible, and she was just delighted. She was this is incredible, this is wonderful.

She was a libertarian as well. And so they got busted and it made me think to myself, if a bunch of mafia thugs had entered that building every day and smashed a window to take it in Bostia's parlance right in a way and said, ah, you know you bought that window from so and so. I didn't like that. You should buy from veto my friend and veto stuff costs ten dollars more per window. That's money that that restaurant is going to be losing eventually the restaurant. When we were there at the

restaurant, they got busted, they got shut down. That was a place where we were saving the ten dollars. I could use that to buy gasoline, or go to a convenience store, or buy a painting by someone if I had added up enough money. So as you say, these opportunity costs when we don't stick with the morality of things, when we don't leave people alone, when we engage in force, when one engages in force, these

have secondary and tertiary consequences that people don't see. And so I do appreciate so much your personal story and then what you do telling people about these things. And by the way, kudos to you also about talking about how they try to flip it in the other way where they try to portray things as compassionate. Your piece the other day on social security, going through the history of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, and how charity can't be defined as

state action. And this is where I'll make sort of my final point that I've made a few times on David's show and my Liberty Conspiracy show, which is that even when one goes to define charity, you need to have volition. The politicians aren't the ones who are spending the money on Alzheimer's research or on cancer research, yet they claim America cares. They're not the ones who are providing the help themselves out of their own wallet for an elderly person.

And Social Security and as you pointed out, claim its insurance is not it's a Ponzi scheme, it's a welfare scheme. But I try to say, even if logically someone tries to define a political border or barrier as a political border or barrier, technically speaking, that's not possible because there's nothing that the state does that anyone can actually say is good because the actual quality of goodness hasn't been allowed to be translated through anybody's volition. So the same thing applies

to a political border. You can't have there was no volition in the decision as to where that political border is, where it's going to be placed over somebody's private property typically, or how it's going to be managed. Then you get to the tragedy of the commons, where everybody's arguing over how's that going to be managed? Well, the only way you can really manage it is

if you leave people alone to have private property. Then you can show where people wanted their borders to be. Because one person might say, well, yeah, I was a taxpayer, but I don't like the way they're managing that, and another pscesson might say I like the way they're managing that.

It's impossible, it's not manageable. And this of course goes towards the voluntarist argument against the state itself and the abstract But any final thoughts on that, and then to wrap things up, of course, I know you've got to go at eleven, but there are some other things that I'd love to people wet people's appetite about the jfk assassination, because you're a real, real student

of this, a real expert on this. But any final thoughts on the border thing to you know, again, I don't want to attack people too hard who are recognizing some problems with this collectivist system, but I think it's important to actually express this. This is a problem with collectivism. It is. But I think your human interest story about that restaurant is so frigging fascinating.

And as you were relating it, I was thinking about the lockdowns that among libertarians there's a moral indignation and outrage and Riley so over the lockdowns of so many businesses that destroy the businesses. And yet why is it they cannot translate that over to what happened to you there in your town. I mean, so what if they're Mexican citizens, they're providing a service, why should they get locked down and sent away? They're just human beings? Who cares

what citizenship they are? Absolutelyolutely yeah. I think that's a fascinating point. And I really think that we as Americans have the duty to lead the world to freedom. I mean, the whole world is mired in central planning, admired in socialism, including social security, medicare, medicaid, school valuchers, all these things that have come to be defined as freedom and libertarian. They have no more to do with care and compassion than any other socialist program.

And I often hear that with social security, Oh, Jacob, how can you be so heartless? We need to continue this for indefinitely because people will be dying in the streets. Pure nonsense. There is no care, compassion with the irs, and the initiation of force through taxation. Genuine charity comes from the willing heart of the individual, and that's where we need to lead

the world to the restoration of faith and freedom and free markets. We live without social security and medicare and immigration controls for more than one hundred years, and everybody was fine, in fact, more than fine, and there was the greatest outburst of economic the voluntary charity that mankind has ever seen. And let me make one final point here. We should never forget that after the Mexican War, the United States stole and absorbed the entire northern half of Mexico.

Now you talk about an alteration of culture, I mean, how could you have a bigger alteration of culture than to steal and absorb the entire northern half of a foreign country that had been part of the Spanish Empire, and including the one hundred thousand citizens who though that we were automatically made American citizens. Is it really unusual that people would want to say that would want to cross the border into what had been their land for centuries. I don't think

so. And I think that's another important point that we should keep in mind when we see migrants simply crossing the border to what had been their country. You know, Jacob, you remind me a little bit. I don't know if you've got to see the first season of the AMC TV series, and I very rarely watched TV anymore, but Pierce Brosnan starred in a show called The Sun, based on a novel, and it's about the early nineteen hundreds down near the Rio Grande in areas that formerly had been run and owned by

Mexican people and then the United States government. Then you have the Texas problem. Then you've got the Native Americans and they're all arguing over who should have this land, who you know, belonged to, what tribe had this land, and so on. And Pierce Brosnan now is discovering that there's oil interest some of these areas, and it is a fascinating look. It's a real

great snapshot, very honest as well. I think from at least the history that I know of the area, about all the disparate interests and arguing arguing that went on about well our family was here first, and our family was here first, Well this happened to us. It's fascinating and it's it's really quite something to see. And you know, just from a sentimental standpoint, you know, I hate to say for my own interest purposes, because these are real lives that are at hand and at stake, and you know,

people's rights that are being abrogated. But to look into the history itself is very enriching, I think, and you do a great job even in your personal story showing snapshots or maybe film, because it's so much more rich. It's so much richer to be able to show people what that's like. Actually,

this isn't this isn't an intentional transition, but I was. I was checking out your recent and for this second time, part of your series on the jfk assassination, in particularly the Zubruder film and the edits that seem to have been made from the original Zubruder film, and you have done great work on that, and I'd love to whet people's appetites before you go about how they can find some of your work on the JFK Assassination, because you've done

multiple episodes on things, written extensively a book about this. Could you tell us a little bit about your take on where people might want to find some of your work on the JFK assassination and the cover ups and so on.

Yeah. Well, the very best book to start out with for somebody that is interested in understanding why this is not a conspiracy theory but in fact is a fact and fact that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, in my opinion is the very best book is JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglas, and I'd recommend everybody start with that book. It's the best overall, deep, profound, easily read synopsis of this national security state regime change operation.

Then go to my book The Kennedy Autopsy, which is FFF's all time bestseller. And then it's really a synopsis of a five volume book by a man named Doug Horn called Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, and Horn served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board in the nineteen nineties, and Horn's

book put the matter over the line for me beyond a reasonable doubt. Prior to that time, I had been convinced that it was a regime change operation based on all the evidence, but I couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, which is, you know, is the standard of proof in a criminal case. Horn's book put me over the line on beyond a reasonable doubt. And I think like a lawyer, you know, I don't think in terms

of conspiracy theories. I was a trial to journey for twelve years. Well, Horn's book concentrates on the autopsy that was conducted on President Kennedy's body and documents an excruciating detail the fraudulent nature of that autopsy. Well, once you establish beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a fraudulent autopsy conducted by the military, it's case closed. That's it now, because there's no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy. It's over that no one had ever come up with an

innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy. And like I say, Horn documents it. We could go into examples, but that sealed it for me. So I would recommend the Kennedy autopsy. Now, my newest book is called The An Encounter with Evil. The Abraham's a Brewder story. One of the things about the fraudulent autopsy Gardener was that the military came up with a photograph that

showed the back of Kennedy's head to be intact. Well, all the Dallas doctors and the nurses and Secret Service agent Clint Hill and my multitude of witnesses said Kennedy had a massive hole in the back of his head. These were the treating physicians. So something's wrong there. You've got a fraudulent film, a fraudulent photograph that's falsely depicting this had to be intact. Well, the z the Bruder film also shows the back of Kennedy's had to be intact.

So I decided to delve into that. And I wasn't the first one, I mean, but I wrote this book showing that what happened on the weekend of the assassination, contrary to what had been the official story, was that the original of the Bruder film is diverted to a CIA photographic center, first in Washington and then over to Rochester, New York, where they produced an altered copy of the film. And I document that in the book in detail.

Because in Rochester they could essentially to do anything Hollywood could do, and that's where they produced an altered copy in order to show that the back of the head was intact to match their fraudulent photographs. So that's the essence of my books, and really they revolve around Horn was the real pioneer in this. We also have conferences that we've held featuring Horn and other people we featured Oliver Stone that are on our website showing the fraudulent nature of the autopsy,

the Cold War context why they did this. Another book I'd highly recommend is JFK's War with the National Security Establishment Why Kennedy was assassinated. This goes to motive. We published that book, the Future of Freedom Foundation. It was written by Horn. So if you take these books and Horne's the most difficult read of them all. It's a five volume work, but I will guarantee you you get through Horn's books and you will have no doubts at all.

I don't have any doubts after reading. And in fact, we also published a multi part video by Horn that is our most downloaded video in our history, detailing the fraudulent nature of this autopsy. Uh. It's it's rich work, I think, and really it must have consumed a lot of time. But once you start to see that the narrative that you were sold is a fake narrative, then you say why is it fake? And then you start to unpeel the onion. And it's a pretty rancid onion, that's for sure.

Well, and let me let me say that that the real point of this is not to see criminal justice, because everybody's involved in this is dead now. It's to it's to challenge that what I consider the greatest mistake in US history, and that was converged the conversion of the federal government to a national security state consistent of the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, the vast military industrial complex. This, I mean is a horrific governmental system that

we live under now. In national security state, you got totalitarian powers, power of assassination, torture, indefinite detention, including of Americans. And so that's the real point of this is that I'm trying to raise people's vision as to the importance of restoring our original governmental system established by the Constitution and which lasted for one hundred and fifty years or so, and that was a limited

government republic, which is the total opposite of a National Security State. If I may, I'd like to also mention something that I should have mentioned in our immigration discussion is that we're not the only ones making this case. There's three other great books that I'd recommend to people. One is brand new. It came out about a month ago called The Case for Open Borders by John Washington. I think it's one of the best books I've ever read on immigration.

It addresses every single objection to open borders that people raise. There's our book that we published thirty years ago called The Case for Free Trade and Open Immigration. A third book is Open Borders by Brian Kaplan, who's brilliant, a brilliant economics professor at George Mason University, which I consider the best economics

department in the country, and then from a free market Austrian perspective. And then the fourth book I'd recommend is a book called Let Them In The Case for Open Borders by Jason Riley, who serves on the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal. You read these four books and I will guarantee you that you will be an open borders advocate because it's not just some esoteric pine in the sky theory. There's people actually making the intellectual, moral, religious case

and economic case for this concept. Well, that's so well stated, and I'm so glad you brought that up. In fact, Brian Kaplan was here two weeks ago speaking in New Hampshire at a Free State Project event and so a lot of people were really excited to see him, and it just it's amazing the nexus of people that you find. You say to yourself, Oh, I like this person's work here, and then you find out that they did excellent work over here, and you say, oh, I'm enriched even

more. This is great. So same thing with Brian Kaplan's work and your work and Richard's work. And I highly recommend if people get the opportunity. I bought an Encounter with Evil most recently from the store over there, and there's so many great items at f FF dot org. In the store you can get all sorts of excellent stuff, everything on monetary so called policy,

which that term itself indicates a problem. And over into immigration and history, Austrian economics history mixed in with the Austrian economics theory and the practicality of leaving one's neighbor alone. Jacob, thank you, Thank you so much for being here. It's been an absolute pleasure and I hope I get to talk to you again. This is great, phenomenal. I just can't tell you this has been an hour of pure joy for me. It's just it's been a

real, real pleasure to interact with you on thesen. Thank you for letting me share my perspective with you and your or your viewers. It has really been nice. Well, thank you for your work, and I'll be in touch with you uya an email a little bit later today. I have to go to a couple of appointments this afternoon and so, but i'll write to you tonight, send you links and things like that, and of course, as long as the NSA doesn't arrest me, i'll email you. Okay,

maybe we'll end up in Guantanamo and share the same cell together. You can teach me espion. Thank you so much, Garter God, real pleasure, you got it. Thank you, Jacob, real pleasure. Absolutely so great to talk to Jacob Hornberger. What a nice, nice man. And of course f FF dot org. Everyone check out f FF dot org and Jacob Hornberger's work is absolutely great. I hope that you will find him there and check out all the work that Richard Eblink does as well, and check out

all the great books. Well, coming up in just a minute, we're going to be speaking with our next guest, another great proponent of freedom. He is, of course, Eric Peters of Eric Peters Autos dot com. And we're gonna check out Eric and see what he has to offer coming up on the David Knight Show. If you like the Eagles, the Cars, and Huey Lewis in the news, you'll love the classic Hits channel at APS

Radio, download our app or listen now at APS radio dot com. Well, all right, all right, all right, let's get right to it, everybody. Let's bring in our guest. He is none other than Eric Peters of Eric Peters Autos and Eric, welcome to the show. And I know you've been listening to the conversation with Jacob Hornberger and you've got a lot to offer at Eric Peters audos dot com. People can follow you at on x as at Libertarian carg And welcome to the show, my friend. How

are you? I'm good guard? You heretical? Wrong think? Are you talking about leaving other people alone? Bad? Bad man, bad bad bad Cornfield? Time for me. Huh, It's incredible, isn't it. Yeah, Billy Mummy's gonna turn me into a jack in the box. Right. Do you remember there's a great meme I have it somewhere on my desktop and it shows a guy, you know, and he's kind of cut his hands above the globe and it says libertarians plotting to take over the world and leave

you alone. How evil? Right, And it really goes towards good, the concept good ideas don't require force. Right. And you've been writing about this, you know we I was reporting on liberty conspiracy on the in the

Evening program about again the collapse of the ev markets and so on. And still the pop media people still try to use these rose colored terms like well, they're taking strategic withdrawal from the market, doing this and do that, Like no, the market is collapsing and the central planners are forcing people, they're pushing their ideas on people. Then we have Al Gore recently appearing on

CNN with of course Jake Tapper talking about we've got an opportunity. We can stop we can go to net zero, We'll stop the climate change, and my wed my marriage will no longer be burning to the ground, you know, I mean, it's utterly ridiculous. Why don't you tell us about some of your observations on some of any of the big news stories that are out there right now? How don't we start with the Royal week? Isn't it great? How? You know you and I always get subsumed and encompassed by

we you know, we're aggregated into this great collective somehow. Yeah, a few individuals presume to represent and speak for us, and as far as yeah, the strategic withdrawal that sounds like Hitler in nineteen forty four. We have bennings of war. You must believe he is coming, you know. The market, I mean, it's like you have to systematically destruct every sentence that these speaks people speak. There is no market. That's the whole point.

This whole ev thing is the result of suppressing the market, of perverting the market, of imposing all of these artificial, contrived incentives via things like the mandates that require zero emissions vehicles, the subsidies, the tax bribes that are given to people to induce them to buy these vehicles. If you took all of these things away, there would be no evs. Perhaps they're a handful of them. Maybe is a boutique product somewhere, but all of this is

one hundred percent artificial government, government induced craziness. It's the bottom line, and they keep trying to push it harder and harder. And that's Isn't that the stereotypical definition of insanity, except it's also tyranny here too. Yeah, yeah, you know, in a way, it's almost like a witch doctor convincing people in a particular tribe that they must get or have in their hands

some totem that will protect them from evil. You know, that sort of thing, Like remember the Gilligan's Island episode where Gilligan's head looked like the top of the totem pole from some native witch doctor tribe or something, and it was, you know, he tried to replace it with a coconut or something, and then the coconut came down and his head went in there. You know, they thought he was a god or something like that. It's the

same sort of thing. It's like their god is whatever they decide to choose through the machinations of the politically connected, government favored fascist, cronius mercantilist state where they're going to work with certain corporations, or they're gonna work with certain NGOs, or their philosophy is to constrict our freedoms and have more power over themselves. And it's all a totem. It's like, you must have this thing to shake off the evil of the climate change boogeyman, you must buy

this thing. I don't want it. It doesn't help me. Yeah, and it's all really cynical and really disingenuous. You know, they have just to make the case for this, they very oily and slyly changed the definition of emission, which in a regulatory context used to mean things that caused pollution, specifically air pollution. Those things have been eliminated essentially from new vehicles, and so that created a problem because hey, we don't have a purpose anymore.

Why do we have these regulations since the cars are now clean. So what they did was to include carbon dioxide, which is a gas that has nothing to do with air pollution. You know, you can talk about put aside the climate change thing for just a minute, and let's focus on the fact that cotube there's absolutely nil, zero, no role whatsoever in air pollution, smog and things like that. So why would they characterize that as an emission. It's dishonest. You know, technically, of course it's emitted.

But what they're trying to do psychologically is manipulate people into believing that carbon dioxe site is essentially the same thing as unburned hypercarbons, as particulars as the things that cause smog, respiratory problems and so on, because who wants that? Right? Most people get it. They look, you know, if socially, people who are old enough to remember what the cities used to look like fifty years ago. You know, they looked outside and yeah, the sky's

pretty dirty and smoggy. It's kind of you. No, that's not good. We don't want that. But now they look outside, the sky's blue and things are looking pretty good. And so they had to create this new boogeyman. You know, David calls it a mcguffin. I like that term too. It's just it's just a contrived thing to gaslight people, to guilt trip them, to make them think that, well, if you question this and somehow you're a terrible person, because clearly what you want is babies choke

and old people to die in the streets. Yeah, exactly, exactly, you're the demon. You're gonna be gaslighted. You're the one who wants to be left alone, but in the leaving alone thing, or you're the one who wants to leave other people alone, but in doing that and not buying into their canard that other people have to be managed and pushed around and made to do certain things, you're the one who's actually engaging in an aggressive act.

It's absolutely crazy. I was when you mentioned in the guvern shirt. You probably saw me. Look up here, I got my mcguffin shirt. I have two McGuff and shirts and yeah, as well as your your key

shirts. Yeah, absolutely awesome. You can't go wrong. So folks check out Eric petersautos dot com and and it's very interesting too, Eric, because I think in many of these cases, you know, they do convince these people, like you talk about the air pollution thing, they do convince these people that they're much larger problems than they actually are, whether it's because of a pinnacle of danger or systemically geographically, because of course, the United States

government controls such a large geographical area, and it keeps adding to the things that it will control in that area, that of course everybody's got to look to the central planners. Everybody's got to try to game the system. If they've just allowed the California people to handle their smog first rather than having the EPA get involved, then I think the only constitutional side from their constitutional framework for even any rationale for the EPA to exist would be if there were state

on state conflict from pollution coming from one state going to another state. But that's not really what we saw. We didn't see people in say New Mexico or in Nevada complaining about smog in the La Basin. We saw politicians in La and other politicians saying, look, how terrible this is. We got to do something about this. We didn't see people in one state saying our waters are being so polluted by this other state that we need an entire national

framework to control waters. If there was a conflict from say New Jersey and New York with waters being polluted, then if they couldn't resolve it themselves, then based on what James Madison said, then there would have been some sort of attempt by the com to resolve it after the fact. Is a immediate way to do it, not a priory you know, well, I agree

with you. But let's go deeper down the rabbit hole. You know, the superficial explanation or justification that's trotted out about emissions is actually another mcguffin. What this really is, at the end of the day is a half century old war on cars, which is a war on mobility, specifically on individual autonomous being able to go where you want to go on your own schedule without

being regimented and controlled. And they've used the regulatory state and the excuse, well, we've got to control emissions, we've got to make cars get better gas mileage, we've got to make cars safe. For all of this was intentionally designed to throttle and winnow down what cars could be produced, and they had hoped that they were going to essentially extinguish car ownership that way, but they miscalculated being in competence, because most bureaucrats are incompet These are power lusting

people. That's their expertise, that's what they know how to do, right, And the auto industry remarkably managed to eliminate in any meaningful way in all of the actually harmful stuff that was coming out of the tailpipe. They made cars immensely safe, they made them incredibly efficient. So what now, Well, now, in order to continue this agenda, they have to frame them

as being a threat to the planet. And that's what the core issue is behind this push to get electric vehicles out there, because electric vehicles are just another step. Electric vehicle is the vehicle to get most people out of cars, period. That's what it's ultimately all about. Yeah. Yeah, And the Biden administration was portrayed by the pop media people just a few days ago at the start of the week as having drawn back from some of its climate

goals for Cafe Standards one. In fact, all they did was allow possibly for a few more hybrids that they were going to get rid of. I don't know if you want to comment on that era. Actually it's very important because it's of a piece with what these authoritarians do. It's two steps forward, one step back, but you're always going forward, aren't you. You know, that's kind of the true meaning of their term progressive. That's really

what that means. You're constantly progressing towards more control and less freedom. So, you know, the pop media framed this as some kind of a defeat for these authoritarians. Oh, instead of having two thirds of the cars be entirely electric by twenty thirty two as originally proposed. Now half of that two thirds will be partially electric ie hybrids. But you see, the premise remains. You know, if you have to have partially electric vehicles one, then

naturally you have to have electric vehicles, right, you have to? You have do you have to being the operative words? I mean to be clear, I've got nothing against hybrids per se, and i have nothing against electric vehicles per se. If there's a market for that, and if manufacturers want to cater to that market, by all means, I'm all for alternatives,

free alternatives. What I'm opposed to is this ranting of stuff down all of our throats, this one size fits all ism, with the one size fits all being determined by these these incredibly arrogant, busy body people who think they've been put on this earth to tell us all how we are going to live and what we're going to be allowed to have well stated, and you know, Eric, you make me think a little bit about the the moves by these politicians to do this sort of thing, you know, with evs and

and all these other other types of things, These assumptions that they make in our lives. It's akin to I mentioned earlier in the program Cultural Marxism on this good Friday, and how in one particular county that the uh, the the politicians were putting Transgender Day ahead of Easter, as I you know, read from MRCTV And yeah, tr she's one of the writers there, and she makes a great point about that. But to me, you know,

that's another manifestation in the long march. You make me think about the progressivism, you know, two steps forward, one step back. That is, you know, the Fabian socialist motif. It's the turtle very slow. Generationally, they know they're going to get where they want to go, slowly but

surely. And in a way, what we're seeing here with the automobile industry is is its own version of cultural Marxism, where cultural Marxism constantly has to come up with a new small protopon person or group that can be promoted that the government can help, splitting people away saying yes, you now have another you have an enemy in the regular society. Government will help you. And okay, now we've taken care of this one and included new government plans for

this one. We've got a new one, and they do the same thing with the mcguffins of the climate, with the mcguffins of this is an emergency we've got to take or this. So in a way, it's the same MO just with products rather than people, rather than classes as they term them,

or different types of people that they split off. They've come up with a new thing that is, if you're against it, you're bad in this sort of fabian socialist two steps forward, one step back, two steps forward, one step back, always finding something new, whether it's cultural Marxism with a new subgroup that needs to be promoted and government's got to help them and play favorites with them, or it's a new particular industry that they want to

establish that they can control and they have their friends in there and they're go, you know, or an established industry that they're going to manipulate. It seems to me that it's the same sort of mo do you see the same way? I don't know different, And there's a common thread running through all of it, which is that the presumptions and the premises are almost never questioned, and that's a sure recipe for losing the argument. You know, I

mean, if you that there's a climate crisis, for example. If you even use the terminology without questioning it, well, you've already lost in the debate, haven't you. You know, you're just arguing about particulars. You really have to question things. I saw a great exchange the other day. It was between Senator Kennedy and some kid I don't remember who's an Olympic skier. Did you see it? Yes, they get to see that. I think the Forbes Forbes newspeople do a great job. I watched it on YouTube

over there, I think, yeah. And he methodically took this kid apart. This kid who's a skier, he's an athlete. That's his expertise. He knows how to ski. He looks like he's probably twenty two. Anyway. The point is that's his expertise. He's a skier. And they brought this kid forth to testify about something he knows absolutely nothing about, which is the science behind climatology and so on, and Kennedy just picked it apart bit by bit, you know. He asked him essentially, well do you know

how much carbon dioxide there is in the Earth's atmosphere? And the kid goes a lot or a lot yeah, yeah, fational basic knowledge, you know, of that simple fact. How can you talk about a subject like that when you aren't even aware of how much carbon dioxide there is in the Earth's atmosphere right right, right, exactly. So I'm talking about car design when you are an engine when you have no idea what a carburetor does or even what it is. Yeah, and in a way it translates to talking about

someone else's preferences when you're not that person. Yeah, it's astounding to me there. And there's also just like a lack of shame or or just embarrassment there. You know, if it had been me, I would say, Okay, I really ought not to be here, I'm sorry for wasting your time, and have excused myself and left the room. Yeah, you know. I mean most people don't like feeling like or looking like an idiot in

front of other people. But apparently these people are so obtuse they don't even realize how they look to other people ob to So that's perfect, that's absolutely perfect. That's so true. And it's funny every once in a while here's somebody use the terms like, oh I haven't used that for well, that is spot on yes, and I think it's because they're they're that ideological. You know. That's when when you are in the grip of an ideology,

which is kind of like a rabbitized form of religion. It's a secular version of a religion in which you have a dogma, and that dogma must be must be projected and defended at all costs. It's always outward. You can't receive anything. Your mental processes now are kind of jammed. You know. All you can do is enunciate to others what you have faith in and what

you believe in. And when you are faced with somebody who says, well, wait a minute, what about this, this fact this doesn't make sense to me because X, Y, and z. Instead of being met with well, gosh, I never thought of that before, you have a valid point, it's met with this vociferous moral outrage. You notice these people, it's not just that they get angry, they get morally indignant, and they basically try to characterize you as some kind of a cretent or reprobate for daring

to question their ideology. Absolutely, and you know, I think you know a lesson that I might suggest hearing this if I are in front of the students, I would say, you know, that is the nature of the state. It it pro it, it offers benefits to those who engage in

projection of a narrative. And because it doesn't have to be tested in the market, and you always are assuming that other people will pay for it, whether it's sending weapons to Israel, or it's sending weapons to Ukraine, or it's doing this or that for a particular economy or older people or whatever it

is. It is amazing to see how oftentimes people I think who have their maybe they think their hearts are in the right places, they think they're doing right, are very willing to demonize people who just want to be left alone, because it translates into that as you say that obtuse holier than that approach, and people don't even realize they're being holier than now they think they're doing the right thing. It's really it's very twisted when when the political machinations get

in and people forget that the poll is is force. Well, it's cultish behavior. And you know it used to be the cults for sort of backwater aberrations, you know, like the Mooney's and the hair Christmas and people you'd see on the fringes of society. But that mindset has become quite common. Indeed, it might even be pervasively common. You know, we still see it to this day. I rant a lot about the mask wearing. You know that you still see that. It's like in defiance of all objective reality

and all of the facts about it. You still see people who are so weaponized by that cult that they can't let it go even now, and they may never let it go. And I think absolutely, And that's you know, that's that's one that's so manifest. It's so obvious to people. They just think of the size of a viral particle. They just look at the side of the box, or they listen to some friends, but they still buy into this, maybe out of fear, you know a number of other

things that might be involved. I don't know, but it's the same sort of thing with the climate canard. You know, I was mentioning Al Gore was on with Jake Tapper just the other day, and they're going to be pushing more because it's April coming up, and everybody knows Earth Day's coming exactly, you know, And you know, just like the guy who played the Indian in those old commercials from the government where he would look at the pollution

and the tier would be going down. His eye was actually like an Italian guy or something like that. It's all it's all fake. It's all an artifice. You know. As much as I admired the photography and the drama of those things, it was it was an artifice. Al gore. Again, look at the religious manifestation of it. This guy has been blathering on and on and on his predictions about imminent doom, you know, eschatologically, you know, like some kind of Old Testament prophet for what the last thirty

years? Right, he's been wrong. Oh, I think we just launched it for a second year. Slitch. You know what, I've been wrong a lot of times. Maybe I should rethink this. And yet worse, people like you bring this guy out's who's constantly in error, proven wrong objectively. It's not an opinion, he's wrong, he's been wrong, and they

still listen to this guy. Yeah, exactly. And again you know, some of the some of this comes from, as Hayek would have said, as you know, we were discussing before the information problem, which is that for maybe something like a mask, it might be a little easier for people to get that information. You can look at the side of the box, right, Oh, I see it says not protected against COVID nineteen. You can think it through, you know. But when you're constantly given a series

of these mcguffins and a series of lies. In that conversation with Tapper, Tapper listed off right at the start, four or five things utterly faults, completely false about oh, we've had more and more d more destructive storms than ever fall. It's false, false, the hottest hottest year on record twenty twenty three, again patently proven false, you know. And he says these things, and then Gore of course, just uses that as a diving board to jump in like a whale into the sea. You know, he's jumping

in. He's like, well, yeah, well, you know, if we do that and we also stop swearing on records from forty years ago, the world will be perfect. And I'm the guy, you know, it's just utterly absurd. It's so ridiculous. But I think it goes to that information problem. You know, the information problem has something to do with the twenty four to seven news cycle. Now, you know, back in the day when you had three networks. And I'm not advocating for this, I'm

just pointing out something. You had three networks and they broadcast during the daytime. Remember when the TV would be off in the morning when you get up, if you got up early and at five o'clock in the morning or whatever, and you turn it on and it would just be the you know,

the bars and then it would turn on. Well, now they've got to fill up all this airtime, don't they, And it's all these networks, and so catap if it bleeds, it leads, and so they constantly are trying to push the fear button, the panic button, because that gets people agitated, and agitated people are going to watch, listen, and read, you know, And and that dovetails with the the you know, the wants and desires of the government and the corporations who want us to be terrified of

everything. Ask your doctor about namemba. Do you have restlessly? It's one thing that the next it's it's some awfulness is going on over here. You're gonna die because you're gonna, you know, if you don't take this drug. And so they keep everybody in a state of perpetual anxiety and panic, and people, as hl Man can put out, who are in a state of panic, our desires to be led to safety, right air fingers closed

safety And that's what this is all about. Yes, perfectly stated, and of course that you know, honestly that goes I mentioned yesterday the fallacies inherent in John Locke's so called natural rights theory, which was a really social contract theory, claiming that you sign a contract to form a government for your protection. It's inherent in the argument about today where sign a contract? Yeah? Where is that? I didn't see that? And how much is my protection?

I might have a differing opinion from the other person who's being forced to pay for it. So it's unworkable of course. And one of the things, and I'd love to mention this from your site today you published a piece about disposability, and I think there are a lot of ties that go into the idea of things have to be put aside, new developments have to come around. Can you tell us about this piece over at Eric Peters Auto's Eric

your new piece embracing disposability. Yeah, it's just about the gratuitous wastefulness that has come to characterize a great deal of our culture and our society, and I focus on the replacing of the physical key that people used to have that would unlock the door to your car and start the engine with these hyper elaborate electronic key fobs that have perhaps given you a slight convenience, but a tremendous

cost and waste. You know, if you have a physical key and you lose it, well you can get another one cut for ten bucks at any hardware store. Even today, you lose the key fob, and in some cases you're looking at several hundred dollars to get a new electronic fob because it's electronic and it's inherently more fragile. And these things are all now no longer discrete systems. And what I mean by that is in the olden days when you had a key that you put into the door lock the lock, placing

or fixing that lock. Now it's integrated with electronics that are connected to a computer. So, for example, when you push that start button on the dashboard of your car that's not starting the engine, it signals being sent to the computer and then the computer says, okay, turn the starter motor, and that's all fine. When it works, but then when it doesn't. Now you've got this expensive problem with the electronic parts that buy and large are

not repaarable. You throw them away. And this is just characteristic, in my opinion, this wastefulness. You're not really getting anything meaningful, you know, in exchange for all of this, what you're doing is increasing the cost of the vehicle. You're decreasing its durability. I've got a fifty year old car out in the garage. I still have the original admission key for it. It still works as well as it did about fifty years ago, right

right. It's just I object to this, and I think it's a it's a corruption that has occurred, ironically enough, as a result of our affluence, you know, because we've taken things for granted and we've got we have to indulge ourselves in gimmicky things and gadgets. Ooh, look at that. Look it's got a touchscreen. Is it blinks and it beeps and it does

this, and it does that. Earlier generations, in particular, people who lived through really hard times like the Depression in this country, they learned a really valuable lesson about not being dazzled by gimmicky things and not wasting things. Very frugal people that generation because they learned the hard lesson. And I have a feeling we're going to learn that lesson again. And I know that you and I spoke. We're speaking with Eric Peters. Folks, it's Eric petersautos

dot com. You can follow him on x as, at Libertarian car g, at libertariancard g. Check out Eric Peters autos dot com if you're a gear head, if you're interested in your individual liberty, the freedom of movement, and also these observations about these trends. We mentioned this. We discussed this once before, Eric, about this this idea of the greater the complexity, the less incentive there is for the person who's using it to actually find

out how it works. And as you say that, oftentimes complexity comes with efficiency in productivity. Productivity gains being great, being able to refine a system down to something that with computers can be done very easily, and so on

and so forth. But when there is a screw up, you also people should try to remember that they're now working with a complex system that will be very difficult for them or even just a couple of their friends to be able to handle, whereas with less complex systems they're a lot easier to manage and

understand. The gears. Well, a really interesting thing to me is that we reached I believe, a kind of apotheosis in the late nineties even mid nineties in terms of electronic controls improving the durability, the efficiency and the reliability of vehicles. You had throat of body and port fuel injection came along around

those times. You had electronically controlled transmissions with overdrives, phenomenal, phenomenal things that resulted in vehicles that will run reliably for two hundred, two hundred and

fifty thousand miles with none the lucky. But instead of saying, you know, now, we should focus on making vehicles lighter, and we should focus on making them even more efficient to the extent that we can by various means, instead of doing that, what they did was, well, let's let's add a touch screen, let's add you know, let's figure out a way to dazzle them with with some gimmick or gadget that does meaningfully improve the vehicle.

And as far as I can tell, in any functional sense, it just makes it more expensive, more failure prone uh and more of a throwaway. You know, people buy these new cars with these big, gigantic touch screens and them that control everything. Now in a lot of cases, you know, like that the woman forgot for named Chow, the rich relation of Mitch McConnell who backed her Elaine, The entire the car is controlled by a

gigantic touch screen. This tesla. So like if you want to put the thing into reverse, you tap a button reverse on the screen and then tap drive. Well, if anybody uses a cell phone nose, there's no tactile feedback, and you often make a mistake, right you meant to tap B or instead you got T or something like that. Well, that can have

bad consequences. When you're driving a v Yeah, and I pulled it's drive, You feel it engage, you know the that the motion of it is kind of intuitive, you know, forward and back and back and forward and all of that. Well, you don't have that with that with these with the touch type kinds of things, and so you know, sometimes disasters happen.

But down the road what happens is that eventually that thing is going to go dark, it's going to fritz out, and you've got all the controls for everything, not just what gear you're in, but the climate control, the stereo is embedded in this touch screen. How long does your smartphone last? How many people are walking around with a ten year old smartphone these days? Not many? Is it? Fritz is out, you throw it away,

you get another one. So what happens when your ten year old car smartphone Fritz is out on you after ten years and you can't get replacement parts for it anymore because nobody makes them, you know, you throw the car away. Yeah, and perhaps you know to introduce this too, you know, there's there there are maybe two or more levels of the concept of autonomy. Eric, I probably you know, not telling you anything new. Where you got the autonomy of the individual? I go all the way back to

you know, driving a stick shift. You know, you could pop the clutch on that thing if you couldn't get it started, get somebody pushing you down a hill, and you get it going. You know, you get the things wrong. And we did it many times. It's got a nice little hill out in front of the house here. I was like, Okay, we're gonna do it. But then there's the autonomy of the individual when it comes to these electronics and the possibility of government or regulatory or corporate interference.

And that gets us to the whole arguments that you've offered in great, great succinct pieces about this idea of the speed controllers on the federal level, and Thomas Massey tried to stop that when one of those going to come in twenty twenty six, they're going to impose those Oh, they're already here. They haven't been formally imposed yet, but they're already here. They've been here

for another of years. Most new cars that have been made since I don't know, roughably about five years ago have what they call Advanced Driver Assistance Technology ADAS. That's the acronym. I've never met anybody who actually wanted this stuff and checked off an options box and said, yeah, I'd like to have speed limit control, I'd like to have lane keep assist, automated emergency braking,

and all of these technologies. And you kind of wonder why why are all the manufacturers, and I mean all of them, why are they embedding this technology into their vehicles. And it's because they're anticipating the regulatory apparat making it mandatory. So we just heard recently, you know, This predates Biden,

by the way. But the thing is, you know the Biden regime, with the twenty twenty six model years, they're going to have this electronic capacity to shut down a car remotely or if you drive in a manner that is outside of the acceptable parameters as determined by whoever programs the vehicle, then the car will disable itself and pull off to the side of the road. Well, this stuff is being incrementally already put into vehicles. It's already in

most vehicles. Unbelievable. You know, you make me think of the streets of India and perhaps I'd prefer the chaos of those little three wheeled scooter things that. Yeah, it's incredible. I'm going to be going around in a motorcycle. Remember many years ago, I dreamt that I had a motorcycle and it wasn't legal anymore, and I was hiding it in my garage, and you know, I was going around in an old dirt bike, like you know, a Kawasaki or something like that. And hopefully we won't get to

those those days. They're going to push for that. You know, if this is not arrested, it is to me logically inevitable if you accept the premise, getting back to what I was talking about earlier, that cars, in order for them to be safe have got to have the advanced assistance technology. Well, then how is it that we can allow vehicles that aren't safe, that don't have that technology on public roads? You know. And they've tried this in the past. They've tried to outlaw older vehicles by saying,

well, they don't have airbags, they don't have even seatbelts. If you go back to vehicles that were made before about nineteen sixty five, I think they didn't have factory seatbelts. Well, we can't have those on the road. They're not safe. Well, the old car hobby fought back and squelched that, But now we're going to do it again, you know, and because a lot of people already saying, you know what, I don't want

any part of this. I don't want a big brother, creepy connected car that's narking me out to my insurance company, and that is going to you know, cut the throttle or apply the brakes when it thinks that I'm not driving in a manner that's acceptable. So I'm going to cling to my older vehicle. Well, how's the government going to deal with that? You think they're going to let people cling to their older vehicles that aren't big brothery and

connected. Probably not. Eric. I'm curious about your thoughts on this, because at the time I thought this was part of the agenda. You know, the the government mandates can serve multiple agendas, of course, and some

of those don't get revealed for quite a while. But when they did the cash for Clunker's thing under Obama, I was telling my girlfriend at the time, I said, you know, this is clearly they want to knock out some of those older cars that don't have the driver's assist, the satellite connections, the boxes in them that you can just fix up. There's you know it was. It was I think as bad or worse than the idea of paying farmers to kill their pigs during the depression. You know, did you

did you see it the same way? Do you think that I was part of their agenda? It wasn't seeing it was, And you know, it's actually even worse than the business with the killing of the pigs that FDR did back during the New Deal era, because notice that the psychological tactics they framed

these perfectly operable cars that just happened to be older cars as clunkers. You don't want to be driving a clunker, do you, right, So that was the first step, you know, implying that the cars are not fit to be driven, that they're somehow unsafe, that that that's a problem and we have to fix the problem. Well, what they wanted to do was specifically to get rid of affordable used cars, and particularly because that would drive

the young first time buyer out of the market for cars. And they understand that, you know that that this the car just depends on young people coming up getting their driver's license, getting into cars, not not just you know, literally getting into but liking them. Hey, this is my first car. Remember how excited we were when we got our first car, got our driver's license. Kids start tinkering with them. It's great. They can't afford

them. And one of the reasons they can't afford them is because they've been destroyed, most of them. You know, you can't pick up a decent car anymore for five hundred bucks like you and I did back in the day. That's what this clunkers thing was all about. And then they use this awful language they talked about stimulating you know, they love that word, stimulating demand for new cars. That was the you know, that was the surface

reason given. So yeah, okay, we're going to just just gratuitously destroy things. I mean, it was upsetting to me to watch. You may have seen some of those videos at the time. They would take here's this car with it runs just fine, and they would pour silica, you know, into the engine of this running car to lock the engine up, to destroy the engine. It wasn't enough that, you know that they took the

car to a junk yard. They had to actually destroy every bit of it so nobody could come into the junk card and who needed an engine, let's say, or spare parts to fix their other car. They had to gratuitously destroy these vehicles. It was it's amazing. It's amazing the destruction of it. I mean, it's such a visual and physical manifestation of the government destroying

our options and our choices in our lives in so many ways. And that is a perfect that epitomizes it. And it's just it's it's it's amazing that people could sign up to that and they would go along with it across all of the United States that they would do this, and the governor's got involvedangle money in front of people. Yeah, that's how the government corrupts people by by offering them a bride. Hey, we'll pay you. What was it.

I think they paid what forty five hundred bucks or five thousand bucks. Will give you five thousand dollars, you know, to throw away this vehicle. Okay, sign me up five grand. Yeah, I'll take it, you know. Yeah, that's how it works. Yeah, and uh, you know, obviously with firearms buybacks, it's a little bit easier to construct a gun than it is an automobile. And uh, and to keep it

hidden. And so with these automobiles now, if people want to do something, they'll have to get them from Mexico or some other place where they might have been constructed, that might have been older. And you know, an entire generation of cars now just destroyed. It's insane, Eric, it's not insane if your goal is window down transportation, you know, and that's important. You know, it's important to understand the why, because otherwise it's inexplicable.

You shake your head and go the why would they do this? It's perverse. Well, it's not perverse when you understand the maliciousness of the motives. But that's absolutely right, absolutely right, And you know people might think that, oh, Eric's being too too harsh, or Gardener's being too harsh, or David if he speaks about this, if he is critical of these

policies. Now, this is malicious, as you say, it is malicious, and it's couched in you know, it's as I mentioned for an MRCTV video, it's the iron fist wrapped in a velvet glove, is what it is. You know, they put all these trappings of words and phraseology around it, but really what it is is it's fascism and it's and it's for a particularly even worse goal to have even more control over us. And go

to Erica. Read their own documents, read their own statements. You know, they've come out of the closet now and they're very plain and forthright about how they want to limit, if not eliminate, personal car ownership and driving by you know, twenty forty or whatever their end goal is. It's insane. It's well, at least they'll have government run vehicles like EV police cars and EV ambulances to chase after the bad guys, you know, except we

won't. That's the that's the other aspect of this. Just like John Carey is not going to be flying coach commercially anytime soon, you're not going to see the leadership cadre of the American Soviet Union going around in ev So you're going to see them being ferried around in their six thousand pounds armored plate glass windowed V eight SUVs. Just like Stalin was back in the poll, the pull Up Bureau members had the best cars and everybody else had the U gos.

Yep, yes, so true. It's absolutely true. Eric, I wanted to show the audience of the David Knight Show. Here. I'm Gardner Goldsmith filling in for David Knight. Our guest is Eric Peters of Eric Peters autos dot com. Eric petersautos dot com. Check them out, see the great articles on politics, on the nexus unfortunate nexus between politics and your choices in the market, your ability to travel, and look in his store. It's a very cool store. You'll see his great and very witty products there.

Eric, if I could get your comments on this piece from Day Elections Matter, tell people about that one. If you would kind sir, well, let's preface it, because you know, this is something you and I often talk about, and it's the dilemma that libertarians, principled people face about

participating in elections. It's such a nasty business to be involved in this thing, and to be pigeonholed into this choice in air fingers quotes between evil and somewhat less evil, you know, and there's an argument which it resonates with me. I get it that by voting, you're helping to legitimize the system,

and that's certainly true. But I do think there's an element of dress involved in elections, and in that case, you're entitled to act defensively, and so voting to counteract your neighbor who's voting to take away your liberty. I don't see that as a morally bad thing, and I don't think that by doing that you're somehow endorsing whatever evil this politician is going to do. Now, the piece focus is on what's been happening in Virginia, which is

where I live, and Glenn Youngking being elected over there. Yes, the Republican Glen Youngkin was elected rather than Terry mcauliff, the Clinton apparatchick really important, and it shows that elections do matter, because there were thirty something bills that were put forward by the General Assembly, which is controlled completely by the Democrats, that is, the leftists, that would have all but completely criminalized

most gun ownership, most gun buying in the state of Virginia. Northam vetoed thirty of those bills. So if so facto, it seems to me elections do matter. That's not a small thing. It's an important thing. And it doesn't mean that at the same time, you can't hope for something better. You know, I understand that Glenn Youngkin is not Thomas Jefferson, but he's also not Joseph Stalin. You know, I'd like to I'd like to

have somebody who's at least somewhat closer to Thomas Jefferson than Joseph Stalin. And I think that that scales, and that's essentially what the piece is all about. Yeah, you mentioned here subjecting anyone's rights to a vote every so often is like having them live at the foot of a leaky dam, leaving them in perpetual dread that tomorrow will be the day the dam bursts and washes away their life along with everything they've spent their life, their life working for No

one should ever be put in this position. More finally, no one should ever be in the position of having the legal power to vote to have the state take away anything from anyone, nor control him a priori in any way, meaning leave him be unless he's actually done something that resulted in a tangible harm to another person. And then you go into a little more explanation there, because I think it's important. It's good that you provide that in context

as you explain what you're seeing practically on the ground there. Yeah, yeah, I mean voting as such in the context that we live in a Really, when you think about it, it's a macab kind of a thing, and it's something that enables people who on their own probably would be ashamed, if not afraid, to go over to their next door neighbor, let's say, fingering a pistol and saying give me money, or you know, you're going to take that bush out of your front yard because I don't like it.

Most people wouldn't do that, because most people aren't psychopaths, you know, But somehow it is it enables psychopathy writ large, to go to vote for somebody who's going to do this awful, dirty business for you you know that you're going to somehow benefit from. And then on the alternative side, there's people who hate all of this stuff and who vote defensively, who go there in the hopes that well, maybe at least I can minimize the damage.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. You know, you're trying to minimize the damage that's being done to you. And again, you're under duress. It's not like you don't you have the choice really realistically to opt out and say, well, no, I'm not going to participate in this, that's fine, but you can it's going to be done to you

regardless. That's the bottom line. Yeah, it's and it's such a difficult thing to consider when entering into that sphere to say, Okay, I think I'm going to make that decision, or if one does this hypothetically, because you never know what the politician is going to encounter in the future, so can you reliably you know, you're really taking a leap of faith in a way for this person's integrity and that he or she will act on what he promised, uh to say, I'm going to try to reduce the burden of

the state. You look at people like Thomas Massey, Ron Paul or you know my friend Glenn down Glenn Jacobs down in Tennessee in Knox County, and you say, okay, you know a lot of people in the Free State project. You know, there are differing opinions between the pure voluntarist anarchists and the people who say, no, we're going to try to participate in the

state of New Hampshire. And they've done some good things. They've been able to open up the ability for people to use medical marijuana and then to get marijuana decriminalized. They've opened up things about the Respect the Guard Act and things like that. So it is interesting, and everybody's subjective viewpoints are obviously going to be played upon, and they might permutate, and they have different opinions from everybody, but that core nugget of it of the state is that great

entity of force and coercion can't be avoided. And I think it's very interesting when you look at that young and Young and mccaulliff battle, because the people in Virginia are the ones that I know are so pleased that young that they they don't have Jerry mccaulliff. That's what I'll say. Yeah, I think a good way to look at this, you know, to kind of deal with the creepy feeling that a lot of us have about participating, you know, about voting. Imagine that you're a slave. You're a slave, okay,

your property you're owned. You're on a slave plantation, and the master says, well, you can work in the house or you can work in the field. Okay, So as a slave, I think it'd be better to work in the house if I'm going to have to be a sleep. But does it mean that you can't in your own head be thinking about, okay, when when I have the opportunity, I'm going to it at this place, I'm going to take off. So is there an incongruity there?

You know, in the moment, you're under duress and you have this option to better yourself within that system somewhat. It doesn't mean you're precluding the possibility of escaping, and it doesn't mean that you sanction your own slavery. It means you're doing what you have to do to survive in a situation in which you've been put under duress. Well, I hope people will check out the piece, Eric, because you put a lot of thought into this, and

you know, you take it from the ground in Virginia. You look at the ramifications of what would have happened if Terry mccaulliffe, who just amazingly unscrupulous person, if he were to have gotten in there. And the people in Virginia have suffered so much under their prior governor that hopefully some things are going to change. I know a lot of people live in Virginia, obviously is probably you do, and it's really stunning to see that so many important factors

of their lives are influenced by the state. And challenge people. I say, when you're driving along, look out the window of the car sometime and just see if you can see anything that's not touched by the hands of the political system. And you know it's it's not good, that's for sure. Hey, why don't we talk also, just real quick about if people want to head over to Eric Peters autos dot com about your rumble channel and the videos that you put up there. Yeah, sure, I think it's under

EPRs. I'm embarrassed to say that I don't really know what my own title is over at Rumble. But I went over to Rumble because I had been on YouTube for a number of years. But then I got deep monetized and deep platformed because I've posted wrong, thinkful things has happened to so many people. So I made the shift over to Rumble, and and I just do

these little monologues. I've got this cheesy, really cheesy little camera thing that I use, and I take it with me when I go for a drive, whether it's in my truck, my transam, or one of the new cars that I test drive. And I just like to ramble and monologue about things that I think maybe might be a for people and might get a conversation going. So there's a lot of that stuff up on the Rumble channel if you'd like to take take a look at it. And also over at your

website. Want to show the store where I've got the black and white BAH cap and I wear that often when I'm driving, and I'm very happy about that. You can see the safety T shirt and the key T shirt. So I think we're gonna have to make a Haiti T shirt now, Yes, well, they're gonna They're making their plans about Haiti, aren't they.

Absolutely one. Absolutely, And it's interesting because unredacted, probably maybe six or five months ago, they were like, yeah, watch Haiti, they're gonna do something in Haiti, and sure enough they did, and they're gonna do more unfortunately. Eric, So great to have you here. I really appreciate you being here. I want to before you go, I neglected to go into Rockfin and Rumble Chad to just check out and see if anybody had any

questions for Jacob and I'd love to do that with you. Absolutely, so over Rumble and Rock Finchat first, I want to thank uh. Let's see, we had someone who contributed, Michelle Obaman said dig the cardinal look, but let's not go pope, okay, because I've got the red Absolutely absolutely it's my Star Trek red shirt. Look, I guess. Thank you very much. Thank you. That's really nice. And of course anybody wants to

contribute. Everything goes towards David Show today and drop your comments and questions inside chat if you want to. And then we've got and I didn't even get to talk to you about the Epstein Bridge where now you know that's from Tony Rdiburn mentioned Epstein Jeffrey Epstein dying the lack of information. Yeah, suddenly the black box isn't functioning with the black box is supposed to function. I don't

know what it means. I have a thought on that, actually, Yeah, not think it's worth anything, because I really know next to nothing about

maritime stuff. But I wonder. The thought that immediately occurred to me is whether these big ships are kind of like cars are now, meaning that they're not directly mechanically controlled anyone, so that when the power shut off, the guy who was in the pilot house or whatever they call it, who's trying to steer the ship, you know, he would put inputs into his toggle or whatever, but that wouldn't be translated into the appropriate motion to the rudder

because it's not mechanical anymore. It's drive by wire. So that might explain it, but I don't know. Oh, that's very interesting. That is very that's key. Oh wow, And you know, Eric, it's fascinating to me to see this sort of thing because again, you know, it reveals incredible lessons. You know, it's difficult because the first blush, people lost their lives, people were killed, and people tried to really act to

stop this. But then there are the ramifications of the supply chain and all that things and all that, But there are lessons we can get out of this, and I'm curious to I'd be interested to find out. I'm sure it will take someone with much more greater investigatory powers to be able to investigate the way those ships work than I have, but maybe things, you know, maybe some people will be interested in this. I was amazed when David

had the other the other day. David was able to he had found that YouTube channel where a man actually devotes most of his channel to maritime interests and navigation, and he had the satellite stuff up there and he was right on it. I didn't see it in the network news people doing that, that guy's particular interest the particular area. Yeah, it's nice. Nice. A water point too here which I think everybody's noticed, which is it's like everything's

falling apart. Airplanes are falling apart, brand new airplanes. The door falls off the thing while it's up in the air, the ship crashes into the bridge. Nothing works, you know. It's like Anne RAN's novel Atla Shrug is literally coming true right before very eyes. Everything is falling apart because confidence no longer matters. You're right, absolutely right, and the more we get a fascist system and it'll be more politics that matters more and more. Well,

Eric, thanks so much. It's a pleasure. It's, you know, my last couple of minutes here filling in for David, and I'm glad I get to spend it with you in the audience, and particularly for you. I want to thank you for all your great, great work, and I really appreciate Eric. I'd love to get you back on Liberty Conspiracy as soon as possible. We got to do the mind meld again, so yes, yes, so do the mine meld, the Vulcan mind meld. And

we'll watch more car Chase stuff. That was so much fun watching the seven ups car Chase. That was great. And I've got some other ones for you, obscure ones you may not be aware of. I'm not going to talk about it now. I'll send it to you privately and we can talk about it on the next show. All right, all right, that sounds great, Eric, Thank you, you do Yeoman's work. If I had my bo cap on, I would tell I would take off my cap to you right now. Thanks card, All right, Eric, Eric Peters,

Eric Peters autos dot com. Everybody remember the website. He is a phenomenal guy. Thank you all. As we head towards the last couple of minutes here in the David Knight Show, thank you all. Inside the Rockfinn Chat didn't get to really chat too much with you today, but Chuck Finley, thank you for being there. Michelle Obaman, thank you again for your contribution. Stephen Casper, thank you. Thank you. Says people better wake the h up or we will lose our freedoms, what's left of them. I

would add that Stephen one hundred percent. Great power to you. Brian de McCartney, have a blessed resurrection Sunday. Couldn't have said it better. Awesome, awesome, awesome. Really appreciate that. And then we've got this over here. Oh, I want to get this comment in here from Solocat nineteen eighty Did the immigrant workers filling the potholes on the bridge not understand the warning to get off the bridge because they didn't care to learn English? Well?

I understand the sarcasm there. I'll leave it at that. Over on Rumble, Junior Barner, I think I'm reading it right. God bless everyone. Enjoy the weekend with your family and friends. Absolutely, m Seller says he has risen. Indeed, isn't that great? What a beautiful day. Like I said, I heard the birds this morning. I know David's going to be enjoying the day with his family. I hope you enjoy it. Love

to you all, Thank you so much again. If you want to join me tonight Liberty Conspiracy, I've got to switch studios tonight, but it should be going on at six o'clock tonight. If anything happens, I'll try to get the word out. I have to go to another town take care of my brother's cats this evening, so there's a bunch of stuff that I have

to do before that. So hopefully I'll be able to have enough time to prepare, bring the tech with me, and get it all set up in my Russian studio somewhere in the deep woods of Siberia, Ah to provide the Russian propaganda. So in the meantime, thanks for listening to this awesome, incredible Russian propaganda here in the David Night Show, and thanks to David,

to Travis, to everyone in the audience. What a splendid, splendid day, Happy Easter, early Thank you so much Resurrection Day indeed, and of course I leave you and say farewell by bringing this in. Thanks for watching, everybody, remember go do Thedavidnightshow dot com. Enjoy the weekend, Take care the common man. They created common Core and dumb down our children. They created common Past to track and control us, their Commons project to make

sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future. They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us, while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want

to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find at d Davidnightshow dot com. Thank you for listening, Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. D Davidnightshow dot com