All right. In joining us now is Guard Goldsmith, And of course he has Liberty Conspiracy. He's got a Liberty Conspiracy website. You can see him on Rumble on rock Fan. He's just telling me he's giving YouTube a chance. Let's see what happens with that. Good luck, and of course you can find him on Twitter at Guard Goldsmith. Thank you for joining us, Guard, Thank you David, and thank you for being just such a stellar supporter and personally for me, I can't say enough good things about you.
Thank you so much. Thank you. That's really kind. And I didn't mention the fact that he's got a Sunday News thing that you can subscribe to wrap up as an excellent piece. You do a great job of putting together several important and a lot of important things that not everybody picks up on, you know, stuff that I don't see there I see in your Sunday wrap up. So I would suggest everybody subscribe to Guard Sunday wrap Up as well.
Or what is it exactly, you guys on your substack right, Yeah, it's on the Gardener Goals from substack, and I call it the Sunday News Assembly sort of you know, reference to church that sort of thing getting together and I'm assembling the news though. Okay, all right, that's good. Yeah, so I would suggest that to everybody. So what's on your plate? What are you thinking about here? Well, first I'll just mention
to do this Sunday news assembly over at the substack. I was actually inspired by you because before you and I were in contact, when I was working on that Marxism documentary for MRCTV, I would tune into you every morning and I would be writing down stories that you were covering and like, what's that website? I got to get to that website and then I would send those story ideas to the editors at MRCTV and they say, oh, this is
great. Wow, you're doing such amazing investigation. I was like, okay, fine, so there you go. You are my AI, you are the AI. I'm a chat DK right, we're here all the time. Yeah, absolutely, yeah, it seems like that. But you know,
and I wanted to you talk about different stories that are out there. And I'm so glad that you have been talking about the WHO situation because it's been very confusing and especially over the past week or so to find out where they were backing down and where they weren't, and Daily Skeptic has been a very good site for that. And as you mentioned James Ragusky, my hats off to him and literally in interviews giving out his phone number and saying give me
a call. We have to stop. This just just very admirable, admirable things to see. And I was thinking about that the bird flu scare, you know, the bird flu pandemic, and it just made me think of one flew over the Cuckoo's nest with a twist on flu. It's just a homonym rather than the same word, you know, in his medication time is soon going to be medication time and the nurse is going to ratchet this whole
thing up in a pandemic if we don't watch out. Yeah, it is interesting too because economists Robert Higgs would talk about the rat effect and you really nailed it so well his book Crisis and Leviathan, and he has a seql to it. He's done a lot of work for the Mesa's Institute. One
of the most admirable people. He's got a terrific speech for a voluntary as a Christian Christian voluntarists like me, he has a great speech at the Mesa's YouTube channel called the State is too wicked to tolerate or something like that, and he goes through so many of the things that it does and how it seeps into people. And that's one of the things that ratcheting effect. Nurse Ratchet. It's perfectly apt because they establish these things. They come up with
the mcguffins. I was gonna wear my mcguffin T shirt by the way, I have two. But they come up with these mcguffins and then they hand out all that money. And it's so important to try to get the local people, as you say, what was it twenty two ages are going to
be standing up against this saying we will not comply. And as much as the federal pressures and the handouts of money are so key, if you can really stress that to people on the local level and say, look, your political future is not dependent on taking money from Washington that you're not supposed to take. That's right. You have an obligation to your locality. As you
mentioned, you know we've got the lesser magistrates. That's a very important point going back to running meed and I think it's important to remember this heritage that's been handed to us, and they've destroyed federalism in so many ways through this, you know, these tentacles of federal hands out handouts of money. But at least it's worth trying, and I think we're seeing some movement there,
so that's good. I agree. Yeah, here in Tennessee, you know, so much of this stuff is run through the schools, and it's run through the schools because the money they get to the schools, and so you've got some state reps have tried to put through things saying we're going to pull back and not take any education money from the federal government. That's going to be necessary. You're going to have to do that. And even beyond that,
you have to do that as a parent. You know, as a parent you have to say, well, I'm not going to take the free school because it's not free, you're paying for it. But I'm not going to put my kids in that government school and just accept the responsibility for their education yourself and not have this pressure that these people try to put on you that you have to conform to whatever they de side education is going to be.
I thought it was a very good exercise for us to get away from that as parents when we would go to Barnes and Noble or something like that, and they would have these books that you know, what your first grader needs to know, what your second grader needs to know, and we just go there. Karen and I would go there and sit down and say, yeah, we should tell them about this, but no, we're not going to tell them that, right and this we're going to directly teach against will
teach it and well and we'll deconstruct it for them, you know. So I mean you need to take that kind of mindset, I think, and take control of your kids education and say I'm not going to be bribed, I'm not going to be bullied by this stuff, and I'm not going to be blackmailed, and I'm not going to care what this society thinks. Now if they come in and say, are going to mandate this legally, now
you got to get involved. But right now, there's not a legal mandate that you have to do the homeschooling thing, so that you can't do the homeschooling thing that you've got to do government school. So as long as that's not there, take that freedom and run with it, you know, and don't get caught up and saying, well, yeah, we want the government money because we want to have our kids in sports. So we want to have our kids in band or something like that. Do it yourself, you
know, don't let yourself be set up into that. And I thought it was really surprising that they would start to try to do that at a state level. But I think it's very encouraging. Well, you know, getting back to this who thing. As James Orguski has pointed out, they love to muddy the water and confuse people. It's one of the reasons why they started with these two different things, because you would say, well, we don't want to do that, and this is what the so called Pandemic Treaty
wants to do. Oh well, it doesn't say that at all. What they don't tell you is that that's in the IHR and the International Health Regulations, and so they play that shell game, you know, moving it back and forth and so a lot of different things that they're doing with it.
But I think people are really really wised up to this. Even though these government officials don't want to go back and relitigate any of these scene crimes that were done against humanity, they still a lot of people look at this and say, no, you're not going to do that again. You know, they may be willing to let this first thing slide, and I think that's
unfortunate, but they, I think, are starting to pay attention. At least a sizeable minority of people are paying attention to this and saying never again. So I think that's a very healthy thing. Yeah. And you know, David, in my work for MRCTV, and I know that in your work, we observe these things you mentioned, the bribery and the bullying, you know, so you've got the carrot and the stick. Really, you
know, it's manifestation of the same thing. And this is a time when even though I'm feeling satisfied action with what I'm seeing, I realized that even in expressing that I'm feeling some satisfaction with that, that could inspire people to say, Okay, the danger is past and it's not. And that's it. We have to supply, and every generation has to constantly supply pressure to
say, is this a treaty? Did you swear to the constitution? Are they going to try to do this through the regulatory means of bribery and bullying? Because if they are. Let's look deeper at the Constitution and find out whether those things are valid or invalid based on their o's. And I'll give you a great anecdote, David, when I was teaching at a school. It was a charter school, and they had a meeting and they had their attorney come in. Every teacher had to attend, and they said, the
lawyer said, okay, you must conform to Title nine. And in fact, I was relating the anecdote on Liberty Conspiracy Live the other night at about ten minutes after six. I probably just jumped into this thing and I said, so I'm sitting there and you know, all the staff is there, and the attorney says, you've got to conform to title nine. There's got to be you know, you got to be careful of what you say. You know your words. And I was lucky. In fact, in your
chat earlier, I was lucky. I was mentioning that when I taught, my classroom was actually in the library, so the librarian, who was very pro liberty, was always there to watch what was going on. So I always had a witness as somebody claimed that I had said something bad or you know, gone off the rails in some way. He was always there. It was great, it was terrific. And so and by the way, he's a listener of yours. By the way, yeah, yeah, yeah,
he's a he's a great guy, great guy. And so so I'm sitting there and this man is saying, you know, you've got to conform to Title nine, and if you don't conform to Title nine, then the state could run a foul of getting education funds, even highway funds. So I raised my hand. Nobody, yeah, nobody else is responding. And the name of the school, and I'm going to say the name of the school. It was called the Founder's Academy. And I raised my hand and
I said, excuse me. He said yes. I was like, well, considering the fact that we are sitting here at the Founder's Academy and it's supposed to be about the founding fathers and so on, of course they wouldn't allow me to criticize Lincoln. And they say, oh, no, you know, this is the Founder's academy. I said, he wasn't even a founder. He stood against everything the founders stood for, so well, he founded the modern state. I guess the modern states. I guess he was.
He's the ultimate founder. Now, yes see where he founded it. He did the America that Yeah, yeah, that's for sure. You make me think of the film Shannandoah again. What a fantastic film, and thank you for creating that music to go with that video clip what hits my Heart? Oh? I love that movie. I love it. I love so love that movie. I love that song too, oh so good. And the way, just as an aside, the way they set up Jimmy Stewart's
character because he's in between. He doesn't want to be with the North and he doesn't want to be with the South. He wants to be with his farm and his family. And it said, you know, as a person who's anti state, the way that they set it up to draw him in to have to deal with this, and then as he tries to help his son. It is just a fantastic, fantastic story about personal choices, whether one takes revenge or doesn't take revenge, whether one sticks to Christian virtues.
It's been so much in it. You know, it had that relationship thing there where he's talking to his future son in law. You know, yes, yes, wasn't that Patrick Patrick Wayne? Is that Patrick Wayne. Yeah, I think it was John Wayne's son. Yeah, that was he was the one. No, No, actually that was Doug McClure, who was Doug McClure. But Patrick Wayne was in it. You know, he was already married at that point in time. That's yeah, that was That was
really insightful. They had Jimmy Stewart played this really grumpy guy. That's not like Jimmy Stewart at all, right, Jimmy Stwart's usual character. So he was really kind of gruff and angry about pretty much everything, and he had a real chip on his shoulder, perhaps because his wife had died with God, you know. And so he starts out saying, oh, well, thanks for the food, even though we planted it, we grew it, we've harvested it, we cooked it, but thanks nevertheless, you know that
type of thing. And then it wraps up with his son, who he's given up for dead, being given back to him. It's just anoy and he gets it at and they meet at church. You know. That was a and so it had so many different aspects of it that were really it really was a wonderful film, unlike anything you'd see today. Yeah, that's so true. I mean to me, it reminds me almost of something that Dostoevski would do, you know, with crime and punishment or something like that,
at an Americana level, with the Civil War mixed. And it's just beautiful. And it's not that he's a criminal or anything like that, but he has to learn and express himself and understand God's power. And but yeah, So the the interesting thing is when I asked that question at the Founder's academy, I said, since this is the Founder's academy, can we just note that this money is not constitutional? And the lawyer he nod and he said, well, you're right, but that ship has sort of already sailed.
That's how I get right. Yeah, so I said, are we on the SS Titanic because I'd like to get off, thank you. But it is interesting, and I think to fight these sorts of connections is very, very important. And they have the advantage because they've got the Central Bank. Yeah, so they you know, they already shell out so much money
that they're dangling these little treats over everybody. And you know, just on a moral level, whether I'm successful or somebody else in another state is successful, at least we did the noble action of speaking up, and if we don't do that, future generations won't do that. So every opportunity speak up, that's right. You have to do what you know is right. And you know, even if the world is going to end tomorrow and you know it, you've got to plant the tree today. You know, that's that's
the key, that's the attitude you got to have. I think I got a comment and a tip on Rumble about what we're talking about here at junk Silver. Thank you very much. Rights. Should we all stop calling this WHO nonsense a treaty? Are we being tricked into giving this thing legitimacy by
using that term? What do you think guard? Yeah? Absolutely, because well, first of all, any connection to the United States government with the WHO, that is, any in any way under the UN and the treaties sound of the UN, those break United States constitutional parameters all over the place. So any original treaties signed with the United Nations are bogus in the first
place, and people should recognize that. But the World Health Organization, and hey, you know, as much as I'm critical of Donald Trump, at least for a little while, and maybe he was throwing people a curveball. At least he was not going to fund the who maybe it was all for political purposes to try to you know, buy into things, you know, get people to buy into him as somehow authentic for freedom. But it's not
technically a treaty per se. And even if it, and of course the health the regulations, what they're doing is they're revising regulations already agreed to. So I don't know how that even works. How can you say, okay, well, years ago you agreed to these regulations. Now we're going to revise those regulations. And you don't even have to agree to the revisions.
They're just going to stand. That's insane, that's absolutely crazy. Oh yeah, and they you know, they even if but even if you're using an app, you know, they change the terms of service and you've got to click yes as if you had it, which would never do right, right, right, And so I think by changing that we call the terms of service. Here's what I think about it, though, Yeah, I kind of lean towards calling it a treaty. And the reason I do is because
that gives us a mechanism to shut it down. And I really do think that an argument could be made that it is a treaty because even though it's being brokered by a non governmental organization, a third party, you know, WHO or the UN or whatever, what they're doing is they're bringing all these they're brokering it, right, but you do have all these countries that are
signing on to it. And so then the question is, so, are we signing on to a treaty with the UN, with the WHO, or are we signing all together coming together and signing under this thing that was presented
by them. I think that that's the argument, that's and that's that's where it gets fuzzy for me, and that that's that that I was going to ask you, because I I look at this as a new treaty that they're putting out and and this is where again it gets very slippery, because if they're going to be putting it out as a treaty, then it should be put out as a new treaty with the WHO, and the United States Senate would have to approve. The President would have to bring it to the Senate,
they would have to approve. So I don't I honestly can't answer that. I don't know whether they're going to be presenting it as a real treaty, or it's going to be one of these accords like the Paris Climate Accords, where they're going to try to implement things through the regulatory structure. And that's an excellent question, and I wish, I wish I could answer it better, but I just I just don't know. Look at NAFTA, for
example, right aft North American Free Trade Agreement. We have the Paris Climate Accord, we have the pandemic. They call that a treaty, right, But when you look at these different things, these are you know, you look at NAFTA for example, right, that's US, Mexico and Canada. Uh, that was a treaty, even though they called it an accord. If you look at the arbitration process that was agreed to by the three nations,
that is, they have treaty lawyers who put that together. You know, so the people who would represent you know, corporations had legal uh parody in that bombination. Uh. They corporations had legal parody to the to the governments or whatever, and and so they they could go to arbitration and the people who would represent either party, any of these parties, were called treaty lawyers, and so I think when you've got agreements between sovereign nations, that
by de facto is a treaty. And I think that could be used to our advantage, because if you look at the Paris climate hoard, the argument going back and forth in the Trump administration, Rex Tillerson, who was an environment who was one of the climate alarmists, and Ivanka were saying no, no, no, don't do anything to it. And then there were people that that was the one area where for a year or two he had somebody
that was good and that was in charge of the EPA. That Scott Pruitt had been a state attorney general and he had fought a lot of the EPA encroachments, and so he had better people in the that he had in the the EPA thing. Of course it shouldn't have existed, but given its existence and given the fact they're not going to get rid of it, the next best thing was that they had some people there who are going to fight a lot of this agenda, and they were telling him no, you must get
rid of it. And so what he did was he said, all right, I'm going to get rid of it, but I'm going to get rid of it after the election, after the twenty twenty election, which he did, he said, well, this is you know, this is something that was an agreement that was entered into by Obama and carry they self ratified this. I'm going to undo it. And then immediately within a month or two
you have Biden coming back into it. But Trump left it in for the entire four years, and so it was being used as a legal excuse to say, well, we must do this because we've got these goals that we've signed on to. It's therefore the regulatory apparatus has to do these things so we can meet those goals, so they have the effect of a treaty. But they never had a vote, and they should have had a vote.
McConnell never called a vote. And Steve molloy I had him on. He was talking about the fact that we're trying to put pressure on it, say call a vote on this thing now before you're out, because they knew that they were losing their majority in the Senate. But they never would. And
Mitch McConnell, you know what was put in in twenty fifteen. For most of that time, Mitch McConnell was the had the majority was the majority leader of the Senate, and there wasn't a single senator who ever suggested that there should be an up or down vote on the Paris climate accurt because they would have not it would not have made it. And so I think that it's a good thing to say that we're going to have to have a vote and do it, but the real power is going to be at the state level.
And if we got twenty two attorneys general who were going to fight it at the state level, I think that's a very good approach, absolutely right. And I think as you bring up, David, you know if it is, and this is sort of one of the reasons when when you first address the question to him, because I am not really sure based on the you know, the viewer's question, I am not really sure. And I think I would love to talk to James Ruguski to find out whether this is
going to be put forward as a treaty and treated that way. And one of the things when you and you've brought this up numerous times, that behavior of Mitch McConnell is extremely revealing when we look at the Paris so called climate accurds, and because you know, with all their machinations inside and the ways that they can do things in their various chambers, even not allowing something or allowing something to come out of a particular committee. You can really see the
way these guys stand and how deceptive they are. The perfidy of these people. And so just as far as the character of Minch McConnell goes, right there, you've got it. You got it in a nutshell right there. It's a perfect example. He's part of the Yes, he's on board with a global agenda which is on board with all this climate change. I got another question here. This is from Andromeda on rock Fan, thank you for the tip. He asks, what is the definition of geospatial intelligence, Well,
geospecial geospatial is like looking at where things are on a map. So what it essentially, it's core thing is to map people's political and religious ideology and to analyze first of all, to identify them, you know, what type of person is this religiously politically? Secondly, to put them on the map. And as part of that, they look at relationships that you have with other people. So they start making hops out there and assumptions about other
people that are there. You see this with some of the geo fencing stuff. That's a kind of one small aspect of it. That's not the full part of it. But you know when they started reporting about all the people who were who had financial transactions in and around Washington on January, the sixth
Bank of America did that. But even more importantly, you've had situations where the police of a crime was committed somewhere, they would go to the cell phone companies or they go to the cell phone you know, people who would have that information, and they would say, give us the information, give us all the people who were in this area at a given time. Now,
that is really unconstitutional. It is a warrantless search of a lot of different people, exposes people to jeopardy when there's not really any basis to say that they participate in the crime. So it is a big drag net. They've had a lot of court cases where people have challenged that. But geospatial intelligence is one way to identify people's political and religious beliefs primarily, but they can look for other things, but primarily as those two things, and then
to map it out. And they're really doing it with an intention to anticipate what these people are going to do in the future and do it as a political weapon. You know. That's the key thing about this is part of the politicization to censor people, to put them on a list, and all the rest of this stuff. It is kind of similar to what you say with the geo fencing, except it's more extensive. I hope that answers your question. Would you add anything to that guard Yeah, no, I think
you say it very very well. And of course as an engineer you understand that this and let me know if I'm putting words in your mouth. But I sort of view this as its data collection, political propaganda's ps psychological engineering, and so that's the the end goal is the engineering, but you need the data collection beforehand, and then you want to get into some They try to get into some sort of predictive templates to apply their propaganda to start to
shift people's psychology. And it's very clear what they try to do, and they've been doing it, of course, very successfully in the school systems for decades and through the media, and I think one of the greatest manifestations of it is how you see Chris Cuomo still holding on to this idea of well, you know, at the time, I as a reporter was you know, I was fine. You know, sure, Joe Rogan was right about
ivermectin. Sure, but that's not the that's not the point. It's like, no, actually, it is the point there, buddy, that's the point. The point is, yeah, he was right. You demonized him, and you demonized him not because you were a reporter, but because you are a propagandist and you got fed information. And even now you're trying to claim that the position you had back then was totally understandable, while it wasn't because some of us actually researched this stuff. That's right, some of us.
Yeah, And there were doctors, thousands of doctors losing their licenses, losing their entire careers. Well, that man, and by the way, I even mentioned on my show, my nephew works for him now at that one News whatever. And he seems like a pleasant guy. But you know, he's come grudgingly one step, but he's got a lot of steps further to. You know, maybe somebody could talk to him and say, hey, you kind of missed the boat there, and you need to give these
people a little more credit because they were right. And I hope you admit that you were wrong, and you were wrong because you were lazy. And you type this information Scott Adams, who holds himself forth as a sage and rock on tour Delbert cartoonist, and he says, well, okay, these people just got lucky. Nobody could have known that that was yes, we could. We all knew. We knew, we knew the history, We knew what these people had been up to for the longest time, and there
wasn't any doubt about it. We had the data, we had the history, we knew what was happening. We got it exactly right. And you were going you were exactly wrong. You were calling us freedom lovers who are nothing more than sociopaths. Yeah, there's a bit, Yeah, there's a bit of a conceit for both of those those men. And I've seen, you know, I've seen some things that Scott Adams has done and some things
that Chris Como has done. And you say, okay, look, if I were in a room with these with these guys, I'd try to say, hey, you know, I just think that there's some arrogance there that I hope you can get off that platform a little bit. And at the time it was happening, I was very upset with Scott Adams for saying that sort of thing, and I think rightly so. So many people were really taking risks in their lives and to say, oh, well, yeah,
you know you were right, you got lucky. No, no, they were really taking risks with their churches, with their careers, and they were right. You know, this was persecution. And you don't just blithely say well, okay, we'll let bygones be got bygones. I was wrong.
It's sort of like so like if you're dating someone and they do something really, really terrible and they say, oh, well yeah, they don't apologize, and it's very hard to forgive a person when they just say, oh yeah, let's just forget all about that, Like, no, I'm citing you for wrongdoing. Do you have a response? You know? It's too bad, you know, oh yeah, And I remember the time that he
did it. I responded to him and I said, well, it was getting harder and hard to tell pragmatists from totalitarians, because he was trying to present himself as a pragmatist, but he was actually supporting totlitarianism. You know, we were not being sociopaths. We were not putting anybody at any risk to anything. There was no risk and we knew that there was no risk. But getting back to one more thing I want to say about the geospacial
intelligence. One way that you can think about it is surveillance and tracking, but of course not for a disease, but because of your political or religious views. And they justified this kind of stuff because hey, we have to look at religion and things like that, because we got all these Islamic terrorists there. But then they change it to people who are Christians for example, right, just like they take the Rico Statutes, which were an abomination.
They put that in there to come after organized crime, and then what do they wind up doing? Very quickly they use it against pro life demonstrators. So they will come up with this type of thing saying, we've got to have surveillance, we've got to have tracking so we don't have another nine to eleven, And then they use that against their political enemies because as far as
they're concerned, anybody that is a dissenter to them is a disease. We are a pandemic, We are a virus, just as the climate people is say, human race is a virus. It's going to kill Mother Earth. Gaya. So yeah, that's what that is really about. It surveillance and tracking to really attack those of us that they like to label as extremists and terrorists. If you speak up at the school board about what they're doing.
And you know, David, if I could one final thing to sort of tie that back into the WHO treaty, you know, you were one of
the only people I know, and I was on the air. I was on the radio in New Hampshire trying to fight this in New Hampshire against the model State Health Emergency plans around two thousand and five, two thousand and six they push this in New Hampshire and it ties into you know, the overconfidence that one might have in possibly And again, I don't know whether they're going to put this forward as a treaty or you know, it looks like they're
going to put it forward as a treaty. But will it be treated as a treaty, I don't know. Will it be part of an existing treaty? Will you know, will Nation states have to sign on to this, see the presidents sign on that will have to be approved as a Treaty, I don't know. Then you've got the revisions, the International Health regulation revisions. So that's the second prong of the you know, their pitchfork there.
But if we look at the model state Health emergency model state health emergency plans that were promulgated from JOHNS Hopkins and push forward in almost every state after around two thousand and two, two thousand and three to about two thousand and seven, one of the things that I think is really important is even as people talk about out state sovereignty or you know, locality sovereignty, that would that
could be depicted as well. Our state has this, our governor has this, this control to say literally they could go into farm, go into pharmacy shops and and seize all all those shops, all the material in those shops.
They can stop gatherings of X number of people. So then it takes a second level, at least on the constitutionalist side, to say, where do these things either comport with or destroy the concept of the Bill of Rights and the numerrated powers in the Constitution On the federal side with the enumerated powers the Bill of rights, because very clearly most of those aspects of the model state health emergency health plans uh breach so many aspects of just the Bill of
Rights themselves, you know, I thought that's a very important thing. Jay and Jessica contacted me and said, you know, we need to start doing something to roll back these model state health emergence the power plans, and I agree. I think that's really where the rubber meets the road. That's what they had to you know, that's why Trump bribed the governors so that they
could do that and do this with the public health things. And I think if we went back and we showed people what you're talking about, how these rules and these laws were put in at the state level, how they're anesthetical to human rights, anathetical to our liberties and to the rule of law and the constitution. If we did that and started repealing these things, that's really,
I think always has been the crux of the matter. And that's why they put them in twenty years ago and let them kind of sit there so people didn't really realize what was there. We need to shine the daylight on these things and pressure legislators and get the public aware of this so we can build a grassroots movement to rip out this Model State Health Emergency Powers Act,
because that is foundational to all this stuff. And if we were able to get the Model Health State Emergency Powers Act removed, that would go a long way to doing what we hope some of these state officials of the state attorneys general and things like that would do. But we can do that at the local level because they've already, because of the bribery and everything, they've already shown you that they don't have the power to do this from the federal government.
So we stop any powers that they were able to stick in at the federal level. That'd be I think, really the best thing that we could do. And we could do this as a grassroots movement, I think yeah, And I wouldn't want to, you know, sound like I'm posing a great effort, you know, setting up as being overwhelming for people or anything like that, But you know, it takes these multiple levels of effort.
I think, you know, I don't want to be presumptive for other people, but to say it's going to take work, you know, it's going to take work of making connections with local friends, going to your churches, and not backing off when you say I need to educate people if I can on what the Constitution stands for, I need to get either myself involved in the political sphere just to get the expressions out there. And there's nobility in
this struggle. Even if you fail, you're getting the education out there because it starts with locally educating people with a constant, constant barrage of if you believe that the Constitution is the set of rules for this nation state and the nations the states within it, then we on a local level are going to look at what does the Fourth Amendment say? Does the model State Health Emergency Plan comport with that? What does the Fifth Amendment say? What does the
sixth Amendment say? Can you seize this property without due process? Can you block us from gathering at this church? No, you cannot do these things. Can you even send inspectors into look unless you think that there's a crime. No, do you have a warrant? No? All of these things
they're extremely and in the end they become satisfying. I think because you gather with people and you say, I'm stepping in a tradition was handed to me by people, and you know, you know, as I say, I would even prefer to go back to the to the Articles of Confederation, because I think the Articles of Confederation were much looser than the United States Constitution. But they did say, yeah, they did say, anybody who's entering these
offices, you've got to swear by this constitution. So that means that if we want these politicians to abide by these things, we've got to be really up on what the constitution says and express that and tell people about that, because that gets it into the zeitgeist and they can't you know, even if they get around it. At least we've spoken up. You know, I agree with you. People need to understand that it's unconstitutional. People also understood
instinctively that it was unethical, immoral, and illegal. You had people saying, sorry, you got to do this or that, or you can't do this or that. It's like this is the law. No, it's not the law. You don't have all You didn't pass a law telling me that I got to put a mask on my face. This is a rule that somebody has come up with, typically some public health official. So how do we short circuit that? Do we take it to court, and do we
make the arguments that this is unconstitutional? It needs to be overturned and make that argument in court. The courts are really kind of you know, I always talk about the courts, especially the Supreme Court, is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get, right. They are very politicized of these courts, these judges, and so to me, that's kind of like a crapshoot. You never know what you're going to get when you take it to court. I think we had to try a different
approach. I think what we ought to do is go back. It shouldn't be too hard to identify these things. I mean, it'd be a lot of research that you know, honestly, I don't have the time to do it. I'd have to change things around significantly to do it. But if we started something, if anybody started this, they should be able to identify some of this model legislation in your state and then guess what other people are going to see it in their state as well, right, because we're all
following this model. If we can start to identify these things and attack these things individually, I think we get the very found of it without going through these corrupt courts, Because I think the justice system is just garbage and even if you've got a good court at a local level, these people will appeal it up to the corrupt Supreme Court or a corrupt federal appellate court. And so I think the way to do it is to shine the light on these
rules. Talk about excuse me, talk about the fact that it isn't a We're not saying this is a slippery slope. You know, something likely could happen really bad. We can point to how they used it in twenty twenty and say it's all right, been done to You want to stop that from ever happening again. You take away this power out of this model legislation. This thing right here, this is what they hung themselves, you know, what they hung their authority on to do this kind of stuff. And I
understand that it's non constitutional, but let's remove their excuse. I think that could be very productive. Yeah, you know, David, you remind me of a couple things. First of all, that makes me think about free speech and the debate over these college campuses, and you know, the the protests and so on going on there. I just saw recently Marsha Blackburn, and she's good and bad. You know, she's all over the map. She's got a proposal now to put college protesters on the no fly list.
And you just say to yourself, look, first of all, there should be no such thing as no no fly list. You've got no due process. You're punishing people that it runs contrary to the Fifth Amendment, the sixth Amendment, and the eighth Amendment. Okay, So Marcia, you swore an oath to that document. Okay, Marsha and Marcia and Marshall, Marsha, Marsha, Marsha, you're hitting us with the football. Come on, this
is ridiculous, you know, it is just amazing. And then we've got other instances where if you look at the way things break down when the state takes more of this power, it starts to create more instances of the tragedy of the commons, which you know, when I'm teaching economics, I try to tell people, if you don't have private property control over something, you're going to get everybody arguing over how that thing is being used. So is it going to be a baseball park or is it going to be a nature
preserve? Well, the government runs it, so now the people want the baseball park and going to argue and they're all paying taxes, so they all have some valid claim. And then are you going to have to parson and break it down to say, well, this person paid ten times more in taxes, so his voice should be heard more. And then you get into Marxist arguments about well the little guy's voice is now being suppressed. It becomes
ridiculous. All government entities removed the ability of individuals to be able to value for themselves how they spend their lives, how they spend their money. And so if we look at these college campuses, we have people like Stepanek calling in the heads of the universities. She's got a major problem with the president of u Penn, Harvard and so on. And she's doing it again now with the chancellor of the New York City Schools in Brooklyn. I think it
is. She's calling him in and saying, well, they were saying terrible things about Jews in the hallways. He says, well, actually, we have no record of that. There's no evidence of that in any way whatsoever. There was an investigation in that. But that's the superficial side of it. Nobody questions the idea that a Washington politician is calling in the head of a local school in New York to say, somebody in your hallways might have
said something bad about a Jewish person. How in the world did we get to this position where that stuffy politician can do that and not actually bring up the question of, hey, here's an idea. Maybe a person living in New Hampshire or Alaska shouldn't have to be bothered with that. Maybe there's a bigger problem, and it's you imposing your will to take my money and my future progenies money to pay for a school in New York, and now I
should have some say over it. Maybe I should not. How about that? That's exactly the problem. It goes with the college campuses as well, because even though these college campuses are private, they become de facto public places when they're taking this government money. And you see Hillsdale College and Grove City College they ran into that situation too when they were they originally were taking federal money. They would take federal grants and things like that, and the Fed
said, you have to conform to Title nine. You have to have equal sports teams for women. Hillsdale said, my brother was going to Hillscale Hillsdale a few years after the Supreme Court case, they said, we can't do that. We can't afford that nobody goes to the women's things. We can't afford all these equal sports for women. We love to do it, but we can't. So then the FED said, they said, okay, we're
going to stop taking federal grants. Then the FED said, of course, well, if you have any students who are getting federal money, it is a de facto subsidy from the federal government because they're choosing to give you the money we gave them. So you still have to conform to Title nine. So Grove City and Hillsdale said, all right, we're not going to take
any students that get government government loans. Nobody questions the underlying misassumption, which is that the government should be handing laws out for universities and then you get the carrot and the stick in the strings and it's all and so that gets into this this question. I mentioned on the program a lot called unconstitutional conditions
and unconstitutional conditions. One of the best examples of this, generally speaking, if you look at like the Cornell Law site or any of these law sites where they you know, have easy reference to Supreme court dockets and things like
that. The concept of unconstitutional conditions. The majority of Supreme Court cases on this have ruled that the state government, the federal government, providing you in the state government providing you with some benefit, does not allow them to say in a in a in an ex anti fashion, if you're going to take
this benefit, you must give up a constitutionally protected right. So the greatest example of this is the Cabrini Green Housing case where and that housing building was actually the tearing down of it occurred a number of years ago, and it was under Michelle Obama's she was attached to some state thing when they were back in Illinois years ago, and yeah, just a welfare project. Yeah,
yeah, yeah, exactly. And so as you probably aware that a little little child, a child was killed in a drug thing out in the parking lot. And so the it was a section eight housing. And so they said, okay, if you're if you are as a poorer person, are going to take this Section eight housing, You're going to have to be open to no knock drug searches in your apartment. This you know, a CLU got involved in things like that, and you know, as spotty as they
are, most of the time. But in this case they said, no, you know, you can't tell them that they're going to have to give up a supposedly constitutionally protected right in order for them to get the housing and nconstitutional subsidies. I know exactly. It's it's absolutely amazing, you know, it's amazing, And it is a real mix bag because I think ideologically or intellectually the same way when we look at corporations, you say, what exactly
are you you're asking for something from the government. Can the government say you must do X, y or z in order to maintain this status. So it's very tricky and a great example this they found in favor of the plaintiffs. They said, no, you can't do this. But if you look at Hillsdale and Grove City, they said, these are in constitutional conditions.
They found any other way against Hillsdale and Grove City. And I think if they were to apply it to the TSA at the airports, which by their nature that you know, every second of the day, they're breaching the Fourth Amendment. Many times they're breaching the sixth and the eighth Amendments because they're taking things without due process, making you put stuff in trash baskets and things like that. I don't think the Supreme Court would find against the TSA and cite
on constitutional conditions there. I think they would be very selective. And I think also if you look at the universities, that's a very tricky thing because if you've got pro Zionist supporters at Let's say I went to Boston University and I often mentioned my last name's Goldsmith, but it's not Jewish, so a lot of people thought I was Jewish. It be you because it's like eighty
five percent Jewish there. So you know, if I were to be leading a protest in favor of the Palestinians and the occupied territory, I think by definition occupied territory, how to tell some people something? You know? Uh? But if I were to be there in protest, if I were on the college campus and some prosigonists people wanted to be on the same exact plot of land, well they have just as much right under the because BU takes federal money. So how do we work this? Say? And this is
one of the things where Robert Higgs says the state is intolerable. As an anarchist, I try to say, when the state tries to manage things like, let's say you have free speech rights. Okay, you got a right to free speech, and this I won't even go into how it's actually supposed to be up to the states, and it's only Congress shall make no law, as you know, and they had speech laws and religious schools for decades after the Constitution. But let's say, you know, just on the theoretical
level, I've got a right to free speech. Well, I can't go and sing in a courtroom because the person on trial has a right to do process. So how do those two comport. They don't. So the state managing these things always makes it such that if you actually dig down, this is one of the reasons why you know, I try to talk about voluntarism and anarchists philosophy. If you really look at the state, the state does
not work properly. So I would be willing to at least go with the decentralized federalist system that says, smaller spheres of control where these problems arise, at least you can work them out better. If you're not satisfied, you can get away. The larger the area of control, the more often these problems are going to occur. Seeing it now, universities thousands of miles apart from each other, are you know, hundreds of miles apart from each other
running into the same problems. You should you should be able to have choice, You should be able to go say this is a private university. I do like their policies here. I don't like their policies here. I'm gonna go or I'm not going to go, and that's it and other people shouldn't have to worry about it. Well, again, it comes back to the in fact they're going to have this aty Semitism awareness monitor, they don't monitor anything else. They continue to fund it. And it always comes back to
the money. You don't do what we like, we'll take the money away. But when we look at what is happening, you pointed out, you know, Marsha Blackburn wants to you know, put people on a no fly list. And then you got also here in Tennessee, Andy Ogles, who wants to take the people who were If you're convicted of some of these activities that they're doing on campus now, then they they transport you, like you're in Australia, ship you to Gaza, make it is six months the community
service in Gaza. I think that kind of qualifies unusual punishment. May not be cruel, but it is unusual. But you know, it's not about what it's about, is it. You know, that's always the situation. These are what is the real thing? The mcguffin that they're out here. They got all these different mcguffins. But it's not about free speech, right, and it's not even about anti Semitism. What this is about is about these politicians finding some way that they can get in front of the group.
And it's like, I got a way that I can please you. Okay, this is a pak and this is the Israeli lobby that's here in America. Let me do this and then you can. You know, if you like me, they're gonna send me lots of money because they do that, right and right that. It's about them drawing it, coming up with these ridiculous things that are setting very dangerous precedents that are against the law, against the constitution, because they're trying to curry favor with APAC and other big donors
that are out there. And that's what this is really about. It's not about free speech. It's not even about the violence on campus. It's about pleasing these people, because we've had these protesters who have been violent, they've been racist, they've been hateful to other groups a lot of times. It's just that we don't our group does not have the kind of influence of Congress
that the other group does. And so that's what it is. It's about them, you know, virtue signaling to a group that's going to give them a lot of money, and they're coming up a very dangerous precedents that are going to be used against all of us. And this stuff about putting people
on no fly list, that is a star Chamber process. First report that I did when I went in four Wars is a guy who got stuck in Hawaii and he was on a remember that, Yeah, he was on a He was going to visit his wife who was in the military and she's in stationed in Japan, and he's flying on a military plane and he goes across you know, he's fine, going across America. Then he goes from California to to uh Hawaii and then he's making the last leg of the trip and
just he's already on the plane just before the plane takes off. These marshalls come on and say you come with us, and they take him off the plane. So what this is about he doesn't know. He's never been presented with any charges. This is a star chamber process to put somebody on a no fly list, and he never could find out either what he was charged with. And now he's in a situation where how does he get out of
here? How did he get away from Hawaii? If you can't fly right, how do I even get back to the continental of the United States. He was in a big, big problem. We got him a lot of publicity and he was able to find some allies in the military to shut this thing down. But last I talked to him, he never knew why he was on a no fly list. He never had any charges presented with him. That's an abomination. Anybody who supports a no fly list for any reason
is somebody who doesn't support the Constitution. It's just that simple. And yet we see these knee jerk authoritarian reactions to so many things Trump wanting to say. Now he's saying, elect me, and I'm going to send special forces in into Mexico to fight the drug wars, Like seriously, just acting more crazy stuff on top of bad rules and bad regulations and bad prohibitions. You know, David, it's it's it's so interesting because it's so energizing seeing you
talk about these things. It is just the it's the best source of energy. And you know, like we're talking about, you know, people taking some time to do their things and so on. I know how much time you devote to this, and I know how much time I devote to this, and I know how much time so many other people devote to this, and they're in their various ways, and it's just such a refreshing thing to know. I mean, you're such a and you know this isn't a like
blow smoke or anything. It really is. And I'm looking at you on the screen and I'm like, man, this guy is just so full of power and thought. And I just want to mention. You know, we talked about before before it came on, We talked about just the amazing two facedness of these people that just about four or five days ago, almost a week ago, we had Anthony Blinken and Joe Biden both announcing how much they
were in favor of press freedom. Will Juliassan sits in Belmarsh Prison. While literally last November, Biden, sorry Biden put forward President Biden and Blincoln both speaking about the press freedom. Biden put out his AI Executive Order, which would mean that any software maker would have to open up and show his security protocols and software under the executive order. When we've got them fighting in court in the Supreme Court in the Murphy versus Missouri case Jabotikaria, and they have
the gall to talk about free speech. So if we can turn that into energy and think about you know, like people like you and other folks. You look at Gerald, Gerald, Sealente and other good people out there, and the people who come into the chat and so on and their local areas. I just love it. And we know the bad guys are out there and it's upsetting, and yet I can't help but smile. It's just great to know that we can fight these guys and call them out for how ridiculous
they are. Well, I'm glad that you do it as well, and a great contribution. You've got a weekly program that people can catch live again, Liberty Conspiracy. You can find it on Twitter at guard Goldsmith, as well as on Rumble and rock Fan and YouTube right now, and people can go to your Liberty Conspiracy website as well. Thank you Guard for what you do. I know you put a lot of time into it as well.
You've got a very long live program that you're on a daily basis. Is why we don't have any sympathy for somebody like Chris Cuomo who doesn't do his homework. It's like, are you seriously? I mean, this is the guy sitting in the back of the room, the most popular guy in school, who doesn't do a single thing, but he's the star of the team for some reason. I don't know, but anyway, it's no seriously. I hate to see people misled and that's really what is happening with these people
who are influencers like that. But again, thank you so much for what you do and great contribution. Always a pleasure to talk to you. I love my David Night. Pen is getting a lot of work. That's what I'll say. That's good. Go to the store, Go to the store. Thank you, Guard. Have a good day and everybody have a good weekend, and hopefully we'll see you on Monday. Let me tell you the David Night Show you can listen to with your ears. You can even watch
it by using your eyes. In fact, if you can hear me, that means you're listening to the David Night Show right now. Yeah, good job, and you want to know something else. You can find all the links to everywhere to watch or listen to the show at Thedavidnightshow dot com, a website