Fri Episode #2201: Bondi Dodges Epstein Questions Under Oath

about daylight savings time. He wants to pretend that these days don't even exist. Then we're going to take a look at this strange story out of El Paso, a new laser weapon the Pentagon is testing, but also talk about being wielded against cartel drones or UFOs or party balloons, which one of those you think it is multiple choices. But we're going to also take a look at the aiessay that I talked about the other day. A very impressive essay, is it true. A lot of people are

saying it's hype advertising, and maybe it's real. We'll be right back. Well, yesterday we had an issue with my device here that I put all the articles on as we've gone paperless, and the problem is is that it was centralized control. Whenever you put everything together centrally controlled and it goes out, then you have a big problem. So it took us quite a while to get a work around. And now I've got a second one so that this isn't going to happen again. Hopefully. I guess

the meantime between failure, it's like a radar ray. If you've got one disk drive five years. If you've got two of them in the mirroring mode, you can get many decades, perhaps even longer than that. So hopefully that'll happen this time. But I wanted to really talk about Pam Bondi, and we weren't able to do that yesterday, So they want to talk a little bit about this. It was one of the most ridiculous things, but not unexpected. What was unexpected was the extent of the absurdity and

the extent of her temper tantrums that were there. And I said it on Wednesday, before it over happened, I said, well, she going to be testifying today. It'll be another one of these deals where she shows up with a wrap sheet on everybody in hurls insults at them instead of answering the questions. That's the way she dodges the questions whenever she does it. And so she agreed as part of the questions. There was only one point of agreement

that I could really see. Agreed that Maxwell claim Maxwell did not deserve special treatment. However, she at the same time said she knew nothing about it, wasn't anything that belonged to her, that it was just a coincidence that the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche who was Trump's personal lawyer, just a coincidence that he went to her jail cell and interviewed her for a very long time. And then afterwards she gets the special treatment had nothing to do

with any quid pro quo. And yet at the same time we see her lawyer saying that she's willing to testify that Donald Trump didn't know them at all, basically and never committed a crime as long as she gets a pardon. I mean, they're openly putting this out, Well, anybody will that do Trump any good? No, it's nobody's gonna believe that. Everybody understands it's a quid pro quo that's happening here. So we all know this. We've saw this happen with Todd Blanche, but she pretends it didn't happen.

She's transferred to a Texas minimum security prison, of course, and now they're floating a pardon for her if she says that Trump is exonerated. This is one of the club fed print in Texas. For example, she gets all kinds of special privileges, puppy, a puppy tie. I don't know what a puppy tie is. I don't know if she's got a puppy. Anyway, she does have private workouts.

get a yes or no answer from Bondi. She's going to answer it the way she wants to answer it. She said she wasn't transferred to a lower security facility. First of all, that's a lie, one of many. And then she said she didn't know anything about her being transferred to the lower security facility. So first of all,

it's not a lower security facility according to her. You know, that's it's pretty standard in all the prisons that you get puppies and secretaries in private workout areas, Right, isn't that right?

the matter with them? Well, they're just mimicking the guy they work for. Anyway, she said, I said, I do not agree she should receive special treatment. She was transferred. I learned that after the fact to the same level facility. Lie And that is a question for the Bureau of Prisons. Well a Bureau of Prisons. It wasn't the Deputy Secretary of the Bureau of Prisons that got her transferred. It was the Deputy Attorney General that got her transferred. So it turned into a brawl.

at the point of justice interviewed this witness. You need to interview this witness immediately. Epstein should rot in hell. So should the men who patronize this operation. And as we say it here today, there are over one thousand sex trafficking victims and you have not held a single man accountable.

you just lied under oath. Isn't that interesting? You know, we just had the other day Wednesday. We're talking about Lutnik lying under oath on Tuesday, then on Wednesday, Ham Bondi lies under oath, and Cash Mattel has done it

many times himself. Every time these people go it is is a perjury trap, except we see that they don't charge them with perjury, just like they didn't charge James Clapper with perjury when James Clapper was asked point blank, are you doing are you spying on Americans with a search warrant with the NSA and no senator not intentionally? Blah blah blah. Right, we all know that he lied under oath, and yet they never charged him. Statue of limitations ended, I think in twenty eighteen. That was back

in twenty thirteen he did it. And so it even got to the extent that Pam Bondi went after a Jewish Democrat who got so upset she pushed back her chair and stormed out. She accused the Jewish rep of

being anti Semitic because she doesn't support net Yahoo. As I've said many times, there's a lot of Jews who do not support what Israel is doing, because there's a lot of Jews in Israel who didn't vote for Netanya, who he barely got together a coalition to govern, and he had to have three elections in order to do that, and so there's a lot of people who don't support him there as well as in the United States who are Jewish, and so Pam Bondi is out there throwing

the race card around just like a liberal, right So Pam Bondy traded Barbes just about every Democrat of the House Judiciary Committee. When she got to Jamie Raskin, she called him a loser. She said that Thomas Massey had Trump derangement syndrome. But that's pretty original, isn't it. You point out what Donald Trump is, Oh, you got Trump dellusion syndrome, says, give me a break. They always resort to that. And then she said that Jamie Raskin was a loser. He wasn't even a lawyer and so forth

he taught in law school. Anyway, I think she is projecting a total minelt down from Representative Becca Ballant, who stormed out of the hearing after the Attorney General seemingly grew frustrated by one of the many questions about Jeffrey Empstein and launched into a personal attack on her voting record. Which is Pam Bondi's tactic and strategy. It is weakness. It is clear to everybody that it's a cover up.

Everybody knows she's dodging the questions. She might as well just plead the fifth anyway, accusing her of anti Semitism for not supporting Israel. Ballant was the first Jewish Congress member to use the term genocide to describe the war in Gaza. With this anti Semitic culture, said Bondi. She voted against a resolution condemning before being interrupted by Ballant. Ballance said, you want to go there. You're talking to

a woman who lost her grandfather in the Holocaust. Ballant responded before slamming her chair into the deis behind her and storming out of the room. Fuming. She repeatedly asked Bondy if her department had investigated the ties of top Trump administration leaders have to Epstein, at one point stating this is not a game Secretary, to which Bondi responded, I'm Attorney General. My apologies. I couldn't tell She behaves

like a secretary, doesn't she. And I don't mean a secretary with a capital S as part of the cabinet, just somebody who is serving the every whim of Donald Trump. I thought that was the best comeback of anybody actually calling her a secretary. And as you get it reminds me of Vinman. Remember that Lieutenant Colonel Vinman to you that the Ukrainian shill. Anyway, the Age furiously clashed with

Jamie Raskin. He accused Bondy of philibustering and he said, I told you about that attorney Joan before you started speaking about the philibustering. She said, you don't tell me anything you want, washed up loser. You're not even a lawyer. So we have this hierarchy that you know, lawyers are special or something. If that's ever that was the case, I think Pambondy just blew blew that. If she's the top lawyer, she's the top attorney general. What does that

say about the profession right there? That's probably one of the worst attacks on the legal profession to have Pam Bondy there. Nevertheless, before he was a congressman, he was a professor at American University Washington College of Law. But anyway, whatever you think about Jamie Raskin or in these other people that are Democrats who are attacking her, can we look at Pambondy and say that she absolutely owned herself As a matter of fact, Dana lash who I think says

she is a Second Amendment person. She has no love of Pam Bondy, who has no love of the Constitution, especially the Second It's not just the Second Amendment that Pampondi hates this everything. She and Christy Nome are out there with their surveillance state. They're out there getting Apple and Facebook to pull down people who have groups that are watching what Ice is doing, punishing them, and so far she hates every aspect of the Constitution and the

Bill of Rights. Anyway, Jay and Paul said, will you turn to the survivors behind you now and apologize for what your DOJ has put them through the absolutely unacceptable release of the Epstein files and their private information. Said, I'm not going to get in the gutter with you, he said, So she got into the gutter with Donald Trump, though, and Jamie Raskin said, this performance screams cover up.

for this, like Breitbart was just disgusting. Bright Bart their first response to Larry Lutnik being caught with perjury and the awful things that came out in terms of, you know, he definitely has a perjury issue, but when you look at the financial aspects of what Larry Lutnick is doing as Commerce Secretary and the traps that he's laying for all of us. Breitbart had a special exclusive interview with him, and they were featuring Larry Lutnik all over the place,

more so even than their defense of Pam Bondi. And their defense of Pam Bondi was a Congressman, Brandon Gill who came on and said, well, you know, in the Biden administration, they didn't do this and they didn't do that. Again, it's the what about ism. Well, you know, they committed a crime or they did not prosecut this and so forth, so therefore we can do the same as they did.

So they simultaneously criticize somebody else for the wrongdoing that they're doing, and then even though they criticize the other side, they use it as a get out of jail free card for themselves. When is that going to stop? I'm so sick and tired of seeing that every time you catch the Trump people of the GOP and something. Oh well, the Democrats and Biden did it as well. That's no excuse none whatsoever. And this is just a downward spiral

that they're taking the entire country in. You know, once the other side commits a crime, and of course they usually get away with it. We're not going to try to reform anything. We're not going to try to punish anybody. And don't you criticize me when I do the same thing that I criticize those people for. So they're talking about Epstein today, she said, this has been around since the Obama had been imistration. The Dow is over fifty thousand,

right now, there you go. And I think one of the best comebacks that I saw from anybody said, we don't worry about pedophiles unless the Dow is below fifty thousand. Isn't that essentially everything that Jeffrey Epstein was doing. I mean, isn't that the essence of what we're talking about with the elite as long as they can make money, as long as they get away with what they want, as long as they get what they want out of it, whether it is the hedonism or whether it's the massive

amounts of money. Then we're not going to punish anybody. There's no crime that we need to take a look at. She has embraced with that statement that everybody can. She embraced the essence of Epstein and the pedophile elite with all of that. So Massey launched a blistering attack on her for not properly redacting the names of victims. As a matter of fact, he had said the night before he was a stop by reporter. They were asking him,

what's going to happen the next day? You have this to say, same questions.

way when they do it. So, Jerry Nadler presented her with a asked her whether not the DOJ is indicted or is investigating any of Epstein's alleged co conspirators, citing what he called concrete evidence of disgusting criminality. Bondi attempted to decidestep the question. When Nataler repeated it, she raised her voice and insisted she would answer the question the way I want to answer the question, talking over him.

As colleagues tried to intercede. As exchange escalated, Bondi pivoted away from the from Epstein entirely and went down her The Dow is at fifty thousand talking point, isn't that amazing? And of course the you know, the back and forth with Ted lou where she got very nasty with him. You're not even a lawyer type of thing. That's the epathetic aspect of this. But let's stick with Massey. And this is what happened as the two of them were talking.

answer the question. So yeah, so by the end of the exchange, Bondy had not answered whether the DOJ agrees that there's no credible information about co conspirators, why a document listing Wexner as a co conspirator was redacted, or who approved releasing victims' names while obscuring alleged abusers. The

hearing closed with unanswered questions. A stark contrast between Democrats early sparring over evasions and a later bipartisan rupture that put the departments handling of the Epstein file squarely on the center of the kind tell you how damagingly badness was. Even a sellout sycophant like Alex Jones criticized this and was using every swear word he could think of. He was so upset because his team that he's gone to bat for fell on its face. She fumbled the ball, Alex,

didn't she? But they're just a bunch of crooks. You know that. I know that. Why'd you ever cover up for them? Anyway? The uh, you know, the Jamie Raskin thing was your washed up loser lawyer. That's a bit of projection that's there, isn't it. But meanwhile, you look at what Breitbart does with this as I said before, on Wednesday's show, Larry Lutnick was caught committing perjury. It testified once before that he had no involvement with Epstein. He met him once, he said after they moved next

door to him. They went over for tea or something at at lunchtime on a Saturday, and he talked about his massage table and said we thought he was pretty creepy and suggestive, and any window about that. We didn't ever want to have anything with him, that's any involvement with him whatsoever, and we cut it off at that point in time. Then the documents show that that's not true. He actually went to the island after that, so we

actually had testified to that one thing under oath. So we have a commerce secretary, he's not only next to our neighbor friend and island visitor, but also obviously committed perjury. So what is Breitbart's reaction to this? They immediately bring him in for a special interview, and some of the things he had to say have more to do not just with the corruption, but with things that are going

to actually harm us. So watch live. Bright Bart News hosts a commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, for a policy discussion.

But notice how these people, whether it's Pambondy or whether it's Breitbart, they grabbed this ring of the stock market or the promise of money, and they don't care about the pedophile ring. They're going for the golden ring. And so one of the things that he says is that we're going to have automated manufacturing coming to America. And I said this in twenty seventeen when Trump did the tax cut. Andy, so that's going to reshore all these

different manufacturing things that have gone to other countries. I said, no, it's not. And you know, I remember dryl Centy and I talking about it, how it was going. He was His big thing was, yes, it's just going to be stock buybacks for the corporations to do that, and it really was. It was a windfall for all of them. It's absolutely amazing. And I said, yeah, they're not going to bring back any manufacturing until they get their mechanical

slaves or robots. And again the robots are not necessarily the biped robots that are going to be carrying around things like the humans would do. But it's also when you look at the all the other aspects of automation. I mean, Amazon's got a tremendous amount of robots already automating the process, going around and just look like rumbas, and they go under a particularly restocking what they've got on the shelves and picking stuff off of the shelves.

You don't have to have something looks like a human to do that, and so it's going to be a

capital intensive thing. They'll get a lot of tax breaks, maybe even they'll get subsidies from the from the federal government if they change the federal government more like Trump wants at his model of economic fascism, where it's actually a partnership between the people running the government, just like communists China, the partnership between the people running the government and the people have the corporations as the two of them merge. But he says, the automated manufacturing is coming

to America and it's perfect for us. We gotta get his voice on here, because he's got this gangster rough voice that's there, and he really is a gangster I think. Anyway, it's perfect for America because we don't want to have any Americans working in the higher paying factory jobs. Right want to have robots or h one B visa foreigners come in. That's really what we want. He said. There's some things that should be made overseas, sandals, cheap T shirts,

and we're cool with that. You can do an enormous amount of manufacturing domestically, he said, using advanced robotics, not people. You know, we don't want people getting we don't want people getting high paying jobs or anything like that. We don't want to when we have things that have a lot of value, we don't want to pass that on to employees. We're want to keep all those profits ourselves.

own nothing and they'll be poisoned. Yeah. Pay no attention to the desperate attempt to protect and cover up satanic pedophile rings. The economy is doing great, that's the bottom line. That's what Breitbart will tell you, That's what Pam Bondi will tell you, That's what the geop will tell you. It doesn't matter about satanic pedophile rings and satanic child abuse and so forth. That doesn't matter. We can all get rich. It's just what we need. It's more billionaires

poisoning us as they rape our children. We're going to get cheaper drugs in America. They're going to be made here as well. I expect we're going to have four hundred billion dollars of on shoring of pharmaceuticals. Generally speaking, said Lutnik to Breitbart. For name brand drugs like Ozimbic, Manjarro, things like that, we produce seventy five percent of their revenue and one hundred percent of their profits. Right, because we are we are the big pay We pay one

thousand dollars. Everybody else pays one hundred and fifty bucks. Why is that? Why is that? And why is it that Trump through tens of billions of dollars at Moderna and Pfizer to make the mRNA vaccines and continues to do that. And they do that, they grease the skids for them in terms of approval, and then they turn around in gratitude they screw us to the wall. In terms of price. We pay many many times more than everybody else. That's according to him, it's about factor of ten.

Why is that? Well, they have this thing called most Favored Nation. You would think that the nation that paid for the development costs of one of the most profitable products they've ever had, the Trump shot, You would think that we get some favors back from them, But no, they act like they're a country. And so you know, countries have most Favored Nation status in terms of trade, but pharmaceutical companies do as well. It's just they don't favor us. They exploit us. And he wants to be

a part of that. He wants to as long as he can get a piece of it. With Trump RX they're all for that.

few things and a few more. We'll have you know, our factories doing that, and maybe they'll be on American soil, maybe not. It's just whoever gives us the power plants and most water that would have gone to the citizens.

violence against citizens in Minneapolis. A attorney general, you are siding with purpse and you're ignoring the victims. And she is also siding with the criminals because she doesn't want law abiding people to have guns. That is throughout the Trump Administration's not just her, it's also people like Janine Perrot. The attorney general accused Democrats of only caring about the issue because Trump is in the White House. Well, she doesn't care about the issue because Trump is in the

White House. That's the bottom line. Rasking demanded to one of those back and forth the Judiciary Chairman, Jim Jordan, restore time. And that was another shouting match that they got into. Anyway, that's the point at which she called him a washed up, loser lawyer, not even a lawyer. And so she said, you should all be apologizing. You set here and you attack the president, and I'm not going to have it. I'm not going to put up

with it. Yeah, this is her three D approach, the typical Trump three D. It's not Chess's checkers, deny, distract, divert and always lie. None of them, asked Merrick Garland, over the last four years, one word about Epstein, How ironic is that you know, why because Trump? Why are they coming out? Why is it a big deal with Trump? Then with a MAGA people, Well, it's because Trump campaigned on releasing these files.

all to jail, but they use that as an excuse. Well, you got some Democrats associated with him, So now that means that you know, because this guy saw him a half dozen times, now doesn't mean And now it means that for all those disgusting parties and beauty contests that he and Jeffrey Epstein did together, that Trump did with Jeffrey Epstein, now you don't get to look at any of that. You know, we've have now declared Trump to be Epstein free. It's absolutely amazing the nonsense logic behind

all this stuff. And again Breitbart, again, the only thing they had about Bondi was the fact that this Brandon Gill guy says, well, what about the Biden Harris Department of Justice and their weaponizing of the justice system. That's the headline on Breitbart. He asked her about several instances in which the Biden Harris Department of Justice weaponized the justice system. So now she can weaponize the justice system.

You see every criminal act of the Democrats did. Now it can be done by the Republicans, and vice versa. The Democrats will play the same game when they get back in power, which probably won't be too long, they'll say, well, we can do that because Trump did. They already did it with gun control by executive order. So he said, this is the way this thing ran with Gill, he said, so, did the Biden Harris Department of Justice allow Jack Smith

to spy on a dozen Republican members of Congress? Bondy absolutely, did the Biden Harris Department of Justice seize the phone of a sitting Republican congressman, Bondi said, yes, see how it works, and so now you can do all this stuff. And he said, thank you for returning the Department of Justice back to its core focus, which is on the rule of law. Are you serious? Are you serious? How cynical?

That is so? Jerry Nadler attacking Attorney General Bondi over Epstein while his colleague, Representative Plaskett was using Jeffrey Epstein as a confidant an advisor is the height of hypocrisy, That's what the Republicans are saying. So let me get this straight. He contacted him as a confident, confidant and as advisor, but Trump as his party pal. We don't want to pay attention to that. And the Republicans want to pay attention to the Clintons, but they don't want

to pay attention to Trump. I say, put them both in jail. And I say that. I point this out because you just need to understand what Breitbart has become. It is one of the most dishonest of all the news media. And I mean that whether you're talking about alternative media or mainstream media. I don't see anybody lower

than Bright. It's absolutely amazing. Well, masseew accused Bondi of criminal negligence in the Epstein release, the crime being that she violated this law that was specifically passed by Congress to stop this kind of cover up. And so Massey said, I'm trying not to be apathetic and subscribe to the memes that say you're not going to vote your way out of this. But I want to point out that Americans voted for four different administrations and they're all part

of the Jeffrey Epstein cover up. And you could see her her only concern, you know, when he mentioned, yeah, this goes through several different administrations. Yeah, yeah, yeah, see, it's not Trump at all. That's her only concern. You could see in her reaction to what Massey said. She didn't care anything about getting these people who had committed these crimes. Her only concern is to protect Donald Trump. It's absolutely disgusting. It's true.

that's for sure. So they're being sued, as I said before, for strong arming tech companies to target people who are monitoring ICE. That's not a crime. She hates the First Amendment, she hates the Second Amendment. She loves pedophiles. What else can we say? You know, Brandon Smith of Alt Market I liked what he had to say again about the psychology of evil. He said, you know, conspiracy theorists are

almost always right. We've improven right again time and again, and we'll continue to be right about many things that corporate media used to call fringe. And why is that? It's because we are looking at the operation of individuals that are there. He says, globalists first and or most are an occult network of organized psychopaths. And we look at that, you look at the bigger picture of this. One of these people's motives in terms of doing this,

what can we say? Just like with Pambondi, her motives are very transparent what she's doing there. Psychopaths seek out people with psychopathic traits like them, They recruit, they grow their numbers. And remember, you know, I've talked to John Kyaku many times. He said, the CIA is always looking for sociopaths. They don't really want to hire you if you're not a sociopath. And he said, they want you to get right up to the line of psychopaths, but

hopefully not over that. But that's really what they're looking for. CIA is one of those organizations that seeks out psychopaths. He points out from the mafia, to violent drug cartels, to religious cults to authoritarian governments, we have seen psychopaths congregate together and cooperate in the worst moments of our timeline. And again, the CIA checks almost all those boxes. We're talking about mafia, drug cartels, or authoritarian governments, probably even

as religious cults. There's a lot of evidence that the intelligence agencies that are there are heavily evolved in the occult right, remote viewing, and a lot of other really strange things that they do. They think it's real. So anyway, Jeffrey Epstein, he says, was not the top of the pyramid. He was also not some self serving flim flam man selling sex and depravity just to gain access to the

halls of power. Rather, he was a middleman, a drug dealer, selling dopamine experiences as a reward for members of the cabal while collecting the blackmail materials. But the cabal is far bigger than what we see in the Epstein files, and it supersedes any one nation or government. There are strange mentionings of clonings, of baby farming, black market sales, of the creation of a superior race in the files.

In other words, the interests of Epstein and his associates went far beyond sexual fetishes, and this is why it is so disgusting to see people like Pambondy, Cash Betel and Donald Trump covering this stuff up. There's real evil at the core of this, and it shows us that they are part of that evil. As he points out, some of the Epstein emails openly discussed sexual abuse and

torture of victims brought to the island. From Pizzagate information released by WikiLeaks in twenty sixteen, we can see that food code words are common for the globalists and seem to be tied to the abuse of young children. Pizza symbolism has been common within pedophilia networks for many years leading up to the exposure of Pizzagate. Is also common within the pages of the Epstein files. The word pizza is used as a code at least nine hundred times

in the emails. As a matter of fact, Ben Swan got into the Pizzagate stuff when it was first put out there, and I saw that. He put up another video where he says, I've been vinegated vindicated. Now look at these upstairs. Nine hundred times it's mentioned here. He goes, Yeah, this stuff is real. There's a lot of disinformation that people jumped into that was sensational, and of course that is the way the stuff always gets shut down. You have people who are basically control ops to shut this

stuff down. What they do is they put out just as we've seen over and over again with Steve Achenick about so many different things. They have people like Steve Achenick who will put out lies in and around a particular event, and then when that gets reported, that gets something that is sensational, and because it's false, easily disproven, they use that to disprove the entire thing. That's the

way it's always been done. And so now we see with this that yes, the Pizza Gate stuff not necessarily that particular pizza parlor or whatever, but was evidence that of exactly what they were doing. And it's back again here. But there's something else that's there is, as Smith points out, the use of beef jerky and the Epstein emails mentioned hundreds of times specifically disconcerting considering, including talk of keeping quote the jerky on ice unquote, So when do you

do that? When do you keep beef jerkey on ice? A strange obsession with jerky portion weights with lab testing of jerky in order to prevent sickness et cetera. Whatever they're talking about, it's not jerky. You have to ask yourself what kind of edible product would be so criminal that it has to be hidden behind elaborate code speak. Well, the obvious conclusion would be that jerky is code for human meat. So I might argue that there's no benefits

seating human meat, so why would the elites do it? Well, the critics are operating from a logical perspective, not from the perspective of the occultist. One can't separate Epstein Island from occultism and still understand what happened there. And he makes a distinction between Luciferianism and Satanism. The Satanists occupied with the pursuit of pleasure, of the expensive morality, while Luciferians are occupied with the pursuit of power, so power

versus pleasure. But they both say do as thou wilt. And it is psychopathic in the sense that it has no empathy for anyone else, and it functions as essentially a parasitic cult on the rest of humanity. He points out that if they weren't such a small percentage of the human race, there wouldn't be anything left. He said, the majority of us have though a mechanism called conscience, which either stops us from committing evil most of the time, it also causes us to feel guilt. We know that

we've acted in a destructive manner. If the majority of the population didn't have that, we would have gone extinct. But the psychopaths, the globalists don't have this mechanism. In fact, they think the conscience is a hindrance, It is a sign of weakness, and that people have it are easily victimized. This is a predatory class of humans. And this is

something you see from criminals in every regard. I mean, I've seen this over and over again in people who are scheming about how they can do something to somebody. Truly is amazing to watch these people in operation. Well, Pambondi unmasked a dark truth about the Trump administration with these theatrics, says Daniel Hampton. And the one thing you got wrong about that is it's the Trump regime. It's not an administration. It's just a power regime. People are

the Luciferians. During her congressional hearing this week, Epstein survivors set behind Bondi unacknowledged and irrelevant to her purposes as she performed for the cameras. That is the way it was described by Dahlia Lithwick and escathing analysis for Slate in which Lithwick said that Bondie's testimony wasn't about justice

or accountability. It's about a woman who knows that she has to seek and maintain protection, and so she says the She crows about the dow Jones before the cameras because she understands that if she doesn't, she will be

left behind. What Bondi and Trump and Lutnik and Blanche are doing under the banner of law and law enforcement and pardons and immunity and impunity is an operatic performance of a single truth that the law will now protect those who are within the network of favors and privilege and secrets and side eyes and nickers and abuse of young girls, and the law will abandon those who are not, She said, Bondi is theatrics during her combative house hearing

is very similar to a protection racket. They prey on everyone who refuses to buckle. We should probably stop calling this law and simply call it power, or maybe we should just call it Luciferian It amazes me that as all of this stuff was happening, when we talk about the Christian aspects of this, we talked about the occultic aspects of this. Think about as all this stuff has

been unfolding over the last couple of weeks. Right in the middle of it, you have the Millennia movie comes out, and it is truly amazing to see people like Robert Jeffers, who has a megachurch in Dallas. Thousands of people go to his church and he is there talking about how it was so wonderful that he was a part of the movie. He said, they have me in this movie, and I was surprised to see myself in this movie. But here's some of our church ladies who went to

the event. They even get dressed up. They went to the trouble of making replica Milania dresses this long white dress with a black zigzag on it. This is a bunch of women who go to his church going to celebrate this prostitute Milania Trump, an Epstein girl herself right. And I don't even know, I don't even know what we could how we could explain this to anybody who looks at it. I just have to say, folks, this

is not what Christianity is about. Especially, this is a movie that was the comeback movie for a director who had had some big films. They weren't good films, but they were big budget films. And I mean, he did an X Men movie other things, so they gave him a lot of money. Hollywood did. But he had his fallout in twenty seventeen, a lot of sexual allegations. And here he is in the Epstein files hugging a young girl. He's the guy on the right. Of course, there's Jeffrey Epstein.

The girl's face is blacked out. Now, this is the guy that jeff Bezos picked to do the Milania movie. Again, as I pointed out, the budgets that you typically have on these documentaries, or maybe in the million dollar area of the entire budget, they gave her twenty eight million. It was a payoff. And Robert Jefferson is so excited about the fact that he's in that movie. I would want my name taken off of it if they put me in there. Make it clear that I had nothing

to do with that. I can't believe that he is pushing that so hard and pushing the people in his church to go to it, and he's proud of this. He puts this out that says Twitter. He's the one who put that picture out there some of our church ladies at the new movie Milania that includes my prayer for the president and the first lady. Yeah, yeah, I have time. I see that. I think of the Fiddler on the Roof. Is there a prayer for the Czar? Yes,

God bless and keep the tzar far away from us. Anyway, Lutnick again, sorry not Lutnick, but this is Lithwick who's talking about Bondie's theatrics. It's nothing but a protection racket that prays on everybody who's not a part of that club. And again I said, Dana Lesh has no love for Pam Bondi because Pambondi despises the Constitution, especially at the Second Amendment. And so Dana Lush Lesh said, this is one of the most embarrassing things I've ever witnessed from

a lawmaker. Republicans Democrats were at asking her about Epstein and the Republicans. It wasn't just Massy, You're talking about Jim Jordan, You're talking about Brandon Gill. He said, more Conservatives than Pam Bondi because they never they had never been for gun control like her. If you want to sit here and introduce the Dow into it, let's go ahead and talk about your positions on red flag laws

and universal background checks. Attorney General, she was asked why she has not prosecuted the people that we know who are in these emails, and she tries to deflect. She's not savvy enough though, to do that. She has no political acumen. She's not savvy enough to take that tone and try to spin it like that. It was disastrous, she said. Every time she was asked a tough question, she would be like, well, you have Trump derangement. The person who kept bringing it back to the hearing, kept

bringing Trump back to the hearing was her. She said she was the only one that was bringing up Trump, but she was always Trump, this and Trump. She said, it was one forced air after unforced error about the entire thing. Meanwhile, how does Fox News handle this? Well, crickets, Basically, this is media. They went through and they totaled up the number of mentions on Wednesday morning of Jeffrey Epstein

as all this stuff was happening on MSNBC. They mentioned Jeffrey Epstein's name three hundred times, and three hours of Attorney General Pam Bondi's House Judiciary Committee hearing CNN mentioned during those hearings, CNN mentioned it one hundred and fifty times. Fox mentioned it three times. Basically, they made it disappear. And then of course Bike barn does as they bring in the worst of the worst Lutnik and they start talking about how he's gonna make all this money for

America by automating everything. No jobs for the rest of us, but for he and his Luciferian friends. We'll be right back.

a phony emergency. And that is before the Supreme Court right now. And I don't know what is taking him so long. It's an open and shut case, quite frankly. But anyway, they have people in Congress who are trying, they want to be able to bring up motions on the floor and say that they're going to stop these new tariffs that Trump puts in, and he's trying to stop it by this kind of fictional thing about how

do you measure a day? Is not amazing. And in the backdrop of all this, I can't understand why the Supreme Court hasn't already come up with a decision on this. Because Trump is bragging about the fact that he raised tariffs on Switzerland because of the phone call from one of Switzerland's leaders. He says, I didn't really like the way she talked to me. Isn't that amazing? That's the basis. It's not something that has to do with economics, It

isn't anything that has to do with national security. It is about the fact that he doesn't like the way she talked to him. Like I said before, his geopolitical planning and the things that he's doing in terms of geopolitics is nothing but ego politics. And these tariffs don't have anything to do with economics. They're egonomics. He said on Tuesday that he raised tariffs on Switzerland after a phone call with the country's former president, saying he didn't

approve of the way that she took. He said, so the tariffs were at thirty percent. I really didn't like the way she talked to us, so instead of giving her a reduction, I raised it to thirty nine percent. This is exactly why you don't want somebody like this in the office of president. But you don't especially don't want one person doing the setting the rates. This is why tax rates should be and it his at tax by the way, in spite of their lives about that,

you want that to be done by Congress. He said, she just rubbed me the wrong way. I'll be honest with you. Democrats then said his comments were an admission that his tariff policies are not about national security. No, they're not about national security. They're not about economics. They're about egonomics. It's not about even the trade deficit, and certainly isn't about making Americans great again. You know, he says America, Bay doesn't say Americans. This is an America

without Americans being involved in it. In the case of Switzerland, he increased the tariffs because, let me check my notes, he didn't like the way the Swiss leader quote talked to me. So the Democrats in a statement, Republicans must join Democrats to end this reckless behavior. I agree. The US and Switzerland reached a trade agreement in November to reduce tariffs on Swiss imports from thirty nine percent to

fifteen percent. On Tuesday, three House Republicans joined with Democrats voting against banning members' ability to call snap votes to repeal the president's tariffs. So, in other words, what Speaker Johnson is trying to do was to stop them from having a vote to question Trump's tariffs. You can just impose these things at will, according to Speaker Johnson. So the three who pushed back, Yes, that's.

trade deficit. No, we don't. You know, if you want to talk about deficits being a national emergency, it is the budget deficit that is a national He doesn't care at all about the budget deficit, but he doesn't want to have a trade deficit with anybody. Again, the guy doesn't understand economics or anything else. The Supreme Court is also considering the legality of using a provision under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Again, this has absolutely no

merit whatever. The Marquette Law School poll found that sixty three percent of respondents want the Supreme Court to restrict the president's authority to impose terror. So what he was doing again gets the point. Like I said, they're not even good liars. They're not even good. When they try to shut this stuff down. They come up with things that are absolutely insane. And that's the way it was characterized by many people absolutely insane, trying to pretend that

a day is not a day. What a difference a day makes? Twenty four little hours almost got that to play that. Mike Johnson lost a key procedural vote Tuesday night when he tried to delay future votes on Trump's ability to levy terriffs with a rule that rewrote what constitutes a day in order to delay a vote on Trump's tariff emergency. This is how sick this sycophant, Mike Johnson is. And again look at how this guy who presents himself out as a Christian, how he is doing

everything he can to cover up for these pedophiles. Amazing.

So again, why is that there. Well, they have twisted and inverted the Emergencies Act so many different ways. It's the same thing they do the Constitution all the time. They turn it inside out upside down. Congress has to vote to renew each emergency declaration annually, and they have to approve a new emergency after fifteen days. So they didn't do any of that stuff. First of all, we don't have an emergency. We've had trade deficits that have been around this amount for quite a long time. That

does not constitute an emergency. And then even if it were an emergency, they're supposed to have a vote within fifteen days of the new emergency. And so none of this was done. The same way that they declare war with Venezuela. Everything is thrown out. So again, this is worse than daylight savings time. This is a calendar day

lying time. From Mike Johnson, the rule would have allowed Trump's emergency declarations to stand through July by simply declaring and denying the existence of time, said Thomas Massey, and he got it exactly right. He said that the Speaker is trying to pass a resolution that literally says a day is not a day, just to avoid voting on the emergencies that underpin the tariffs. Smoke and mirrors. You know, it's lies and fraud is what. It is.

Nancy Mace Bobert and Margie Tayler Green. Well, Margie Tayler Green's gone. The other two voted for this stuff to redefine a day. That amazing. But Don Bacon and he said, we need to be able to debate tariffs. Tariffs have been a net negative for the economy and they are a significant tax that American consumers, manufacturers, and farmers are paying. Article one of the Constitution. Look at that he's talking about. The Constitution places authority over taxes and tariffs with Congress

for a reason. But for too long we've handed that authority to the executive branch. Kevin Kylie, who voted against redefining a day, said, I don't think the House should be limiting the authority of members and enlarging the power of leadership at the expense of our members, and that's what this does. So I think it's important for the

House as an institution to push back against this. Well, fortunately because those three Republicans joined with the Democrats, they were able to shut it down, and so it would have made it impossible to vote on Trump's tariffs until August. The same kind of stuff that Johnson would doing to try to stop any votes about the Epstein thing. So again, there was one guy, a fourth guy that said he was going to do it, Tom mclennock, and there was

a similar resolution back in September. He backed out of that one and backed out of this one as well. As completely spineless, as are the Guardians of the Pedophiles. The GP. Well, we had this strange report about something happening in El Paso, and it really is strange, and again we don't really know what it is. Just like you had all these strange things about drones in New Jersey and other places in the northeast. It was about a year or so ago, is before Trump became president,

I think. But anyway, it is another one of those deals national security. They're not going to tell you. Some people are going to play it up as UFOs, and so we've had a lot of different explanations about this. Futurism's headline was I thought the best one. You're not prepared for what actually shut down the El Paso Airport. But let's just say it involves a military mega laser shooting something down. And then that's the other part of it, right, the first of all, there's the mega laser they and

they shot that down. But what they shot down, We've had a lot of different stories about what that was. Was it a drone from the cartels? That's one story that came from the White House. And then they pulled it back and said, oh no, it was just a party balloon. Don't want to alarm anybody. It's like a party balloon. You use this gigantic laser and you shut

down all air traffic control for party balloon. And then you've got some people who have put up you see a little dot that's on the horizon and say it was a UFO and look there's little dots that are coming out of this. So it was a mothership UFO and they shot the laser at it. I don't know if they claim that they shot it down or not, but always somebody wants to make it a flying saw. And so, according to CBS News, the bizarre airspace closure

came under orders from FAA Administer Administrator Brian Bedford. Bedford made the call after learning that the Pentagon planned to unleash high energy counter drone laser weapons at Fort Bliss, situated right next to the El Paso International Airport. Fox News reported that military personnel had shot down a rogue party balloon like you'd see at a child's birthday party. Maybe it was a gender reveal or something right near

El Paso, after misidentifying it as a foreign drone. Whether this was done using the Pentagon's Mega laser is unclear at the moment, but it would be a wild coincidence if this was not the case. And so, again further mudding the water as the Trump Administration's claims, the Pentagon had taken action disable a vague cartel drone incursion right before the airspace shut down. So You've yet to see any evidence that that is the case. But again, the UFO crowd is there as well, as we see over

and over again. One thing that I talked about on Wednesday that I wanted to come back and revisit because I think it's important is the story about AI. And there's been a lot of pushback. This is a story again, as I pointed out, it was by a AI company CEO, Matt Schumer, and his company actually is called other Side AI.

Their product that they put out is something called hyper Write and it is there as an AI writing assistant, which has caused a lot of people to say, if you look at this, this is another one of these AI CEOs telling us that their product is going to be godlike and it's going to everybody's going to be you know, it's going to be the only thing left standing, so you better get in line and start making friends with it, and that type of thing. We've seen that

over and over again going to the federal government. People like Sam Altman of questionable integrity. This is the guy who was going around not that long ago before he weaseled his way into open AI control. He had this ORB and he was going to give you cryptocurrency if you let him create put you in his database that he evidently was putting together one to sell to governments,

and want to have an eye scan of you. So he had this orb like a giant eyeball, and if you'd let him scan your eyeballs and put you in his biometric database, he'd give you a couple of tokens and his new cryptocurrency. That kind of guy. And so we've seen over and over again this parade of AI CEO is going to Congress saying this is going to be the biggest thing ever in the world, and you're going to need to have it because the Chinese want

to have it as well. So you've got to give us a lot of money to make sure that we're there first. And we've got this creating this arms race scenario thing. And then the other aspect of it is it is so powerful that it's very dangerous, and so you need to have responsible people like me that's going to do it, let my competitors do it. You've got to put some regulation in there to keep them from

getting involved in this. And so I guess immediately suspect when you start seeing these CEOs of AI companies making these pronouncements about what's going on. To me, a lot of what the guy said rang true. That's why I read it because of the rapid escalation of AI that we can see just looking at things like vocal mimicking and the images and videos and stuff like that that we have a use for with the program occasionally. But a lot of people said, no, this is something that

was written by AI, because that's what this guy's company does. Well, the comeback from one person that's talking about it, and it went viral. I mean, it had millions of views, a lot of people talking about it, and I thought one of the most interesting quotes there was from the Washington Post Meghan mcgartoll. She said, well, if this was an AI written article, it's evidence of his thesis being true, because if an AI article could create that much stir,

maybe that's exactly what he's talking about. But I think on the flip side of this, we have seen people and this is another reason why I covered it, but I didn't have time to get to that much of it. On the flip side, we have seen a lot of people who are who have no interest in growing an AI company. As a matter of fact, they have washed out and said I'm done with this stuff. I don't want to have anything else to do with it. It's going to be very harmful to our society, to humanity,

and it's going so many negatives to it. I don't want to have anything to do with it. And so they're resigning and going public with it, and they're not trying to sell fear and trying to prop up an AI arms race or anything like that, and so that's on the other side of it. An open AI engineer calls it an existential threat just days after Anthropics Safety

lead quit over the same concerns. And it's not just them, it's also one of the founders of AI guy they refer to as the godfather of AI, Jeffrey Hinton, has been warning of the negative impacts on society as well, in terms of not just employment, but so many different things.

of the Trump regime. He is somebody who is very well versed, of course in economics. He runs the Bonson Group, which has eight billion dollars under asset of assets under management. I should say, so we're going to take a break and when we come back, we're going to talk to David Bohson of the Bonson Group. And I just want to tell everybody. I apologize that we've not been able to do comments and tips today. Everything should be normal

again on Monday. So I apologize that we're not able to respond to you today, but that should be back on Monday. So we'll be right back.

to David about several issues. First of all, you know, his expertise, of course, is in economics, but he also is a published Christian author. He has some perspectives on the meaning of life and how to find life's met in your work and other things. It's we want to touch on that as well. He had a rebuttal to a piece that was done on The Atlantic talking about the isolation that has been has become characteristic of our society.

So joining us now is David Bonson. Thank you for so much for joining us.

They're not even really interacting with the people behind the counter. And he wrings his hand and says, this is awful, and this is what is happening to American society. And he said he talked to them, that it was very bustling place before the pandemic, and yet he believed that it was some kind of a problem of capitalism. Is what did they say? The problem was? How did we get to this?

really longer piece. I did a whole podcast at my National Review Capital Record podcast about the broader subject of how do we reverse this trend of greater alienation and isolation in society?

we don't give markets the credit for that. But that's an example of markets accommodating a societal trend for the togetherness of what was the successful Taylor Swift concert tour a couple of years ago.

got their special formula. So I was skeptical of that all along. And I've seen the ways that this has been used and how it has advanced a lot of the let's say, the agenda, because when you look at that as well as some things like universal basic income and compare that to the stimulus checks, seems to me like there was a lot that was going on with that that was pushing us down this very bad path

of isolation and dependency on the government. And it doesn't surprise me to see the Atlantic take the approach that when the government gas lit enforced a lockdown in isolation, that they would then blame people who responded to that as businesses trying to stay alive.

And my son's generation, almost everybody meets their spouse or whatever that they know have met them online initially, And there used to be places where you could actually go and have a human to human interaction with somebody rather than primarily being online. And it's such a strange thing to see that, and it really is that kind of isolation. And many have bragged about that being the design, you know, but they won't to have like a ready player one environment.

We're all just set there in our virtual world, you know, communicating with people on the outside, rather than having any kind of in person communication.

talk a little bit about the solution. Because you wrote a whole book really about a perspective of life, full time work and the meaning of life. Give us a little bit of an overview of that.

our skills in ways that bring tremendous meaning and joy to our lives. This is a productive, proactive view of human agency versus a reactive and I think very sedentary one where people are sitting still waiting for things to happen to them. Yes, uh, and and and one allows for humans to experience great joy and meaning and dignity. And it reflects the created intent and character of our creator.

you know. And yet he was pointing out that study after study have shown that if you have a fulfilling job. As a matter of fact, people who are doing work that is not menial or reproduct typically naturally work for a longer period of time until help makes it impossible for them to do that. But if it's something like some kind of an intellectual pursuit or something like that that's a part of their work or some kind of

creative process, they typically do work longer. And I'm thinking of the many conductors that I've seen who continue conducting the symphony works are in the eighties and nineties, and it keeps them young and alive. It's not just waving their arms around, you know, getting that kind of exercise, but it's something that engages their spirit and their intellect. And so there is a truth to that, because there is a truth to what God said. He designed us

to work. He designed us to tend the garden. Work has become more difficult because after the Fall, God cursed that work, and it has now been deliberately made more difficult. And yet there are ways that we can still find our purpose in it, even if it is tainted by the curse of sin.

Jeff Bezos. It applies to all of us in some capacity to go and wake up every day with the blessing of being able to be productive the four letter word we call work.

manipulating interest rates. And now he's got the idea of prohibition of institutional investors. And you take issue with that. Tell us why you think that is the wrong approach and what the real root of housing problem is well.

things feed demand, but do nothing about supply. And when he talks about supply, he says, the institutional people that have come in and built new homes and bought homes have now made it more unaffordable. The reality is, first of all, the largest institutional holder owns about sixty thousand homes, thirty thousand that they own to sell, thirty thousand they owned a rent.

to and from. Yeah, exactly, it's just outrageous, and so it's not only not addressing the problem, but it is a solution that is outside of market principles that most of us on the right have believed in for a long time.

that's not the issue. Clearly when you look at the numbers. But again, what he's talking about doing is, as you point out, it's going to feed demand. I look at this in a sense like the car issue. You know, look at how unaffordable cars have gotten. I talked about this week the electric vehicles and how they were bragging that this new type of electric vehicle would be priced at under sixty thousand dollars. I thought, how is that

a selling feature that is so incredibly expensive. I went back and I looked at the average car price and adjusted it for inflation, and that's going from nineteen seventy four, so the last fifty years or so, that is double what it would be if you just adjusted for the inflation for the devaluation of the dollar. And so there's something else going on here. We know that the price of cars, it's not like it has a supply issue. It's really a pricing issue, because the car manufacturers would

be more than happy to ramp this up. But it's all the regulations that are put onto the cars are making it very expensive. What about the regulation that make houses more expensive because they've got a lot of mandated stuff with regulations. From that standpoint as well, how does that affect the supply side in your view, Well.

As millions of Americans had bought homes they couldn't afford, so that was going to set everything back a few years, and it made a lot of sense why there wouldn't be a lot of people lining up to build new homes in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis. But then combined with that, demographically at the time, we had millennials becoming adult age and normally would be buying a home, starting a family. But they were getting married five years

ten years later than their parents did. They were having kids five, ten, twelve years later. So it put a big increase of demand on multifamily homes and a big decrease in demand on single family But then a few more years go buy it turns out they do want to get married, they do want of kids, even though they're now into their thirties instead of their.

that you don't have enough supply. And where you do have states that didn't give in to SICCA and the environmental regulations and burden some permitting and zoning requirements, they were able to keep in front of it by building a lot of new supply. Now house price has got more expensive in Phoenix and Dallas and Charlotte and Miami and Nashville too, even though they were much better behaved states about building new supply. But that's because their demand

was huge and so thank god. They built a lot of new supply because they had a lot of new demand because a lot of people left blue states to move to red states that were behaving themselves.

mixed up and you point that out. But I think that kind of plays into people's suspicion because Blackrock made so much money out of the derivatives market that created the real estate crash, that was at the heart of the real estate crash. Stuff. They made so much money with that, everybody's think, oh, they're going to do something about that. Again, I think that's a big part of this policy that I would characterize Trump's policy as a mixture of demagogery and democrat economics.

But of course what Trump is talking about is a one year moratorium on it, and to me, that is no different than a kind of a come on rate to get you to switch your credit card company that we've seen over and over in one year moretorium on lowering the rates really doesn't do much to help. You can actually get a better deal than that with changing credit card companies.

zero when you pay your bill every month. This is revolving and non purpose credit that one lender in America has seven billion dollars of bad debt write downs per year because this is totally unsecured lending. And so the cost of credit cards to low income and new borrowers or maybe people with troubled credit past, the cost of it has to factor in just for one bank seven billion dollars of people that don't pay their credit card

bill back. So another party, Hey, my problem is if I'm afraid of usury, which it sounds like you and I both are. I believe this creates a lot more usury because when the bank stop generating credit cards because they're going to lose money, their net profit on the credit card business is somewhere between seven and nine percent when they when they then say okay, well now we can't charge more than ten percent, and we're going to

lose seven billion dollars on bad borrowers. So we're just not going to extend credit cards to a whole segment of the population that needs them for building credit, for expenditures, for medical emergencies.

that the President has done and hopefully will do. But what I was referring to there was the ban on institutional ownership, already talked my opinions on credit card interest caps that we've already talked about, that I'm going to make Fanny and freddie Go buy two hundred billion dollars of mortgage bonds to try to manipulate interest rates, and then saying I'm going to tell our defense companies that

they can't return capital to shareholders. So our private companies like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon and Boeing, that we're not going to allow them to reward investors with dividends and stock buybacks, where As if somehow we're going to maintain our superiority and as a defense industry, if we can't attract capital, and what causes you to not attract capital is treating capital poorly. So he had all four of

those ideas in about a five day period. I wrote an article at National Review criticizing all of it, and yet right now I hear that the White House is very seriously considering indexing capital gains on primary residents to inflation. That's a brilliant idea. That's a side that will enable people that want to sell a home but are holding it because the tax burden. A tremendous tax relief that incentivizes a natural flow of activity that creates new available

inventory in the housing market. He in his first term reduced the corporate income tax from thirty five percent to twenty one percent in the Big Beautiful Bill Act last year, which had plenty of things in it I didn't like, and plenty of things they didn't do enough. They didn't cut spending enough, in my opinion, But it has supply side tax deductions to incentivize more business investment, full expensing, bonus appreciation deduction.

of artificial intelligence to attack that knowledge problem? In other words, saying well, we can sort through massive amounts of information as they can with AI, they can go through and do audits of individuals and a lot of things like that, to organize and find the needle in the haystack, and then try to make that argument that we ought to let government do it with their artificial intelligence. How do you see that breaking out?

and whatnot at a very imminent proximate level. That those are the decision make factors that matter most and what we do that Washington, C.

We've talked about a lot of different things, and I really do appreciate your perspective on it, David, and very interesting and I enjoy reading your articles. I have not read your book yet, but I'm looking forward to doing that at some point in time. I think we all need to get back to human interaction and the importance of person to person interactions, the family and the community and other things like that. And I think all this

the new technology is being thrown at us. The rapidly increasing change is naturally pushing us away unless we fight against that tide. And I think it's important for us to understand where we're being, where we're drifting to. I used to go to Daytona Beach a lot with my family, and you could get pulled out with the undertowe not really realize how far you are out until the lifeguard whistled you in, And so trying to act like a lifeguard and whistle people in from this drift that is

taking us out to see. And I think you've got your finger on the pulse of this. We have to get back to our interaction and our families and our relationship with God. That's very true. Thank you so much, amen.

everything about us, while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find at the davidknightshow dot com. Thank you for listening, Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. Ddavidknightshow dot com