Mon Episode #2,003: Tariff “Policy”: A Chaotic Assault on Freedom, Industry, Liberty, and the Constitution

the Constitution. There are other issues involved with us, and that is does the does the Bill of Rights apply to foreign citizens here here even if they came here illegally. We're going to take a look at that. We'll be right backstay with us. Well, you know, we hear so much about make America great again. What was it about America that was great? I mean, obviously implicit in that is that America is not so great today, and I

would agree with that. I would also agree that we were much more free, prosperous, even if we didn't have the kind of disposable income that we are looking at. And of course Trump was saying, well, okay, you're not going to have thirty dollars, you'll have two or three or whatever, and we'll talk about that. I don't agree with him on that, but I also don't think that America is great because we have all kinds of consumer goods. I mean, that's part of it's an outcome of freedom.

And we don't need to have a forced austerity, do we? And that seems to be what these people are talking about. You know, we got him agenda here. You just need to get in line and follow our agenda. It's like, well, before I go marching off to your drum beat, I need to be convinced that you're taking us in the right direction. I'm not going to go marching off to war, economic or otherwise. If I'm not convinced of the justice of what's going on, and if I'm not convinced of

your leadership, that's a big issue. And of course it's not just the goals that they have. It's a laudable goal for us to have industry that has just been eviscerated in the last twenty thirty years in America, and we know why, we know exactly why, but it is it's alaudable to try to undo that. Except understand that it was the government's ideas that created that in the first place, and we need to also look at how

their approaches are going to work or not. And apart from all of this, what form are we going to pay in taxes? And is this going to help us to achieve? I don't know what are we trying to achieve? Right, that's the question. Is it going to help us to achieve it? But the big issue is the uncertainty, and so the question is why are we trying to achieve? There's an interesting survey that was put up on zero hedge. You know, what is the end goal of all this?

We're having a discussion over this weekend about education, and I recounted the story of one individual who accompanied his personal story that he told he accompanied his kid to parents' day at the kindergarten, for example, and he's there and the kindergarten teachers so excited about this new program that they've got, and we got him doing this and this and this, and he raises the father raises his hand and he said, so, what's the purpose of this,

what's the purpose of it? Well, yeah, and they were just kind of caught flat footed. They didn't really thought about the purpose of it. And so the question is what are you trying to achieve here? And I think the statements that Trump made are you know, raising some real key issues about what is it that we're trying to achieve here? And so they asked Americans what they value, and of course health is first thing. I mean, you can't do anything if you don't have health, if you're sick,

family members are sick. Second thing was family, and I think that's very hopeful. I think that people have their priorities straight way down the line, Travis, pull up the chart there, scroll down a little bit down the line. There we go. You can make that smaller so people can see it, or maybe they can. I just got this on the side. Yeah, there we go. But you know, health was and it was you know, he doesn't add

up to one hundred percent. They weren't saying, you know, what was the most important thing, but just name some things that are important to you. Well, more people name health than anything else sixty percent. Closely following that is family life at fifty eight percent. Making money was down at third place at forty seven percent. And then you had things like personal growth, authenticity, career, tradition, which I was surprised to see. Tradition was there that was important

to twenty seven percent of the people. And then down at the bottom of this, you know, this is eight different items that they had there at twenty six percent was supporting good causes. Now that's going to include but it's not going to be limited to a course political actions of people out there. Right all this political activity, people pushing for the Democrat Party or pushing for the Republican Party, these are good political causes and that type

of thing. You know, it would include some other things as well. You know, somebody might be involved in something that is some kind of a help pusher or something like that, some sort of society for people who were suffering from disease. You could put a lot of different things in there. But of course, and so that means that so you could put a lot of different things in there that people who are focused on the political action, that's really pretty small, and I think that's a very

healthy thing. Look, I focus on politics because I want to warn you about what these people are conniving scheming to do to you that may be a threat to you and your health. Number one issue, you and your family the number two second largest mentioned thing there or number three even making money, being able to have some financial independence. And so we look at that and we keep an eye on politics. But that is not really

what we value. I certainly don't value it. I despise politics, and so I want to keep an eye on it. And when we look at where we are with these tariffs, there was another chart that came up. This was actually one that was tweeted out by somebody in the Trump administration, and they're t trade representative. US Trade representative put a chart up on X showing the steep decline percentage of apparel sold in America that was manufactured in America. You

know the look for the union label. You know that if you remember that commercial. Now go down and show that chart. It's first of all, we know what has happened. And he just takes two in points. It would be interesting to see the intermediate data. He shows one chart there in nineteen ninety one and another one in twenty twenty three. In nineteen ninety one, fifty six percent of American clothes are made in America, fifty six percent. That's down to four percent in twenty twenty three. And so

the question is what happened? Well, we do know what happened, but they're not showing there is an intermediate point is oh, we mentioned it many times on the show. Jerald Clent's made it many times in the show. George W. Bush, three months to the day after nine to eleven December the eleventh, two thousand and one, brought China into the World Trade Organization and gave them Most Favored Nation status.

I was just talking over the weekend to a friend who used to work for the US government and their trade, you know, the trade bureaucracy in Washington. He was a lawyer, and he said that, you know, first of all, we didn't put a whole lot of emphasis on trade and trying to make it fair. He said that Japanese had twenty thousand people doing that in Japan, and the US

we had one thousand. But he said, when you look at what happened with us, he said, before that happened, before you had the China getting into the World Trade Organization getting Most Favored Nation status. He said, you could still buy stuff from China, but they were treated like Cuba,

and it was difficult. You had to go through a lot of red tape, to buy stuff from China, and so it was all this amazing reversal right there three months after nine eleven, nobody paying attention to it because everybody was focused on that and the aftermath of it. And so again we went from China and buying stuff from them. They were a pariah like Cuba, sanctioned and all the rest of stuff. And then all of a sudden, you know, they're one of us, and that is what's happened,

along with the fact that they gamed it. Perhaps the initial designation of them being like Cuba and a hostile was absolutely true. It really was. And so I share the stated goals be where we want to go. We understand what the issue is here. But now again the question is what do we do about it? Is taxation the path to prosperity? How do we decide which industries? And of course that's not even a part of this.

There's not even some strategic proposal. This has just been a blanket shotgun to shoot this at everybody in the world all at once. Even the people that we have trade surpluses with we are going to punish them. We're going to punish everybody equally. It's kind of stupid. Kind of looks like there's no plan. It kind of looks like what Marco Rubio said. The one thing I like about this administration, we don't do studies. We can tell

you're winging it. You're not studying anything, You're not planning anything. There is no plan, folks. The plan is for you to trust them, put your hope in government, and trust the government. That is not a plan, folks. That's a disaster. Never never, never trust government, especially this one, especially one that is vast and uncertain about what it wants to do. That obviously shows that it has no plan. This is

very destructive plays in the process of doing. The only hope that we have is that Trump will undo Trump. But in the meantime, he's been so vacillating and so punitive in the tariffs that it has literally locked us down yet again. That's the key. America was not great because of taxes. America is not great because of tariffs. What made America great was freedom and having government that was small, distant, and out of our lives. That was

what made government great. And the biggest problem that we have is not China. The biggest problem we have is Washington, and that we have big problems with the state governments as well, and local governments as well. Government at every life needs to get away from us, but especially especially the federal government. They're not your savior. They're not going to save you with taxes and regulation. That's what we're talking about with tariffs. It's taxes and regulations. That is

not what made America great. That's what kept America from being great. That is the source of our problem. As Ronald Reagan said, government is not the solution, it's the problem. And the specific problems of government are taxes and regulation. And what Trump is doing is adding taxes and regulation. He's increasing the problem. And so these are the things that we don't have. The freedom to compete, the freedom

to create businesses that has been regulated to death. Now when we look at what may happen with us, we don't know what Trump is going to do from one hour to the next. They put that out in their little cabinet meeting as if that was a positive feature. It's changing, said Rubio. You know, from day to day, from hour to hour, from minute to minute, it's changing. It's constantly changing. Because they don't have a plan. Unless chaos is a plan. Unless locking the country down is

their plan. Other than that, they don't have one. And so the question is going to be is there going to be a legal pushback against this. We have California and twelve other states have sued the Trump administration over

his unilateral dictates of taxes. I think this is a very very bad idea to let one individual who can't make up his mind, who is blown around with every advisor that talks to him, and then is blown around with every foreign country that they talk to, or every industry that they talk to, and unfortunately, who they're not talking to small and medium sized businesses and consumers, because

small businesses are not essential. Trump told us that Trump showed us that in twenty twenty, and you should believe him when he said that. You should believe what he did. In this interview that he has yesterday on Sunday shows Kristin Welker, he says, Okay, well, you know, the good stuff is me, The bad stuff in our economy is Biden, and ultimately I'm responsible for all of it. He said, Oh really, well, tell that to the MAGA people. Tell it to the MAGA people. Oh no, Trump's not responsible

for anything bad. That happens. He's not at all. He doesn't do anything bad. And if it's bad, somebody else did it, or if it's bad and Trump did it, it's because somebody deceived him. That's what we hear all the time. Well, as I said, the thirteen states that are suing, and it's kind of interesting because twelve of them are going have taken a challenge to a trade

organization within the United States that they're supposed to oversee that. California, however, went into the court system to the Ninth Court, ninth Circuit Court, which is very leftist, and so these you know, there's California and then there's twelve states, and they have filed in different jurisdictions and may get very different results. On Wednesday, speaking from the White House, Trump suggested that families scale back on gifts this year. And we'll talk

about that. But you know, when we look at this, this is one of the things that bothers me, besides the the fact that he rules by executive order that is predicated on phony emergency like the pandemic in twenty twenty. But he's had one phony emergency after the other, you know, fentanel and immigrants are coming in from Canada, so we've got to do this or that, or we've got a national emergency because we have foreign cars that are being imported.

It's like, what, So he's really taken this template. If I declare an emergency and I have the ability to decide if something's an emergency or not, nobody had and he does, you know, foolishly. In this system, the president has been given the ability to arbitrarily decide to declare an emergency, and once he does, now he can operate under martial law in that particular area. That's what we were seeing all through twenty twenty. I called it medical

martial law. And so now that is still what he's doing. But Biden has done some of the same stuff as well. Of course, right he didn't have as many executive orders as Trump. But now you know, that was a bug when it was done by Obama. It was bad when it was done by Biden. But it's good now that Trump has done far more than either of them. That's a good thing. Now, that's a sign of strength. We

want a strong man there in the Oval office. Well, my concern with it, as I said before, both Biden and Trump have decided that they will coerce and force us into austerity for their particular agenda. Now, I disagreed with Biden's agenda of climate changes, absolute nonsense. I agree with the agenda that, hey, you know, we've been eviscerated in terms of our industry. I don't agree with Trump's solution to that. I agree with the fact that it's

a problem. I don't agree with the solution. But the bottom line is that both Trump and Biden, regardless of whether and of course, look, if you take Biden's climate change stuff as a problem, you could still make the same argument that his solutions weren't going to solve anything. What were they going to do. They're going to make money for his Green New Deal crony capitalists. And that's what Trump's stuff is going to do. It's not going to solve the problem. It's going to make money for

his crony capitalist friends and for him. And that was what was happening with Biden and both of them, for whatever their end goal is, whether their end goal is good or whether it's bad, both of them feel like they have the right to force us into austerity to achieve that goal. And they're not any different from any of these foreign dictators that we say doing this all the time. And so it's not enough to agree with

the goal. But we need to understand that if we want to achieve any of these goals, the way you do it is with liberty, not with austerity. We need the cumulative feedback of the American people to come back in and talk about whether or not this is you know, if they make a case for it, if we agree with it, and that's you look at this arbitrary on again, off again, on again, off again tariff stuff. What's wrong

with that? Well, we want to have a large, deliberative body that is going to take some of that volatility out of the system. Right, you can have Congress was going to levy taxes and levy tariffs rather than one individual is just going to make it up on his own. Well how about this, how about instead of Congress, how about if we have market solutions? What if people are you have to convince people that there's a problem, And maybe you're wrong when you say there's a problem, because

all these people are there. I've said many times the problem with central planning is not that you don't have smart people doing the central planning We've had very smart people doing central planning in every country, including America, who've gotten it completely wrong. Why why is it that you can have millions, of tens of millions, or hundreds of millions of ordinary people of average or even below average intelligence who can do a better job than one really

smart person who is issuing orders from Washington. It's because of the You could talk about it as being a neural network, but they don't have sufficient information in Washington to make these decisions. They they can't see all the implications of it. And what you have is what Elon Musk has talked about as the hive mind, that the collective people out there and what we call the marketplace are looking at all of this data and giving feedback. You think about it as a big hive mind, a

big neural network or whatever. We want to use computer analogies. But they can do a much better job of a grabbing the information and b making the decision than any person can, no matter how smart. They are, operating blind compared to what the marketplace is doing. So, if you want to fix the problems that we've got, what we don't need is somebody on a throne in the oval office doing it. That's beyond stupid. That's the real issue. And so that's why I say we need liberty, not austerity.

We need the freedom to be able to choose. Milton Friedman and shrined that and his Economics UH lecture his viewpoint. He called it free to choose, and he talked about how societies that were free, like Hong Kong was free at the time that he did it, I think it was in the eighties, and he talked about how free Hong Kong was because basically the British were not interested in governing them, and you know, they were isolated from the Chinese who wanted to govern them to death, and

so they had all kinds of freedom. And he was comparing that to you know, the different countries and showing that the freer you are, the more you have choice, the better choice of society makes. It's not always going to be perfect, but it'll be far better than any forced decision. And that's what we're talking about. Trump is now openly talking this is the real issue. Everybody's saying, well,

he says he doesn't have to follow the constitution anything. Now, the real issue is that he has the arrogance of the elite. He thinks he knows better than you, and he thinks that the stuff in your life is not essential when he's not going to pull back on anything. So let me play for you this this austerity. Talk about how many dolls you may be able to get for your children this Christmas?

one pages of Milania Trump and her new outfit. And I mean it's just one outfit, and it went pay picture after a picture, after a picture after a picture. She's got a new trench coat, folks, She's got some flat and all of them cost thousands of dollars. But the key thing in her wardrobe that there were three items, and they do seventy one pictures on Milania, and the expensive item more so than her burbery trench code or her whatever flats, I don't know who even who it

was it made. It is her purse that costs thirty five thousand dollars. And I was talking about, uh, Christina and oh she's got a she's got a five thousand dollars purse. Well, you know, Millennia's got a thirty five thousand dollars purse. And you know, how dare you go out there and harm our country? You know, I want to have more factories in this country. I can't do it because you're going out there buying cheap junk from

the Chinese. You got to be paying thirty five dollars thirty five thousand dollars for your purse, like thirty five for us.

about let them meet cake Marie Antoinette. He said, I'm related descended to from Marie Antoinette. And she never said that. That's a lie. I was like, okay, whatever, The point is was the elitism, you know, whether she said that or not. The point was the elitism of those people, very similar to you know when you have Voltaire, who was really a horrible person, except when it came free speech. Voltaire never said I may disagree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

He never said that. That was a summary, a summary of Voltaire's writings, an accurate summary, by the way. And I think the let them Eat Cake was a summary of elitist attitudes. I don't care about their austerity not doesn't bother me. I'm fine, I'm just fine. Well, there is a toy store in Saint Paul, Minnesota that has joined a number of small American businesses who are suing the present over the tariff plan. And again a ground swell of lawsuits led by thirteen states that challenged his

tariff programs. And you know, Californian one jurisdiction and twelve other states in another his ambitious tariff program. You might have wondered, why is he allowed to do this? And as coin Telegraph was saying, well, he might not have the legal ability to do that. That's what these court cases are about. Does he really have the power to do this? The president's power to unilaterally imposed tariffs is not really in the office's constitutional article to power. Instead,

it is a delegation of authority by Congress. Now here's the thing, folks, That's what I'm saying. Forget about tariffs. We're talking about tariffs here, but we're talking about something that's far, far more important. That's the Constitution of Constitution and presidential powers, a separation of powers, and all the rest of the stuff. That's the issue before us. This is not a Trump versus Biden thing. This is not a Trump versus Democrats thing. This is not a Trump

versus China thing. This isn't about tariffs or free trade thing. The bigger issues here are really what do we do about the Constitution. And these issues are coming back over and over again. As I've said before, Trump wants to rule by fiat, and he wants to be able to say that he can rule by fiat by declaring phony emergencies about everything. And he also wants to get the

Constitution out of the way. And that's whether we were talking about immigration issues, or trade issues or any of these issues, they all come back to the fact that Trump doesn't want to be encumbered by the rule of law and the Constitution. Now ask yourself if you would like to have Obama or Biden, or Bernie Sanders or occasional cortex or any other Democrats you can imagine, right, would you like them to be unburdened by the law

and the constitution? Because if you remove that for Trump to get through the things that you want, that's where you're going to be. And so this isn't about tribalism or your favorite political figure or even any of these issues. And as I said before, I agree with him on the goals about immigration and on trade, but not with the way he's doing this. It is very dangerous, very destructive.

And then we could add other things too, like his absolute contempt for free speech, not just what is happening in the universities on the behalf of Israel. But don't you dare criticize him or he will a sue you frivolously with a basically something that'll be shut down with a slap law and slap back him in the face. But he will also come after licenses of journalists of networks, TV networks, and so we have to be careful about what he's doing. There's a right and wrong way to

oppose these things. Article one of the US Constitution creates Congress and Section eight delegates the authority to quote, lay, and collect taxes, duties, and posts and ex scizes unquote, a series of colorfully named tariff programs that we've had in the past, like the Tariffs of Abomination of eighteen twenty eight that nearly caused a civil war. It's a section, but the timing wasn't right. We weren't at a fourth

horn turning we are now. We are now. So that was a trade issue, and South Carolina came very very close to seceding in response to the Tariff of abominations. They had a nullification crisis. By the time wasn't right for a civil war, so they agreed to a negotiated settlement and that happened. Then you know, another thirty years later we had the dingly terr eff Act of eighteen ninety seven, culminating in the infamous smoot Holly Tariff of

nineteen thirty. Now I could insert here the Ben's ninething, you know, like treated a class in smoot Holly. You know, bueller, bueller do that. But look, there's been a lot of dispute as to whether smoot Holly was really the trigger for the Great Depression. Did come after the stock market crash and there were other things happening. I think the appropriate way to look at Smoot Holly is the fact

that it raised tariffs on over twenty thousand items. It also did this to record levels on twenty thousand items. And it did it when you had a economy, an economy that was getting much much weaker, right, And so one of the reasons that it was done the economy was weakening. So they thought, we're going to strengthen it by putting tariffs on and we'll we'll start trading with

ourselves instead of with foreign countries. Sound familiar putting on record tariffs broadly based twenty thousand, Well, now this is on everything, everything that comes into the country, everything, not just twenty thousand. So this is bigger. This is bigger than Smoot Holly. And if you want to add really record high tariffs to everything in the economy, h well,

I don't know. It sounds very familiar to me. And so what was the result of the Smoot Holly Act, whether or not you want to blame the depression on it, Well, it reduced our exports, not just our imports. It reduced

our exports as well. By doing that by setting things off in a situation where all the different countries are suffering, and they are largely because of net zero, largely because of preferential treatment given to China, And of course they've wasted a lot of that money with a frivolous central planning and development of real estate and things like that. But China is in a difficult situation as well, commercial real estate, domestic real estate. The Chinese have made a

wreck of their system. Way that you can blame them, but the reality is is that it's very shaky for them as well. And so when we saw what happened with this, everybody is reducing exports, everybody starts everything starts shutting down. It exacerbated everything that weakening. Economy was weakened further. So it wasn't just imports that were reduced, it was exports that were reduced as well. It also increased prices,

inflation went up, and it also disrupted supply chains. And it was doing this to everybody in the world really to one degree or the other, which is what led to a war. And that's why at the fourth turning, and that was our last fourth turning, we're making all the same moves again, aren't we Isn't that amazing? I find it very interesting that the mainstream media never stops

talking about these generations. Oh, we got the millennials, and we got the Generation X and Y and Z and all the rest of this stuff, right, the boomers and this everything, all the talk is generational. Everything that they their entire perspective of society is based in what Strauss and Howe did with generations. But they don't do the book that immediately followed it, which was Fourth Turning. It expanded on that generational cycle. Every four generations you have

a major turning where institutions are wiped away. It's always accompanied by major financial concerns and usually by war. And so nobody is paying attention to the fourth turning, even though they live in this generational view of history of cycles. And when you look at the smooth Holly Terr Effact, and you see what it did and how it exacerbated everything, didn't do, nothing improved with it. It made the Great

Depression greater. Let's make America Great Depression again. In the early nineteen thirties, FDR pushed for legislation to grant his office the authority to negotiate tariffs. He argued that the tariffs had wrecked the economy and that he should have the power to reduce them. He was going in the opposite direction, and so they wound up with a Reciprocal Trade Act of nineteen thirty four, gave the President the power to set tariff rates provided it came as part

of a reciprocal agreement with the counterpart. This allowed the office to negotiate directly with other nations and promoted a period of liberalized trade. So this reciprocity thing, right, reciprocal trade agreements. You know, Trump talked about that a lot. And he had that phony formula from Peter Navarro, the dumbsack of Bricks, that's his advisor, another Democrat who came up with this, saying and look, you could whatever you want to call that formula that he's got. It was

a lie to call a tariff. It was not a tariff. It had nothing to do with tariff rates. It was a formula that was based on deficits and based on how much they buy from us or whatever. Right that was not just based on It was not based on tariffs. They didn't try to average the tariffs or do any kind of adjustments to actual terriff rights. They ignored the teriffs. They went with this other metric and then called that

a tariff. That's stupid and it's a lie. It's a stupid lie from a dumb sack of bricks called Peter Navarro. So this Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act, however, it's not the law that Trump is relying on. And of course, you know, these tariffs are not reciprocal, they're unilateral, and they're based on a number that's not even a tariff. Congress continued to delegate authority to the president through the mid century.

You had the Expansion Act of nineteen sixty two, you had the Trade Act of nineteen seventy four, then you had the International Urgency Economic Powers Act of nineteen seventy seven AIPA. I guess I E E p A. If you want to try to pronounce I don't know anyway, that's the one that he's hanging his hat on. It doesn't say anything about tariffs. It's better known as the law that recent presidents have used to levy's sanctions against

enemies like Russia. But he's used his power to respond to declared emergencies to response to unusual and extraordinary threats. The president's also got the power to declare emergencies, but that comes from another Act, the National Emergencies Act. This is Reason Magazine, Reason dot Com. They're basically two legal arguments that you can make against Trump's tariffs. Number one that the IEEPA doesn't authorize the president to implement his

tariff program. And number two that it is unconstitutional, even if it did, for AEPA to delegate such broad authority to the president. And this is exactly what California and the other twelve states did, and they're lawsuits. They argued number one that the president's actions are beyond his legal authority, and number two that even if he was given legal authority by Congress, it would violate the separation of powers. Reasons said, there's a few reasons why this might be true.

Any action under this i e EPA must be tailored to quote deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat. And you know when we look at things like he also references back this early nineteen sixties act to say that he could put the car terriffs on. Well, that's not an emergency. That's nothing extraordinary. That is not unusual for people to buy foreign cars for the last sixty years, over sixty years, and it is not unusual or extraordinary,

even if it was a threat. So the nearly worldwide ten percent tariff level is wholly unconnected to the state of basis of the emergency declaration. They say that's in their complaint. It alleges it applies whether without regard to any country's trade practices or purported threat to domestic industries. Again, they leveled this ten percent thing across the board, even to countries that we had a trade surplus with, like the UK in Australia. It's not a threat if we've

got a surplus to them. If you're saying that that's the basis of the threat. Secondly, there is a constitutional limit on Congress's ability to delegate Article one powers to the present. It's known as the non delegation doctrine. Well, I wish they would enforce this. The problem is the Congress has been delegating things to the executive right. It's

not necessarily to the present, but to the bureaucracy. You know, when Nancy Pelosi said we're going to pass Obamacare to find out, wasn't it, That's exactly what she was telling you. That's the way they operate. They don't put the details in they just create these broad movements. They might create an agency or whatever and then or it might be thrown over to an existing agency. And the devil is

in the details that come out of the bureaucracy. And so we've also seen Congress delegate power that it doesn't have. You know, this is a power that it does have setting terraces and taxes and excise rates. But we've seen them delegate things that they don't have under the constitution as well. They really would rather have show hearings and collect money and run for office, and have show hearings and collect money and run for office, and rinse and repeat.

So the you know, when you look a good example of this, Okay, it's regulations that have been used to tell us that we can't have certain appliances, we can't have cars, and stuff like that. They Congress created a power out of thin air that the federal government doesn't have, and that is to monitor and to regulate energy ificiency. And they gave that power to the newly created Department of Energy right in the seventies or whatever. And then

the same thing with the EPA. The new department newly been created, and they say, and we're going to say that the federal government has the power to regulate emissions, and we'll give that power to the EPA. That's an example of Congress creating a and unconstitutional bureaucracy in both of those cases to do something that they have no authority to do, and then to create special new powers and hand them to those new unconstitutional bureaucracies that they create.

That's not deep. We're into this stuff, and we've got to avoid the trap of making a second mistake rather than admitting the first one. So that's why we need to have radical change. When we talk about radical change, what that means is you grab it by the roots. That's the root word of radical, I mean radics, you know, getting it at the root and pull it out. And that's the problem with Washington. It does need radical change.

It needs to be uprooted. It needs to be these weeds that have been sown into our lives and every aspect of our life, every aspect I mean where we're talking about, how whether or not we travel, how we travel, the things that we have to go through when we travel. What about the education of our children, what about how we earn a living, how about what we're allowed to keep an eye, and we have weeds that have been sown throughout every fabric of our society. Those are the

things that are our problems more so than China. I'm not saying China is not a problem. I'm saying they're small compared to Washington. Washington doesn't want you to see them as a weed that is metastasizing cancer, this metastasizing throughout society. They want you to look at the ouslander, right, the foreigner. They're the problem, not the Nazis in Washington. So the Supreme Court has not struck down an executive

action on these grounds since nineteen thirty five. But despite the constitution uncertainty, the net of the arguments is broadly perceived as strong. A right reason this is one. This is why one prominent conservative lawyer, so called told ABC News that the plaintiffs might win in a fight against Trump. He or she said, there is a strong argument that the tariffs imposed under AEPA, we'll say, are not legal or constitutional, and it sounds like it's speedy Gonzales orp.

Speedy Gonzales AEPA. Under that particular statute, tariffs are not listed amongst the various actions that a present can take in response to a declaration of national emergency. So they're saying, you don't have the legal authority, be a bad idea if you did. And Congress can't delegate this to for its separation of powers. So there's some other factors in the presence favor. However, the administration may be able to hear these claims in the US Court of International Trade,

which has exclusive jurisdiction over tariff disputes. Appeals from this court are heard in the Federal Circuit, which is generally seen as favorable for Trump, and the twelve state complaint

was actually filed in this court from the beginning. However, as I said before, California filed its complaint, which is basically the same complaint, but they filed it in a different court, the Ninth Circuit of Court, Ninth Circuit Court, which would be more friendly to you from a political standpoint, more friendly to the Democrats than the Trump vice versa on the Trade Court. So if Trump succeeds in removing that action to the Court of International Trade the CIIT,

it will be an early victory for the administration. Trump argues that the courts have consistently held that the president's emergent sdency declarations are unreviewable, and that therefore any challenge to the fact of an emergency itself, particularly the claim that the emergency is not unusual or extraordinary enough in the plaintiff's view, is a non jurisdictional political question. But this court lacks jurisdiction to consider. And so that's the

argument he's making. Because if I call something an emergency, you can't second guess it in the courts. You can't litigate this in the courts. That's a very dangerous idea. That's a very dangerous idea. And that regardless of what we're talking about anything, right, if you're talking about lockdown and masks, that's a very dangerous idea. If you're talking about tariffs, that's a very dangerous It's a very dangerous

idea applied to anything. Anything, the potential for abuse, and we don't even have to say it's potential for abuse. It's what was done to us five years ago. I could people forget. Presidence track record in court has historically been poor. He has a win rate of thirty five percent in the Supreme Court versus the average presidential win rate of sixty five percent. Though he loses about twice as often as the average president. So we're going to

take a quick break. I'm want to read some of your comments here and I take a break and we'll talk a little bit more about you know, hey, the stuff that they like to have, that's important. What do you want to have, you know, if it's cheap clothes or dolls or something that's not important, that's really not important. On Kick for the Love of the Road is gifted twenty five subs Thank you very much. That is a that's about you know, five dollars a subscription, I think,

isn't it. So that's a substantial contribution, Thank you very much. On Rumble, he kills us says Trump sounds like Bernie Sanders now yeah, yeah, a Northeast liberal Democrat. On Rumble, honor Seeker says Trump can get a sesson and get rid of his goal plated toilets. That's right. You know, think about how many dolls you could buy with Melaennia's purse. On Rumble Sam Miller one two three, he says, who is he to tell us how many dolls our children

can have? That's exactly it. That the meat cake, right, he is such a liar and a dictator. Now he wants to be the pope. I know, I know. Oh, he's just kidding, right, Don't you love it? How when he puts himself out as the Messiah and his followers put him out as missile. Oh, he's he's just joking. When they build golden idol statues to him, Oh, it's just a joke. And when he puts himself out as

the Pope, that's also just a joke. And it's just a joke right after this guy has died, And that's important to some Patholics around there, and they're very offended by that as well. On Rumble DG eight, thank you for the tip, he says, David. The most dangerous thing about Trump is his media and his cult. They will cheerlead tyranny. Yeah, and his missteps and they will call it winning. I thought the Obama cult was insane. This is another level. Yeah, Rumble Stealth Patriot, thank you for

the tip very much. He said, none of the criminals that facilitated the invasion of our country by illegals are being prosecuted. A good point. Did I do anything about majorca, he says, or Biden or Merrick Garland. Instead you get violations of the Fourth Amendment against us. I think that tells you everything, right. They like the problems, they like the problems, and so they're not going to come after

these people who criminally, you know, shut down investigation. You know, when we talked with the guy that does not have MS thirteen on his knuckles, that guy, you know, the photoshop terrorist, he was photoshopped into being a terrorist, but he may be actually involved in a cartel if you look at the trafficking stuff, all of the stuff that the Trump administration put out there. They said, begin with all this stuff. Well he was sent there mistakenly. Okay,

let's just go with that statement. Then bring him back, give him some due process, determine what's going on with this guy. You said, you made a mistake. And then

what they do is they engage in character assassination. Well, you know, his wife got a restrained order against him, and this and that, you know again, you know, and then engage in lies about the tattoos on his knuckles and things like that, that knuckle headed approach, rather than looking at you know, quietly percolating in the background, is this investigations done by the Tennessee Star saying he was trafficking and caught with the Tennessee Highway Patrol trafficking people.

He may very well be a cartel member, maybe not MS thirteen, but you know, he was trafficking people for the cartels. But they don't talk about that. Instead of what they do is they engage in character assassination, They engage in fabrication of absurd lies. And then they come back and they saying, we don't have to get due process to people in this country if they're not citizens. And we'll talk about that coming up. That's a very important question, and I'll give you both sides of this.

You know, this is something that's now being debated. I remember, you know, when I first talked about this, Garcia guy said, look, they made a mistake. You made a mistake. You bring him back and if there's other evidence that's there, do something about it. Somebody sent me the actual report, the gang report that was there and that jurisdiction, and I

think it was Maryland. I talked about that at the very beginning, and that whole procedure and that you know, it was done in a couple of different jurisdictions by the police that whole approach, that whole procedure. That organization was disbanded because they found that it was operating in a very unjust way. As a matter of fact, the cop who brought those charges against him and filed that report was himself kicked out of the police force and

charged for criminal activity that he was involved in. So that's all of the evidence that they had except for this trafficking thing. It's phony, phony, garbage. And they double down and say, we don't have to correct that. But Trump did, his administration did back in twenty eighteen, this first Trump administration, they mistakenly deported somebody to a foreign country and then they corrected that and brought him back. And so this is a different attitude. It's a very

dangerous attitude, a lawless attitude, an arrogant, elitist attitude. And I don't like that. Yeah, it's another level. And they're not coming after the people who threw us under the bus with open borders, right. Instead, what they're doing is they're trying to come after the constitution instead of the criminals. On Rumble self Patriot, Let's see, that's the one I just read on Rumble Audi modern retro radio goods see says Trump and Bernie have more in common than not. Yeah.

I agree. Let's take a quick break and we'll come back because I want to talk a little bit about this comment about how Trump doesn't care about rising prices because we've got cheap gas. Okay, Well, we'll talk about that. We'll be right back. Joyed listening to the David Knight Show, Well, Trump said, rising prices are peanuts compared to cheap gas. Let's not bring in some pet squirrels into this discussion.

Here in the interview on Meet the Press with Kristen Welter Welker and he said some price, She said, some prices are going up. Tires, strollers, some clothing, and the wake of your terraces. He said, excuse me, that's peanuts compared to energy. Energy is sixty percent of the cost.

Energy is the big thing, as they point out, by Trump's one hundred day in office, the average price of gas had dipped around fifty cents per gallon from a year prior, according to data from the Triple A. He said, I think the good parts are the Trump economy and the bad parts of the Biden economy, because he did a terrible job he did a terrible job on everything. He said, well, there we go. Well here's the It's not the economy stupid, It's not other things like the

inflation rate that can be manipulated. It really is the end decision that is creating a lockdown again. Trump will most likely be the second second, the one person who has lockdown our economy twice, first one to do it.

Now he wants to do it again. I guess. It was an interesting article on Wall Street Journal and it was with a guy, Ryan Peterson, and he talked about if you recall in twenty twenty one, there was a ship that got stuck in the Seuez Canal, was stuck in the Suez Canal for six days, and it was a major transruption of global trade just in that one

canal stuck for six days. It costs nine point six billion dollars per day for those six days to the global economy and created all kinds of supply chain issues. That was the key thing, because what Ryan Peterson does is he's got a business. Flexport is about shipping, and so in his business he has access to all the details about what is happening with the supply chain. And

he actually wrote a book. It was a kid's book about it, right, but he actually wrote a big The Ship and the Big Digger or something like that, and he wrote a book about how that works to kind of, you know, give a little bit of something you'd use to educate your kids economically about things like that. But he points out that everything's being paralyzed by Trump's uncertainty

Trump administration. He says, I've got thirteen thousand customers, and he said they're feeling helpless and they are feeling unheard because they don't have lobbyists. Right, the automobile industry has got lobbyists, or other groups have got lobbyists, and they'll come in and they'll talk to the Trump administration. They'll get some concessions from Lutnik or whatever. But these are

small and medium sized businesses who don't have lobbyists. And so, you know, like Hillary Clinton said she can't be bothered by all these undercapitalized people when she was going to impose the massive hardship of Hillary Care on everybody before Obamacare, She's gold to be bothered with these people who didn't have any money. If you don't have any money, you

can't have access to me. And you don't have a say, you're not a stakeholder, right, So these stakeholders with lobbyists who can get the year, and they can come in and they can talk personally to Trump's advisors and everything get them to switch. That's part of what's happening with the uncertainty. But these thirteen thousand customers of his, there's small and medium sized businesses, don't have anybody that can buy their way into this corrupt system we call the

US federal government. And so he points out, you know, we got as I said the other day, you know, it's like three months for this supply chain. People place the orders, it's made, it's put on the ships, and it comes here. And we're starting to see everything slowing down. I talked about the number of ships that were coming to the Western Port LA. You've seen that just taking a nose dive and being cut in half, and it's

going to continue. And he said a lot of people also, you know, we had we haven't seen any of this. As a matter of fact, we saw a slight uptick because a lot of people, when they saw these terrors coming in, they placed advance orders, just like Apple brought in several plane loads of iPhones from China. I mean, they're going to move their production to India, but that's going to take a while, right. Why they do in the meantime, well, you know, let's not have one hundred

and forty five percent increase on these things. So they just shipped as many of them as they could on planes to get in out of the deadline. And a lot of people are upping their purchases and storing stuff because they don't know what's going to happen with this. It may go up, it may not, But now everybody's kind of freezing it. And so when we get out another couple of months, that's when you're going to see this.

So we may start to see it sooner in the transportation industry because these these ships that are arriving are already cutting in half. But this is what he said, how he summed it up. Brian Peterson. This is an article on the Wall Street Journal where they interviewed him. He characterizes it as an asteroid level extinction event for

small businesses, supply chain and things like that. You mean an asteroid level extinction business for the small businesses that Trump tried to kill once before, saying they were non essential. Leave the walmarts open, close the other stores over here. Shut down those service businessinesses, which we've shut down all the other aspects pretty much because of regulation. So the only thing left to most people is service businesses. If they want to be an entrepreneur, if they want to

create something, so shut that down. Shut down the restaurants. Five times. Trump team told Americans to accept being poor again. This is the kind of billionaire arrogance that we've seen from people like Michael Bloomberg. And I'll play the clip for you one more time.

type of thing, right, he said. Trump said American kids will beginning two dollars instead of thirty because with tariffs, the other twenty eight dollars will end up at mar A Lago. And here are the the adult dolls that, of course he would surround himself with. And as he said, it's gonna be great. We're gonna make a lot of money. One person says, yeah, having too many dolls is excessive. Take a look at Donald Trump and his gold covered

house there. Yeah, that's that's not excessive. But you know, hey, this eleven year old doesn't need those kind of dollars. Did he ever tell that to Ivanka? No, No, you don't need thirty dollars. I'll get you one that cost one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. How about that? Is that okay? I'll get you thirty that cost one hundred

and fifty thousand. Who cares? The potential in his trade war could reduce the average household's income by nearly thirty eight hundred dollars this year, according to Yale Budget Labs estimates. So you know you don't need that thirty eight hundred dollars. Come on, yeah, you didn't need that the average household's income. That's pretty big because you know, the average household income, I don't know what it is now with the inflation that we've had. It was just a couple of years ago.

It's like, you know, mid fifties, fifty thousand four household. Are you going to take out thirty eight hundred?

orbit admitted as much. Now, one of the things is he doesn't talk about Benny Johnson, who wasn't saying that, you know, hey, you're buying junk and you shouldn't be allowed to buy junk and help China. So we're gonna stop you being able to get cheap stuff. And that's what these other quotes are about. But you know, Benny Johnson said, well, hey, you know, losing money costs you absolutely nothing, quote unquote. That's what he said, losing money

costs you absolutely nothing. What is he talking about? Yeah, and he's not saying that. You know, he's not giving you as you know, paraphrasing Jesus and sermon in them out. You know, don't don't give any thought for these things. You know. Follow you know, God takes care of the race, Evans, He takes care of the flowers of the field, and he will take care of you. Follow him for a thing. He's not talking about that. No, no, no, you want

to be able to save the country. Am I allowed to question whether or not Trump's plan is going to save the country. Well, no, no, don't talk about that. He said, losing your country is everything. Well, how does raising prices save our country exactly? You know, you might want to explain that to us. And he wasn't talking about losing our constitution in order for economic benefits. You see, this is the fallacy of this exchange that people like

Benny Johnson are putting out there. Okay, losing money cost you absolutely nothing. We're talking about saving your country. Well, I'm not sure that your plans are going to save the country, but I knew, though, do know that your plans are harming the constitution, And that's how we lose our country by destroying the constitution, by destroying the rule of law. And I don't really care about your grandiose

plans because you don't have any plans. You're changing them every hour, you said, right, So you don't have a plan to save the country. You've got a plan to destroy the constitution and make yourself into some kind of a ten pot dictator. That's what you've got to plan for. Well, yeah, the lose your country for the promise of economic security. But let's look at some of these comments that they put in reason. Robert Leiitzinger August of twenty twenty two.

He was the first Trump administration's US Trade representative. He dismissed free trade as being rooted in a philosophy of consumption that is too materialistic. Again, he's not talking about, you know, put your faith in God. There are things that are more important than money. No, he's saying that, you know, I've got a better economic plan to make you money. That's what he's saying in the long term. So the best way to fixed consumerism is to raise prices. See,

that's what he's against. He's not against materialism, he's against consumerism, which to these guys is buying dolls instead of buying private yachts and private jet planes and mar Lagos. Is consumption really a problem in America? They asked, Well, that might be easy to say. As someone who spent his career bouncing back and forth between law, politics, and finance. Leisinger just landed a plush new gig as a quote

senior advisor unquote for a city Corps city group. For many Americans, however, higher prices would mean a material reduction in living standards, a real reduction. Got a household income of fifty thousand or so, you have thirty eight hundred dollars that is going to cost them When Leisinger criticizes consumerism and consumption, he's really just saying that you should be happy with paying more and getting less. Right again, can't get dolls for your kids, but he'll be able

to afford his toys, private jets, yachts. Dan Bishop April twenty twenty four, a Republican congressman from North Carolina, to cried the quote cheap crap unquote that Americans were importing from China. He said, you can go buy sneakers on Timu for five dollars in a sweater for seven. Timu reportedly loses thirty dollars per order in a deliberate strategy

to flood the US market with cheap crap. Okay, so I guess we should go buy the five thousand dollars perse that Christin dum gets or the thirty five thousand dollars perse that Milania Trump gets. These are people trying to make an economic decision here, and I understand predatory pricing, and you know what, that also happens with domestic corporations against small businesses. I've talked about how Blockbuster did that. It's not just an issue with China being able to

do this because of the pockets of national subsidy. Wall Street in general does that. Wall Street in general does that to small and medium sized businesses. Small and medium sized businesses have to compete in a competitive free market, but the big box retailers win because they don't have to make a profit. They can operate at a loss until they drive their competition out of business because they're

getting the greater fool's money on Wall Street. So unless you're going to talk about fixing the Wall Street bank for these big box retailers, you're still not talking about a competitive free marketplace. And what you're going to wind up doing. If you shut down the Chinese predators that are out there, you're going to have the domestic Wall Street predators who are going to be on your case

shutting it down. That's what we've seen. You know, it wasn't the Chinese government that shut down all the hardware stores. It wasn't the Chinese government that shut down all the stationary stores like dunder Mifflin or whatever, right the office. Now, this was done by big box retailers. This is a strategy that was really pioneered by Mitt Romney and his organization.

You know, let's put these things together. We'll we'll, you know, have the big hardware stores, the big office supply stores, and on and on and on, and we will drive all these small retailers out of business. And they did. Then we go to JD. Vance. August of twenty twenty four, not long after being named Trumps running mate, JD. Vance declared in a campaign speech a quote A million cheap knockoff toasters aren't worth the price of a single American

manufacturing job. It's that affordable and abundant labor saving appliances, as reason, are part of why the twenty first century America is the best place to live in the history of the human race. Kevin Cochrane said, a product being cheap in both senses, both low cost and low quality, is not in and of itself a problem. Sometimes buying something and expensively and basic is a perfectly sensible option, because you know, not all of us can afford a

thirty five thousand dollars perse like millennia. Again, when we look at this, I don't like predatory collusion, but understanding that it isn't just happening with the Chinese government, It's happening with all these big American corporations, and they are working with the American government, the Washington government that you think is going to be your savior on this stuff. They're working with them, just like the Chinese companies are

working with the Chinese government. So again, if we're just trying to we're trying to live life between the rampaging, stomping hoofs of these elephants that are around there, what Vance is really saying is that you should be poor. Ed Gresser, the former assistant US Trade Representative who is currently the Director of Trade and Global Markets for the

Progressive Policy Institute, is coming from the left. He said that fully American made toaster would cost at least two hundred and fifty dollars, significantly more expensive than the thirty to fifty dollars toasters that are readily available in American stores today. If there are American stores left Amazon, in Vance's world, that trade off is worth it because of patriotism.

And don't talk to me about patriotism you're talking when you're talking about patriotism like that, what you're talking about are crony American capitalists who, in my opinion, are no better, no better than the crony Chinese capitalists working with their government. Scott Bessant March of this year just recently said that at the Economic Club of New York, Treasury Secretary Bessant said that quote access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American dream.

So and Beston, of course, is not talking about this from an anti materialist view, and he's not saying, you know, there's things that are more important than money, which I would agree with. No, he's not saying that he's got a certain way that you know he wants to He loves money and he wants you to pay more, is all he's saying. So buy the expensive stuff from his friends. As a saying goes, when somebody shows you who they are,

believe them the first time. You know, when Trump said you're non essential in twenty twenty, you should have believed him then. I mean, I still got a lot of people, yeah, friends, conservatives and everything. Well, let's give Trump a chance. No believe him the first time. Pay attention to what he did and said the first time, because he's doing it again and he's going to keep doing it again and again.

We're just trying to figure out how we're going to not get stomped on by these rampaging elephants foreign in domestic governments, foreign and domestic predatory competitors. How are we going to navigate that environment? The nationalist conservatives now running the Republican Party, says Reason has repeatedly said they believe Americans should have to pay higher prices for sneakers and household goods in order to achieve weird political goals like

more toaster factories? Right, and who does that help? Does that help Howard Lutnik to have more toaster factories? Am I better with domestic toaster factories? Then I am getting cheap toasters from China? Is it better off that the obscenely rich predatory people that are going to be selling me toasters or Americans rather than Chinese. I don't think so. I don't think so at all, And somehow you're supposed

to this is another form of tribalism. Well, I don't mind if I get ripped off and these people become trillionaires as long as they're Americans, right, I just don't want those Chinese trillionaires doing that. Right Well, Trump says it's terrorists. Will mean that Americans won't be able to afford as many toys for their kids, but He'll be able to afford any toy he wants, no matter how expensive, including those twenty eight dollars wearing skirts at his mar

a Lango thing. You'll never hit what you aren't aiming at, folks. Trump is not aiming at your prosperity. He's not aiming at an upwardly mobile society, or he'd be getting rid of regulations left and right, and he'd be changing the structure of government. He's not doing that. You know, he's not doing that for his bab He's changed the structure of government to make it more centrally controlled. He's aiming for himself. He's aiming for his family. He's aiming for

his friends. To get obscenely rich. And you know he's aiming for you to own nothing. We'll be right back.

World Economic Forum. I mean, this guy is better connected than Klaus Schwamp and just as dangerous as Klaus Schwamp. He wanted him, then he didn't want the Conservatives in. So he's doing all this garbage. And he openly said that it wasn't just that he foolishly made an offhand comment about Canada being fifty first state right before the election. No, he was openly talking about it, several comments. I don't like Polliev, he doesn't respect me. Mark Carney is very

obsequious when he talks to me. Right, They didn't say that. I'm paraphrasing what he had to say, but I'm sure that Mark Carney is very obsequious to Trump. That's the way these guys operate is Flat or Trump. You get whatever you want, including you know some guy that is not just a puppet of the World Economic Form, but one of the guys is pulling the strings of the World Economic form. You put him in power there in Canada.

That's good. Then we had over the weekend you had the labor left in Australia rise to power again out of people's absolute contempt for Donald Trump. He's harming these different conservative populist movements that are out there. What people who support Trump also support He's harming those movements one by one in other countries. We see that in the UK Nigel Frag's Reform Party, which is again a pushback again. And I'm not supporting any of these particular parties that

are out there. I'm just saying that when you look at the Reform Party, or you look at La Pennz Party in France, or you look at AfD in Germany, you know these are parties that are for smaller government, stopping the open borders and the swamping of their societies by a bunch of foreign young men who are coming into. The crime rates or rape rates are soaring and all

the rest of the stuff. So anybody pushes back against that. Now, the AfD has been penalized over and over again, and they've just now by their secret agency, have been declared a terrorist organization. Their spy agencies declared them to be terrorists. An absolute lie, but they're doing that. They you know, they were the number two vote getter, but they would not include them in a coalition. We saw the same thing happening in France where you had the Marine Lapinz

Party UH one. The elections and the European Parliament. They had a triggered a domestic election in two phases, and the first phase they were doing much better than Macron's party and so forth. So Macron and all the other parties got together in a conspiracy and said, jurisdiction by jurisdiction will decide which one of us is in the lead, and the other parties will step down so that we keep whatever Marine Lapin's party was, we keep them from

gaining power. Now, you know you can. I'm sure we can find things that we don't like about Marine Lapinn's party. But one thing I don't like about is that kind of conspiracy. That's not a democracy. And again I'm not, as I said on Friday, I don't care about democracy. I don't like democracy, frankly, and neither did the founders. They wanted to have a republic. They're respected individual rights.

You know, we've got a we have supposedly, with Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East, How does that democracy respect individual rights of free speech in America? No, they don't. They're using all of their massive clout with the politicians that they've paid off to try to eviscerate our First Amendment. Oh, great, that's democracy for you, right there,

isn't it. So Marine Lapen not only did they and each of these success so they wound up coming in much further down, like third place in terms of seats that they won, except that in each of these elections, from the European election to the first round and the second round, their party went up in vote totals each time, even though ultimately they got pushed down a distant third in terms of seats, they should have won, but they played that conspiracy game and then that wasn't enough for them.

After the election, they brought criminal charges against her so that she can't run in future elections. That's what's going on in Germany right now with AfD. It's a really dark future ahead because all of these quote unquote democracies don't care about individual rights, they don't care about anything other than the raw exercise of power, and so I

don't know what's going to happen. In the UK right now, people are pushing back against the radical green agenda of the Labor Party and their open borders and things like that, pushing over towards the Reform Party. But it could be that if the left Kerstarmer is capable of tying hydrol praes to Trump, which wouldn't be hard to do. That could kill his popularity there as well, just like it

hurt the conservatives in Canada and Australia as well. So again, Michael Hartnett Bank of America says, now the stock market is picking up. We've had nine days of consecutive gains since November two thousand and four, the longest stretch since November two thousand and four. People are betting on Trump to reverse Trump. And even as they're betting on Trump to reverse Trump, we see that Trump says, we got too many foreign movies, and I'm going to put one

hundred percent tariff on foreign movies. You see, this is the kind of petulant, stupid dictator type of stuff that you would see coming out of North Korea or out of China. Right are some other ten pot dictators. This is why he shouldn't have this kind of power. He's now going to add one hundred percent terratit. I don't even know how that works. I mean, you know, are they going to be able to itemize the tariff charges if you watch movies online or something? Oh? Oh, this

is a this is a foreign film. So now you've got to pay one hundred percent tariff. And look, it would be the easiest thing in the world to shield that from any kind of foreign ownership. I mean, I just guess you can't go back and look at Felleeni films or something, even if you wanted to. I would's not a big fan of of foreign films either, but you know it's if you wanted to go back and watch that, I guess now you're gonna have to pay

double the price because one hundredercent tariff. So when we look at just a summary and what is happening here, it is been quite an amazing week. There has been a documentary, as a Brian Schulhavey on help impact dot compoints a new documentary on BBC called The Settlers. He said that he was actually shocked that the BBC would actually air something like this. I'm not because again, the UK has been taken over by Arabs. You know, just

like Washington has been taken over by Zionists. The UK has been taken over by Arabs, no question about it. So this BBC documentary called Jewish Settlers, many of them are American Jews, blatantly disobey the law to forcibly take land away from Palestinians, as Israeli government allegedly looks the

other way. We've seen this over and over again. Look at look at India for example, right Indian Hindus, and a lot of times this type of stuff is religiously ethnically backed up, which is what we see in India with the Hindus looking the Hindu government under Modi. You know, the pal of Tulsa Gabbard and J. D. Vance's, you know, they're they're big friends with Modi. They think he's great,

except that his government looks the other way. As you've got radical Hindus slaughter Christians and Sikhs in India, or you've got the Nigerian government that looks the other way as their Flani Muslim tribesmen slaughter Christians by the you know, hundreds they're in Nigeria. So this is the type of thing if we don't have the rule of law, that's

the type of thing we can expect. So the other thing is that we see here happening is kind of interesting as tech companies are afraid to talk too much about their price increases even though they are having price increases. You saw Amazon's CEO Jeff Bezos harangued by Carol lying Levitt as she accused him of being a Chinese propagandist because he itemized the tariff that was surcharged on there by the Trump administration. How dare you to even talk

about that? Of course, Timu and another one are going to be doing that in China. And this was Amazon Hall, it wasn't even going to be Amazon, but he backed down when he got a call from Trump. And so Microsoft just announced that it jacked up prices on its game products. Its Xbox console went up by one hundred dollars twenty percent, from five hundred dollars to six hundred dollars.

As they point out, it was an extraordinary move because five year old consoles like the current generation of Xboxes almost always see price cuts, not increases. Five years old and they went up by twenty percent. Well, you know it's the tariff, right has to be, because it's not because they came out with any new features. It's five years old. It's ancient to anyone even dimly aware of

economic news. It was fairly obvious that Microsoft's Xbox changes were reaction to Trump's administration's tariffs on electronic manufactured overseas, but tech companies like Microsoft are going out of their way to avoid crossing the present by, for example, attributing their price increases to his tariffs, says Healthimpact dot Com. It's easy to understand why Microsoft chose not to telegraph this because look at what happened with a Jeff Bezos again,

you call him a Chinese propagandist. Well, if that isn't projection on her part, she is the propagandist, and she calls other people propagandist, and so, as he said, most Americans still have no idea what's coming in the very near future if Trump doesn't reverse himself again, the market is looking at this hoping that Trump is going to reverse himself. If he doesn't, it is going to be catastrophic, not just for it won't be as catastrophic for consumers

as it will be for the small businesses. But maybe Wall Street is even pricing that in there. You know, hey, the big guys that we find are going to do better because I'll have more of a monopoly. A big tech is continuing also to inflate the AI bubble. That's another part of why the stock market is going up and continues to go up. It's just a few stocks

that are there, like Nvidia and some others. They continue to go up, and it is a bubble, as Healthimpact dot Com says, until big tech stocks go through a correction or blow up completely, the AI bubble will continue to inflate, driven by the fear of being left behind by the AI spending frenzy fomo, the fear of missing out fully automated self driving vehicles have already seen investments of probably over a trillion dollars in the past decade with no real return on profits. And yet, and yet

that may be about to change. I hope it isn't. But we're going to talk a little bit about that. Some self driving trucks are starting to hit the market. I should say the roads, because they're now in Texas especially, starting to use these large semis without any human beings in them on the highways. There you go, we'll be right back.

if you can't read an emergency sign. And yet in Texas, Texas is pushing harder to uh you know, for these autonomous semi trailers. They're pushing harder for this than even California. Is California is a close second. But you have a company called Aurora. UH driver lest trucks are officially running their first regular long haul routes, making round trips between Dallas and Houston. It's another reason to stay off the Interstate Travis when you're going back and forth between here

in Texas. You know, get on the back roads there. Anyway. On Thursday, autonomous trucking firm Aroar announced that launched commercial service in Texas under its first customers, Uber Freight, Uber Freight and another company. Now, of course it was Travis Kalalnik of Uber who was one of the you know, boasting about this. You know, come work for Uber. It's

going to be a great job. A great career, blah blah blah, you know, and then saying, you know what makes our rights expensive, it's side the other dude in the car. We're going to get rid of them. So this is uber freight. And so they were running these tests for a while with a human driver in there. And again when we look at that, we've seen how that worked out in Phoenix, Arizona, where you got the woman who is sitting there and she's you know, playing

with her phone or whatever. Boom, you know, runs over somebody who's jaywalking on the road, a homeless person who was jaywalking and killed him. And everybody said, oh, you know, she didn't see this coming. And of course she couldn't see it because it was dark and you can't see the head license like no, no, no, no, no, no no. The driverless car should have, you know, the lights. It doesn't use the lights. Now Tesla does use I think visual stuff, but the other ones use light ar so

it doesn't need the light. It should have seen her coming for quite some time and it should have put it on the emergency brakes. Oh well, the emergency brakes are disconnected because they were you know, throwing the emergency brakes on too often, and that in and of itself was a danger. Yet it is, but all these things are indications of you know, so the emergency breaks being put on and appropriately by the self driving software. They

just took off the emergency break, so that happened. And then of course the person who's supposed to be the human operating this, and that's the fallacy of this stuff. They can't turn over control to the humans. You put them to sleep, and then all of a sudden there is an emergency is dumped into the lap by artificial intelligence. By the way, that's a metaphor for what's going to happen to our entire society. Everybody gets lulled into sleep

and passivity. And you know, we've got i think Microsoft doing about a third of its code now with artificial intelligence. What happens when the AI makes some really really big mistakes that compound in that software in the near future, and you know, maybe it's far enough down that you don't have a whole lot of human programmers, or any human programmers that are as good as they would be if they were doing the programming all the time. They've been kind of they've taken a back seat to the

AI doing the programming. Are they going to be able to figure it out? Are they going to be able to reverse it? And for how long is it going to take them to do that after they have lost a lot of their skills because they turned it over to AI. Same thing with this driving stuff. Now, that's a perfect metaphor for what I think is going to happen to our society in general, as we've become pacified by these helpers who do everything for us, making us

increasingly helpless and unable to do it for ourselves. As of Thursday, the company's self driving tech had completed over twelve hundred miles without a human and a truck. Wow, twelve hundred miles, that's nothing, but you know, hey, they're good to go, no problem, let's let them go. They did a whole twelve hundred miles of training there. That's great. So they've had over a decade of hype. Tesla, GM

others have poured billions of dollars into the tack. And remember DARPA was the one that started all this stuff with their very first competition was driverless vehicles at DARPA. So autonomous trucking or driving tends to use states like Texas and California as they're testing ground for technology. Yeah, they're just gonna let them do whatever they want. Consumers and transportation officials have raised alarm over the safety record

of autonomous vehicles. So the ones that they've tried as taxis and various jurisdictions have had such, you know, been such a problem. Now let's take it at scale it up. Let's scale it up to a giant semi. Earlier this year, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration rejected a petition from autonomous driving companies Waimo and Aurora, the one that's running this trucking company, seeking to replace traditional warning devices used when a truck broke down with a cab mounted beacons.

So again, you know, you don't need it same kind of stuff that you would have for the humans and the self driving vehicles. With Tesla, that was kind of a whistle that was used to sell the electric cars. People make it all look very futuristic, right, forget about how poorly it worked. As Steve Wozniak, the co founder of Apple Computers that he'said, I love my Tesla, but don't put on the self driving is trying to kill you. Well, now we'll be able to kill other people with a

big semi stuff out there. But all of this is the excuse that was given to us was the climate. Mcguffin. We've got to have the electric cars and of course the self driving cars that are going to be out there.

I don't care if somebody wants to drive an electric car, if somebody wants to normalize, and of course our hero to the conservatives now, Elon Musk, has said nobody will be driving cars in the future, and that's my problem, the fact that they will keep us from being able to drive cars, just like my problem with electric vehicles is the fact that they're not going to allow you to make the choice that you don't want an electric vehicle.

You will have an electric vehicle, and they're not going to give you the choices to whether or not you would like to drive or not. Either. Eric Peters and I have been talking about this for the longest time, and as they pointed out, the only way these electric vehicles will be able to operate is if they ban human drivers, because if we've got human drivers there, they may not be able to react to the situation. But you don't even need to have a human driver to

mess them up. Remember the situations that we had in San Francisco. I think it was where they all went to one intersection and stopped. They all went to the same intersection and stopped and blocked everything. They also block emergency vehicles and other things like that. It isn't the humans that are the problem. It is the autonomous driving cars. But of course this is all in response and a solution to a climate mcguffin, which is also not a problem.

And I thought it was kind of interesting to see this article about Venice. Venice is sinking. Well, I finally admitted the truth that the city is sinking. It's not that the ocean is rising. Although there is a good bit of panic and misinformation propaganda about climate change in this article, the gist of it from CNN is how the city itself is sinking, and they blame it on They said, you know for thousands of years. You know, this city has been there until about fifty years or

so ago. Forty fifty years ago they started doing something with the underground water and that caused the city to start sinking. But most of the time, what they're showing in this picture that is at the top of the article here is showing the sidewalks submerged with water, people wading through it, and water up to their knees while the boats are there at the same time. It's become kind of a poster child for this phony nonsense about

the rising oceans. We have seen reports in the Pacific Ocean, you know, like the South Pacific, and then you know a little bit north of it. Oh, look, well, the ocean has risen x amount at this island, and it's x plus three amount in this other island. It's like, are you trying to tell me that the Pacific Ocean has higher in some places than it is in others, or is it that your island The two islands are sinking and at different rates, because that is something that

happens all the time, all the time. In the past century, Venice has subsided, that's what they call it. When a city sinks, they call it a subsiding. Has subsided by about twenty five centimeters or nearly ten inches in the past century. Meanwhile, the average sea level one Venice has risen nearly a foot since nineteen hundred. Again, that's not going to be the case. You're not going to have Venice going up. Sea level rising in Venice, and only

in Venice. They just underestimated the amount of they attributed this stuff that was subsidy. The land sinking there, they attributed that to the rising ocean to some degree. And they said, it's not just a regular flooding, but it's a slump of this city into the watery depths. So they said, but now they're looking at what could they do to raise the city. And so you have one engineer who's looking at this and he said, well, the city sunk about a foot because we pumped water out

of these other areas. So maybe what we could do is we could pump water underneath it and lift it back up again. Well, they don't know if that's going to work. They don't know if it would be uniform or if it's going to because they're talking about lifting it up by about a foot, and so they don't know if that's going to work or not. They don't know if it is would crack everything up or if it'd be a waste of money. They're not sure what it's going to do to the the the rest of

the other aspects of the city. Of course, pumping salt water in there, What is I going to do? So during the city's thousand year history as republic, they were constantly re routing rivers and digging new canals and rechanneling the waters of the lagoon. And everything was fine until the twentieth century, and then things started to go wrong. During the nineteen sixties and seventies, groundwater was pumped from the industrial area on the mainland that faces the lagoon.

CNN says, big mistake. It caused the entire area to sink. From nineteen fifty to nineteen seventy Venice's precious city center subsided nearly five inches. Okay, so it is man made problem, isn't it. But not because of climate change, not because of emissions, and it's not causing the ocean to go up. It was something locally done that was stupid and ill

advised and had a blowback effect. And so as they saw it sinking and continuing to sink and accelerating and it's sinking, they decided that they would set up a system of barriers that they could raise whenever there's going to be high tide. And I remember in the past, I don't remember it was CNN or not, but I've put up the pictures before they would show flooded Venice and say this is it. You know, all the seas are melting, the ice caps are melting, the seas are rising,

and blah blah blah. You know, it's their poster child, as I said. And then a few months later there were pictures of the canal and boats in the canal that are setting high and dry. It's like, what happened. Oh yeah, they tied one out, you know, and it's now a drought. So they go from a situation where there's floods and then there's droughts, but then they always attribute it to climate change and rising seas, and yet

it goes in both directions. Now they're talking about since the city is dropping off, they're talking about putting up these these barriers that are going to be there. So the problem is that when they raised the barriers, the lagoon is effectively closed off and it keeps people from being able to get in or out of Venice, which is the second busiest port for Italy and the fifth busiest port in the Mediterranean. So if they raise these big barriers, they basically just closed the city to tourism.

And to shipping. That shipping is more important actually, and also it prevents the lagoon's natural action of flushing itself out with the tides. So now what do they do with this? And they said they thought that they would only be raising these things like five times a year, so we could live with it, you know, just completely seal off the city five times a year. But in reality, in the five years since they've put this up, they've had to do it on an average of twenty times

a year. They've done it one hundred times in five years. So this is starting to get unworkable. But again it always goes back to these big government projects, so they don't really think about what they're doing. And so now they're going to have another big government project. So if you're still traveling in spite of all the TSA harassment and the vaccine mandates and all the rest of the stuff, you might want to get to Venice before they do this

next phase. They're proposing drilling dozens of wells in a ten kilometer diameter around the city of Venus and then trying to pump the city up, of course, raising it on a waterbed like cushion while the land surrounding it, stays level sounds like a recipe for disaster or a disaster movie. This guy says, well, it's not like fracking. Don't worry, it's not like fracking. We'll see what happens.

Maybe it's all going to crack up. Maybe that'll start to create earthquakes like they're fracking has done in some places. But anyway, it's it's them messing with it. So now they're going to mess with it in a different way. We have this ridiculous article from The Guardian, which seems to specialize. There are ridiculous articles pushing climate fear, pushing virus fear and everything, and so this this headline, the world may be quote post heard immunity unquote two measles,

says top us scientists. Give me a break, they said, the fear of quote the most contagious disease for humans is growing. A leading immunologist warned of a post heard immunity world. Well, you know here again, we'll come back to this idea of this heard immunity was the person who came up with it, The concept came up with it before they were talking about it in conjunction with vaccines.

They said, so if everybody gets these diseases that we think are contagious, uh, and they get over it, and now they seem to have immunity to it in the future, and if you have enough people who have immunity because they've gotten the disease and survived, now you've got a heard immunity. They explained that as the pattern that you see with the Far's law, the bell shaped curve that was the curve was supposed to flatten. Remember, well, that kind of immunity and that model of what was happening.

And again I still have I'm still skeptical about that whole model. Now since they're not actually doing science. That may be a theory, but it remains it may be a valid theory, but it remains an unproven theory scientifically. But nevertheless, the whole idea of herd immunity was not strictly about vaccines. They made it strictly about vaccines. They rewrote everything so, well, now you can only get immunity if you've got a synthetic vaccine or something, not even

the people who had a disease and survived it. And I said, well, that really doesn't make any sense when you look at their theory. Their theory says that the disease trains your immune system. Your immune system, you know, has fought this disease, beat it, and has now learned how to fight that disease if it sees it again. And supposedly that was a whole purpose of a vaccine, was to train your immune system with a simulated but not real disease so that they could fight it in

the future. And now they're telling us that somebody who's had an actual disease that they're that they're vaccinating you for really hasn't gone through that training. That's like saying that you know you can you being a real, a real fighter, and a dog fight doesn't train you. You've got to go back and do it on a simulator.

You know. No, actually that's exactly the opposite. But that's that's their theory, and they're not even consistent with that theory, and that this is the same kind of stuff coming of this herd immunity. Your vaccine doesn't protect you, it protects other people. Your mask doesn't protect you. They're right about that, but they tell you then that your mask protects other people. Well, if it doesn't protect you, it's not going to protect other people either, and so they're

trying to still sell this. I guess there's some people who will never be able to think through this and figure out what's going on now. They said in Europe they've had thirty five, two hundred and twelve cases in twenty twenty four of measles. Eighty seven percent of them were reported in Romania. You notice that nobody died. They had thirty five thousand, two hundred cases in Europe. Nobody died from measles. And this is what we all know, those of us who are around the middle of the

twentieth century. This is why they're making jokes about it. On the Brady Bunch. It was raarer than rare. It's more rare than Huafacci calls rare for somebody to die. Thirty five thousand cases and nobody dies. And I remember this is the same article. I'm going to tell you how The Guardian contradicts itself in its own article. They say just this week, Kennedy RFK Junior told a crowd that the MMR vaccine contains quote aborted fetus debris unquote.

They said, the rubella vaccine, like many others, is produced using decades old sterile fetal cell lines derived from two elective terminations in the nineteen sixties.

the pharma mcguffin of the pandemic mcguffin. They're real big about that. I guess that's where they get their funding anyway. Experts said that running certain trials, such as for decades old vaccine like MMR, would be unethical. What it really would it be unethical? Well, it's unethical because we know it to be safe, So why would you run a trial on it, except that we have a lot of people who think that it is not safe. And if it is not safe, how is it ethical to not

test it? Since it was never tested before and since you're playing statistical games to tell us this. The MMR vaccine they said is ninety seven percent effective. Have you done the test? Oh no, that's right, you didn't do the test, So how do you know that it is ninety seven percent effective? They never test these, They never tested. They never said it'd be unethical to let people be exposed to something as dangerous as measles. Yeah, where thirty

five thousand people can get it, not a single person dies. Oh, it be unethical to actually test. That be unethical to give one control group the vaccine and the other control group doesn't have the vaccine, and then you expose them to the measles. Maybe it's because they never isolated the virus. Maybe it's because they couldn't run that test because they

didn't isolate the virus. Maybe they've never even gone in and done a test to see if the people that have a particular disease that they say is caused by a virus, do they have some substance there that we can identify and call a virus that is present in the sick people that is not in the well people know we didn't do that, so of course they're not going to do any of this stuff. It's all a big fraud. But again, look at how they lie. Here's what they say. Measles kills one in a thousand children

who become infected with a disease. Okay, so they just told us at the beginning of the article that EU had over thirty five thousand cases of measles, and now they tell us that one out of a thousand die. So we should have had thirty five deaths last year from measles if that's true. We had zero. And then they talk about the fact that there have been twenty three hundred cases in the US. Well, then we should have two to three deaths, shouldn't we in the US?

And yet we haven't had They had the two deaths there in Texas, but those were debunked. Those are not due to measles. The one child had recovered and had a respiratory issue and it was malpractice and the father has gone public with that. Same with the other one. Measles vaccinations believe to say more than ninety three million

lives worldwide. Prove it, prove it, and I don't always say this, And so what if you're not going to allow people to have informed consent, you should tell them that it has also been linked in terms of its association with autism and other things along whether it's MMR, whether it's just the massive multiplication of mass vaccination to kids and seventy six of them, Why don't you tell people about that side of it and let them make

the decision. So whether or not they'd like to take the risk of what you say is one in a thousand, but you haven't shown that risk of death or whatever. But again, you know, they want to say, well, you know a couple of you know, going to be one death per thousand cases, except there were thirty five thousand cases in the EU last year and no deaths. So then they want to take their phony statistic and say

that it is saved more than ninety three million lives worldwide. Well, I'd never ever heard of anybody that had had that issue. And then as we look at rand Paul and others continuing to push this is Telsey Gabbard Ran Paul. Now you have RFK Junior. You've got both the establishment media as well as the alternative media are all pushing this Lablik stuff and all pushing it towards Fauci and Paul says, Fauci thought he could sail off into the sunset and

w'd forget about him. But that's the furthest thing from the truth. He will be held accountable for his role in the pandemic and the COVID cover up. What about your role, Rand, You didn't do anything to stop it. Neither did Trump. Trump was paying people to do all this stuff. And so Tulsea Gabbard says, the soon the COVID origins are going to be exposed, very soon, quote unquote, Well, are you going to since you were head of the intelligence that they're going to tell us the involvement of

the CIA and DARPA and creating all this stuff. How about you tell us about the role of the CIA and DARPA and creating the real bio weapon, the vaccine. Yeah, we saw a slight uptick and deaths, but we could also attribute that to the lack of treatment. We could attribute that to the kinds of treatment when people finally got it, you know, they push them off and say, don't come back to your really say oh, now they're

really sick. Put them on a ventilator, kill them with that, kill them with rim deseeverr all that financially incentivized, and then when the vaccine rolls out, being pushed by Biden with threats and intimidation, then we see the gigantic spike. Gigantic spike. Folks, we all know that it was a vaccine. We all know that this is both an alibi as well as preparation for the next time they do it. We're going to take a quick break and before we

go and read some of the comments. Who rumble Sam Miller one two three said, what about the possibility of being able to hack these driverless semis of vehicles just another weapon against the people? Well, that's already sorry, had been done. We look at Michael Hastings situation and forget the guy's Richard something other. The guy who was he was in the intelligence agencies, and he was talking about how it was used in the past to assassinate people. We had people at the def Con, the black Hat

conference and stuff in Vegas. You know, I've talked many times to goat Tree about how, you know, exposing the fact that you could hack into medical medical equipment to kill people and that type of thing. And one of the guys who was going to do a big expos that at the black Hat conference, I've just suddenly died of a drug overdose, and go Tree told me, he said, he's as sober as you are. He doesn't do he didn't do drugs. He was going to reveal some stuff

about that that they didn't want revealed. And so we talked about how that they at those conferences they would hack ordinary cars. And Michael Hastings was in what was by far and away the most connected car at the time that he could drive, which is Mercedes. He thought they were going to try to kill him. He was going out looking at his car all the time, and

then you had that, you know, that strange situation. Anyway, I won't go into me more detail about that, but on Kick, a Syrian girl says, well, there you go. If they can't keep us from driving by taking away your cars, they'll make us afraid to drive because the

huge self driving death machines. You know, the image that comes to my mind is Brazil, just like the way that film started out with an over the top, no knock swat team raid grabbing the wrong person, and that was the central thing that kind of runs through it. The other part of it was this guy had a little if you ever seen it, the three wheeled maybe you can find it. Travis three wheeled Messerschmidt, a little weird German car post World War Two and he's driving

to work. He's driving between these extraordinarily large semi trailers as he's going to work, and you know, imagine that's what it's going to be like. But they'll also not only be gigantic, but they'll also be self driving keep us off of their interstaces. Of course, the Interstate System, it was not really Eisenhower designed it really for the military to use, you know, just kind of became an afterthought that was used by civilians to do that kind

of stuff. But yeah, so anyway, on rumble, honor Seeker says, what happens if the lens on the board camera gets dirty, of the windshield in front of it gets iced, or it gets missed over. Well again, some of them are using light ar. Most of them use light ar, but the Tesla does use visual stuff that may be part of the problem with it. Kick Solo Cat nineteen eighty says, I guess an island slowly sinking is better than he I remember that Hank Johnson was that the person. They

believed that they could. He wasn't joking as Google claims, you know he was. They were serious. You know, he got too many people on this island. It's just going to capsize and flip over. Remember that. Well maybe that'll what's going to happen with Venice. They're gonna have to cut down the number of tourists. It doesn't just doesn't just flip over, be floating on a whole bunch of water one way or the other. Well, we're gonna take a quick break and we'll be right.

them with missiles and drums. This is what we're seeing more and more when we look at the modern warfare is turning more and more toward civilians.

Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Lindsay Grahmson. Next year, We're going to go get paytent, you know, all the rest of this stuff, I mean, just openly saying it. And then when they had the coup in twenty fourteen, and you had areas that were culturally linguistically Russian and had been Russian for centuries. Crimea had been a part of Russia as long as the United States has been a country. And so when they said, well we want to stay

with Russia, they started bombing them. And of course part of that was bombing civilian targets, bombing churches, the church buildings that were their famous historic monasteries shut down, seized by the Ukrainian authorities, monks expelled, churches raided by nationalistic militant groups. On the other side, Russian aerial raids have often devastated whole Ukrainian neighborhoods, including destruction of local churches.

In a fresh incident, the Russian government and media sources say a Ukrainian drone was sent across the border and struck an iconic historic church in Belgarade region, setting the church on fire. And not only that, but there was an even more well known church recently destroyed. This is the New Jerusalem Church and it was the name of it. They said. You could see from the videos that it was clearly targeted in the attack. Ukrainian drones dropped explosives

directly on it. It wasn't just like you know, just dropping bombs and they're hitting this or hitting that. No, they came in directly targeting that building. The Ukrainian armed forces reportedly attacked the temple at least twice, preventing local residents and firefighters from putting it out. And there's the burning building that you can see there. Yeah, a historic building. This is why I say these societies are just it's just the desire by Zelenski and others to just destroy

everything is truly as amazing. And at the same time we see that Israel has now bombed a humanitarian aid flotilla there was going to take food and medicine to Gaza. This had happened once before, fifteen years ago. When they did that twenty ten, they killed ten people injured dozens more. This time apparently there have not been any casualties, but they have disabled the ship that was going to carry food and medicine to the people that they are intent

on starving in the Gaza Strip. A ship carrying supplies bound for Gaza Strip was attacked by Israeli drones in international waters on Friday, close to Malta as a matter of fact, and it was just after midnight multa time. According to the activist group that organized with flotilla, the vessel reportedly took at least one direct hit on its hull sustained damage from fire, forcing its crew to issue

an urgent call for help. So, you know, repeatedly the Israelis and using American bombs or bombing food supplies, bombing food ships, bombing hospitals, all the rest of this stuff. Ukrainians bombing doing the same thing, you know, and bombing church buildings, historic church buildings, they said. One of the vessels is attacked by an unidentified drone. The ship was called well, it's part of a group called the Freedom

Flotilla Coalition. The ship was called the Conscience. Came under direct attack and international water armed drones attacked in front of the unarmed civilian vessel twice, causing a fire and a substantial breach in the hull. The drone strike appears so deliberately targeted the ship's generator, leaving the crew without power and placing the vessel at a great risk of sinking. And it was en route to Malta, where it was scheduled to pick up other activists. Now here you go,

here's where everybody will lose it. One of the activists that they're going to pick up was going to be Greta Thunberg. Oh okay, well, good, I'm glad they shouldn't, you know what, That's what I'm gonna hear. Good, glad they bombed that thing had Greta Thumberg on it. Well, as much as I might applaud the bombing, of Greta Thunberg. Under ordinary circumstances, this was going to be food for

starving children. And I don't know. I mean, she's got her own agenda where she would starve children by denying them dairy meat and other things because of her climate obsessions, but I don't know that she's Yeah, whatever cause she's in, maybe she's trying to rehabilitate herself because as everybody sees the massive intentional ongoing bombing of civilians and starvation, this policy of starvation, they you know, Israel is losing this propaganda war. Is why they're so desperate to shut down

freedom of speech because people see what they're doing. And so I think i've Greta Thunberg might even look at this and say this is one way for her to rehabilitate her flagging image. The group said that it arranged the aid shipment quote under a media blackout to avoid any potential sabotage, but nevertheless it did happen. In twenty ten. The ship that was attacked then was a was also going to give aid to GASA, and it was organized

by a Turkish organization. It was attacked by Israeli forces and international water Nine people were killed in the assault, with another later dying from injuries, while dozens more were wounded. A UN report later found that all ten activists had sustained gunshot wounds. Gunshot wounds so this is I guess done by planes or were they firing the guns from

a drum. They added that the quote circumstances of the killing of at least six of the passengers was in a manner consistent with extra illegal, arbitrary and summary execution. The story from andy war dot com, but many people have picked up on this information. Liberation picked up on it as well. The front of the vessel was targeted twice,

resulting in a fire. In breach of the whole, Israel has been enforcing a total blockade against Goza for two months, an attempt to starve the people there out so they can have the land. They've used US supplied weaponry to bomb hospitals, water facilities, other essential civilian infrastructure, and a

clear violation of international law and internal law. The Trump administration announced on March the first that they would use emergency powers to rush the Jewish State another four billion dollars in military assistance, not to rush food and water or medicine, but to rush more bombs there. Two weeks later, Israel broke the ceasefire agreement that the Trump administration had negotiated, and there was no pushback from Washington about that, and

then they proceeded to conduct civilian massacres in Gaza. An American surgeon who's just returned recounts what he witnesses said, I don't think a horror movie could fictionalize how these scenes make them any more sick and twisted and disturbing than they are. And then in Yemen we have the American government there. We've now gotten up to over one

thousand bombings there in just six weeks. In Yemen, as that is happening, A missile fired from Yemen struck an access road on the grounds of Israel's Mungarian Airport on Sunday, as heavy US bombing campaign has failed to deter the Yemeni Huthis. Israeli military tried multiple times to intercept the missile, but failed. A US terminal high Altitude Area defense the THAD system that is deployed to Israel also failed old

to intercept the Yemeni missile. Those are not interesting, you know, these iron domes and the THAD system and all the rest of this stuff. And the Trump is talking about a golden defense system. Russia said, air defense system like that anti ballistic missile system. Russia said, well, you know, we've got this cruise missile that we've developed that has a has nuclear power and it can stay airborne for days, weeks,

months until we want it. And so you know, it's not and your golden system is not going to be any defense against that, uh and the missile systems, and of course that's not going to be around for a while either. The anti ballistic missile systems that are unable to stop the the Yemeni missiles are not which are not nearly as sophisticated as the hypersonic missiles for Russia, again, Russia said, you know, here's an example. We're going to just bomb that city over there and did it, and

you're not going to be able to stop it. They're not able to stop the Yemeni missiles, So why do they continue to push on with this? Maybe you know, they would realize that it's not even in their tactical or geopolitical interests to push into a war that they can't win, except that they are building their underground bunkers. I guess that's what they want to do. That's their depopulation move. This missile left a crater next to the airport on the road. Six people were injured by the attack,

none of them were seriously hurt. Israel launched a few rounds of air strikes on Yemen last year, but hasn't done so under the Trump administration. In March, the Israeli news site Ynet reported that the US has asked Israel not to respond to the Huthis attack, said, the US forces will handle the retaliation. Let us do the fighting for you.

Trump is absolutely right? Attacks by the hoodies M and eight from Iran. Well, these who Thi's hoodies? Whatever? If they can shoot down reaper drones and they've shot down seventeen or eighteen of them already, and of course you know they're unmanned, so we don't have any casualties. There's good and the military industrial complex gets to replace them and make a lot of money thirty million dollars apiece. So that's good for everybody except for the US taxpayer.

But you might want to ask, if they're saying that this is being done by Iran, then where is the logic and directly attacking Iran? Do you think Iran is giving their best stuff to the houthies. I don't think so. It is a much much much bigger country than Iraq and much much larger, and it is much more sophisticated technologically. But of course Trump is also said Trump is done the truth. Who knows, But he also said, hey, these the houthis. Maybe he called them hooties. I like, I

prefer calling them hoodies. But the hoodies just the blowfish missile the uh, they they can make their own missiles. It's pretty amazing that they're very effective because they're shooting down these thirty million dollars deeper drones with their own missiles. But now he wants you to know, to tell you that it's coming from Iran. Since March the fifteenth, US has launched over a thousand strikes on Yemen, killing more

than two hundred civilians. Well, there we go. That's what happens when you're bombing them twenty four times a day. The Huthi's, known for their resilience, have vowed that they will not stop their attacks on Israel or in the blockade on Israeli shipping unless there is a ceasefire in Gaza. By the way, when there was a ceasefiing Gaza, they

stopped attacking the shipping until the ceasefire was broken. They've offered to stop attacking US warships if the US stops bombing Yemen, but the Trump administration has shown no interest in peace. Instead, what we want is war and more weapons the Pentagon. By the way, so the Intercept is saying that the Pentagon is covering up American casualties in

the Yemen War. According to a report by The Intercept published on Saturday, US Sentcom, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the White House have refused to disclose how many US service members have been killed or wounded since the launch of Operation rough Rider. That's what they call this, coming after a Yemen in March of twenty twenty five. And of course, you know a lot of this was the signal Gate stuff that's going back and forth with Waltz and Haig Seth and all the rest

of them. I guess they came up with the idea of rough Riders. So they're you know, plotting on how they're going to break the ceasefire even before the Israelis do and start bombing civilians in Yemen. And then they you know, while they're on signal Chat, and then they go in and to a million dollar a plate fundraiser dinner at Marlago. How decadent is this government. One recent

incident underscored the risk. The Fa eighteen Super Hornet fighter that fell off the USS Harry Truman aircraft carrier earlier this week, reportedly because it made a sharp turn. Like I was saying, you know, it wasn't one of these deals like that.

of them will talk. The White House won't talk. Yeah, can't get Caroline Leavitt to say anything. Well, of course, you know, there's been no declaration of war and there's been no information about the war, is there. Compare that to the cases of measles, right, think about that, we're le they're dropping bombs and anything. We're not going to talk about it if anybody is killed, not going to

mention it at all. But hey, somebody gets a relatively harmless, pretty much harmless childhood disease, and I will say it's a harmless disease. Look, children can die from pneumonia and cold, right, and it's not even to say that, you know, when they fundamentally die from that. They want to make it about measles, but you know, you just look at it. We're going to be inundated with every person who gets a couple of spots on their face, regardless of what happens.

But we're not allowed to know what's going on with the soldiers who are in an undeclared war, a war that was basically declared on a signal chat between a lot of spoiled brats on their way to a million dollar plate fundraiser. Trump's former national security advisor, Michael Waltz, who is part of that signal Gate, was dismissed the weekend part for including a journalist and a sensitive about yemens. But it wasn't even about that. He had also been

pushing for a lot more military action against Iran. As we reported in the past, Michael Waltz was one of the favorites of Apak. They pushed him to get him into Congress and all the rest of this stuff. And there was suggestions at the very beginning of this that maybe the reason that this journalist, who is a leftist but a hardcore supporter of the Israeli government, maybe the reason that he got included on that was because maybe

Michael Waltz was giving him information. Well, what triggered this firing was not Signalgate, even Zero Hedge says it was reportedly because he coordinated closely with Netanyahu, and so I guess he wins this week's Jonathan Pollard Award for Traders right throwing his own country under the bus intense coordination with Netanyaho in terms of plotting how to get into war with Iran. So the Washington Post ran an article inside Waltz's ulster before Signal Gate, talks with Israel angered Trump.

And so what they're saying is is that they got you know, there was indications pictures taken of things that he was doing. Also a discussion that he had with net Yahoo when net yah who came And the narrative that is now being sold through leaks out of the White House is that Walts wanted to do whatever net Yahoo wanted to do, but evidently Trump doesn't. Is that right?

Stephanic there. But they pulled her out because it's going to jeopardize their majority in Congress. So now we'll take another hard core Zionist and put him in the UN. Walts supposedly upset Trump after an Oval Office visit in early February by net Yahoo, where Waltz, the National Security Advisor, appeared to share the Israeli leader's conviction that the time

was ripe to strike. Iran said two of the people Waltz wanted to take US policy in a direction that Trump wasn't comfortable with because the US hadn't attempted a diplomatic solution yet. So now we've got, you know, these so called talks that are out there, which is just a beard so they can say, well, we tried, but it didn't work, so now we're gonna have to kill him.

a puppet of Israel, when in fact he is. The view by some in the administration was that Waltz was trying to tip the scales in favor of military action and was operating hand to anglove with the Israelis. But of course Trump wasn't I say, we give them both at Jonathan Pollard to war for betraying America to Israel. You know, both of both Trump and Waltz should get

that award. If Jim Baker was doing a side deal with this in Saudi's to subvert George H. W. Bush, You'd be fired, said a Trump advisor, referring to George HW. Bush's secretary of State. You can't do that. You work for the president of your country, not a president of

another country. On Wednesday, Waltz was photographed by a Reuters reporter using an Israel made obscure and unofficial version of signal designed to archive messages so again, he's been caught multiple times with that stuff, and this is an opportunity for them to try to inoculate Trump from being a Jonathan Pollard trader. On the day he was fired as a National security advisor, Mike Waltz used an Israeli app to archive signal messages. That's reported by drop site News.

They show the pictures that Reuter's got tech professionals have moved between companies like Telemessage and some of the leading Israeli spy firms, and then they give an example of

eight different people who have done that. Walts was known as an APAC favorite when Trump first hired him, and so Chris Manhem at Information Liberation says, so, I don't know why what he was expecting, right, He says, it appears Walts is not only handing out US war plans to Jeffrey Goldberg, but was also potentially handling all his private messages over to Israeli intelligence using their highly questionable software. That said, there's no reason to expect that Rubio, another

APAC favorite, is any better. Same goes for Pete Hegseth, who dreams about Jews rebuilding their third temple in Jerusalem. As he's said many times and of course reported last week. Last Thursday message to Iran said, hegg Seth, you know very well with the US military is capable of, and you were warned you will pay the consequence of the time and place of our choosing what an arrogant, dangerous

person take. Seth is not operating in our best interests by any stretch of the imagination we're being told, says CHRISMNHM to believe that Trump surrounded himself with Israel firsters who would explicitly pledged to restore the power of the Israeli lobbry over Congress as well, but somehow he doesn't actually want to do Israel's bidding. Despite taking all the steps necessary to launch another war for Israel, Trump is threatening to enact secondary sanctions against countries that even buy

Iranian oil. Yeah. Yeah, he says that we're going to meet with them, and then he puts on says, if you even buy Iranian oil, then we'll sanction you. And of course sanctions are an act of war, as we've always said. On kick Minuteman Militia said, we have autonomous haul trucks at the mine. Well, you know that's but you know, that's very different than being on the highway with a lot of ordinary cars and a lot of people who may not even know the thing is being

autonomously done. I mean, they're gonna be out there interacting and have to interact and react with people on the interstate. I have a big problem with that. On Rumble One, Sarah b says, not the first time that Israel attacked a freedom flotilla, that's right, Kick the Real Octos Spook says, when criminals have taken hostages in a building structure area, isn't it common practice to cut off water and food to them? No? Not actually, And you know what, it's

not common practice. Just bringing in the swat team and the artillery and blowing the house to bits with the hostages in there. That's also not typically done. But that's what Israel is doing. We'll take a quick break and we'll be right back.

people would have a problem with that. And I think that what's happening with Israel and what's going on in Gaza is that people are seeing the pictures of the children with the sunken eyes that are being starved to death. There's no justification for that whatsoever. Even people who aren't Christians have the discernment to see that. That's why Israel is becoming a pariah. So the let's see marky Mark says Dave. They were towing the F eighteen, moving it

around the hangar deck. It was near one of the elevators when the ship healed over. Physics took over and the plane got away along with a tug. Well, I guess, yeah, we'll never know for sure. We'll never know for sure because the Pentagon's not gonna tell us anything when we of course, I guess that's what they're saying, and maybe that's true. I mean, you know, it's a lot to see what's happening. I just when we look at Yemen, there's no way that I can support that war, No way,

no way I can support what is happening there. So let's talk a little bit about the Constitution. And I think that there are some issues with this, but I don't think that they're the issues that people are actually saying. You know, the headline was, well, Trump says he's not sure if he has to support the Constitution. That's not what he's saying. But I'll play you the clip and then we'll say what he's really saying, which is also troubling.

so we can't do due process. And then he pivots to not just the millions of people who are here, but the people who are gang members and so forth, and you know, we can't do due process with anybody that is here, which is what he's saying. Now, you know that is I don't really don't know how you solve this problem. This was I think that even if you've got millions of people here, you should give them some kind of due process, some kind of a review.

And I think that that could be done, especially when you look at how much money the government is spending on wars and on other non productive stuff. Maybe you could rapidly expand this and set up or review boards and things like that to expedite this stuff. Yeah, it would take a very long time. But the bottom line is what he was not saying is that he doesn't

have to follow the Constitution. I know that Trump doesn't think that he has to fall the Constitution, but that wasn't what was being said in the context of this stuff. And so he was saying that I don't What he was saying awkwardly and Trump speak was well, I don't know if that is going to be if that is the law, if that is the Constitution in this And so that's the real crux of the issue that they're not focusing on. Instead, they're going to go with something

very simplistic. Trump said he doesn't have to follow the constitution, or he doesn't know if he has to follow the Constitution. Now, the real issue is do people who are foreign citizens get rights when you know, and like due process and things like that. Are their human rights going to be respected when they're in the United States. I think that's the right way to phrase the question here, because I,

as I said, you know, I saw this. One person responded when I talked about this Garcia thing, which I thought was the way the Trump people represented this thing when they said, but he was mistakenly deported. Wealthy was mistakenly deported. It's real simple. You bring him back and you give him some due process. But then they doubled down. They did ad hominem attacks. They photoshopped a picture put MS thirteen on his knuckles, and Trump thought that was genuine,

and all the rest of the stuff. I think that there's other evidence that he was involved in cartels. As I said, you know, the trafficking that was going on there in Tennessee. Got caught with eight other people in his car, none of whom had luggage or money, don't speak English, and all the rest of this stuff, and the car itself belonged to somebody who had been convicted with due process of trafficking, and yet the Tennessee Highway Patrol let him go. Because the FBI said, we've got

jurisdiction here under Biden. They said, we have jurisdiction here and we want you to let him go. So Biden ought to be investigated. The people in the FBI who did that ought to be investigated. But that's not happening. But again, the question is, you know, one of rights and of privileges. And so as she pressed him on whether and I didn't need to buy it by the Constitution and the rights that it provides two people in

the United States, he said, I don't know. I don't know if foreign citizens have rights if they're in the United States. And so that is the real issue. And there was opinion piece on Plticos that visa applicants don't have First Amendment rights. Well, I think this is the issue and when we look at it, regardless of you know, whether you think that should be the case. And like I said, one person said, well, we're going to talk about rights for non citizens. Now, well, then that's going

to be a hard passed. I'm not interested in listening to this program anymore. So let me just ask you this. Do rights come from God or do they come from government? Of course, if a government tells you can do something that's a privilege that has been granted by government. Rights come from God. Why, Well, in the American system, the foundation of the American system, what it was based on,

was defined in the Declaration of Independence. It was a declaration about the fact that we were all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these, among these the rights the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and so forth. But that's not all of them, right, and so the whole context again, they take Trump's comments out of context. Letus understand when we talk about rights, where the real context is. The real context is the

Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not grant anybody any rights. What it does is it recognizes our God given rights and it prohibits government from interfering with those God given rights. Who does God give the rights to human beings. Does that mean that you, as a human being, don't have any rights if you're not an American consitizen. No. Now, what we're talking about is government granted privileges. Again, because the

government is going to define who a citizen is. God defines who a person is. And we have seen This reflected in our law when we talk about Faiza, for example, when you know from their inception, again, the CIA and the NSA and intelligence agencies were violating the Constitution and the requirement to get a search warrant if you're going to spy on people. They were doing it. From their inception,

they were spying on Americans. And so that was the basis of the Church Committee hearings about the CIA and the NSA hearings that were conducted in Congress at the time. And out of that came the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which said that you will not listen to you'll not spy on Americans without getting a search warrant. You will also not spy and that's domestically and foreign, and you will not surveil foreign citizens in America. That's the key.

You'll not surveil foreign citizens in America without a search warrant. But you can surveil foreign citizens in foreign areas without a search warrant, but not a foreign citizen in America. Why did they do it that way? Now, you can disagree with them, but I think that was wise because I think that we want human beings who are within the jurisdiction of the American government to be treated as

human beings. You know, we talk about human rights and foreign countries and all the rest of this kind of stuff all the time. Right, Why is that important? Because if you have a government that decides that it doesn't have to give human rights to a certain class of humans, then you know, first they came for the op ed writers, right as as the OpEd peace went by James Beauvart. First they came for the op ed writers, and they

came for everybody else. You don't want to go down that path where the American government is free to violate human rights in America, because human rights are defined by you being a human, not by your legal status by the US government. That's my opinion. That's reflected in the Faiza legislation by the Congress fifty years ago. And the Supreme Court may have a different take on it, and

if they do, I disagree with that take. And I do think that foreign citizens have human rights in America, and I don't want to live in an America where they don't have human rights, because that's going to be in America that takes away my human rights. And they're pretty hard pressed to do that right now, We've got a foreign government. The wantes that take away are human rights to free speech in America. They want the America. The Israeli government wants and is paying the American government

to take away our rights of free speech. You really want that now. On the other hand, the question is is entry into the United States Is that a privilege? Well, I think it is. I think it is. I think that it is a privilege and that can be controlled by the government, and I think that that is a real you know, the real basis for this, I think is the fact that you know, when we look at the Bible, God has appointed nations, tongues and tribes, the nations of

the borders. Tongues are languages, tribes are the cultures, and so forth. But God has appointed that God has appointed those places. God has appointed those times that certain countries will exist. America may not always exist, you know, institutions, countries come and go. God has appointed their places and times. He's also appointed their boundaries. And part of their power is to decide who can be in their country and

who may not be in the country. So I think it's a perfectly legitimate thing to say that they can that that is a privile that is granted to come into the country, and so it also means that they can be removed. The question then is how how are we going to throw out the basic rules that respect humanity, that respect human rights, that recognize the freedom and dignity of people who have been created in the image of God.

Are we going to throw that away for the expediency of getting out the people that have been flooded into this country by by Joe Biden. You know, there's a lot of talk about people who have self deported, and I think one of the things that they could do without doing due process, to without going through a length the process and hearings of millions of people that have

been that have come into this country illegally. One of the key things that you do is you get rid of the welfare magnet and you kill a couple of birds with one stone, because, folks, welfare is not a right, even though the left says that it is. It is not a right. You do not have a right to be supported at the expense of somebody else, and that is a Christian principle as well. If they will not work, they will not eat. You don't get them working. You know,

that's one of the things that the Pilgrims learned. When they decide they're going to set up a system of communism, then they realize, hey, that doesn't work. Let's give everybody a plot of land and they will eat what they grow. And if they don't grow anything, if they don't work, they won't eat. It's just that simple. And so yeah, I think that we have a system. You understand that welfare is not guaranteed anybody, and that's why I talk

about getting rid of the welfare magnet. You know, immigration and crossings and everything basically come to a stop because Trump is militarizing the border and militarizing our society. Now, that's one way to do it. Do we want to live in that kind of country or would it be better to have a situation where you say, well, guess what, if you come into this country, you are not going to get any welfare benefits. You will never get any welfare benefits. As a matter of fact, when we identify you,

we will financially penalize you or other things. There's things like that that they could do to financially disincentivize illegal immigration. And they could take that welfare magnet that is drawing people into this country under the wall, over the wall, through the wall, around the wall, and instead they could turn that magnet around and use the other pole and repulse them with economics. You don't have to set up a dictatorship to do this, and you need to not

get rid of human rights. What you need to do is get rid of the idea that welfare is a right. And of course this is all the Cloward and Pivet stuff, the Democrats economic study by a couple of people named Cloward and Piven, saying that we had hoped that welfare would collapse our society and get everybody dependent on government. Unfortunately that hasn't happened to a significant degree with Americans, and so we need to accelerate this. So let's offer

welfare to everybody outside of the United States. And if we do that and draw these people in, then it'll collapse the system here. So let's understand what they're trying to do, and let's respond to that particular issue. And let's also get past the idea that welfare is a right. It is not a right. But people in power will make two mistakes rather than admit to one, and that is what we're seeing over and over again. So you know, the question is also asked. You know, this is American

greatness article. We don't need an executive order to bar illegals from social Security. We need a government that obeys the law, and we need a government that recognizes that welfare is not a right. But I said, you know what, universe, does it make a sense that the President of the United States has to sign an executive order to stop illegal aliens from receiving Social Security benefits? It's a tragic indictment. Excuse me of how far this nation has strayed from

the rule of law, from common sense, and from constitutional integrity. Well, I completely agree with that. That's the key issue, and that's the way you get rid of people who are here Now if they are criminals, that's a separate issue. What Trump is doing is he's conflating a mass number of people, some of them who came here to work, some of them who came here for welfare, some of them who came here to engage in criminal cartel activity. Those are different types of things. They're not going to

have the same solution, are they, right. So somebody that's here for welfare. Somebody's here for criminal activity, you handle them differently, and there are ways to handle that. So can the president refuse to spend money authorized by Congress if Congress, of course they haven't done that really authorizes social security for illegals or from many of these other

issues you know, really can be done. This is from Reason and they said, well, you know, we look at the line item veto for example, or long history of what they called impoundment. What do you do to cut spending to the executive branch the same type of issue in a sense that you know Trump is He's like, you know, well, we got these people, they're here illegally. Does that mean that I don't have to follow the law to get rid of these people? They're here illegally, right?

And then they also look at this and it's like, well, okay, I was elected. For example, as the Reason says, well, if you got somebody who runs the campaigns on spending less money, maybe even balancing the federal budget, and then you get in office and they try to carry this out. They've got a mandate, you know, from the people that voted for them. How do how do you do that? Well, the Constitution grants Congress the sole power of the purse.

They said, the executive branch is tasked with faithfully executing the laws the Congress passes. If Congress passes a law, saying jump, is the president's job to jump, Well, not exactly. I mean, there is the reason that we have checks and balances. Checks and balance is just another name for nullification from one branch of the government to another branch of the government, nullifying it because they think that that action that they're doing is in violation of the constitution.

Just because it's a law doesn't mean it's a constitutional law. But of course, now here's the issue here. What they're saying, very simplistically is that the Congress passes a law and allocates spending for a particular function. And again a lot of this is going to be tied to entitlement programs, saying that if you meet these qualifications, then you automatically

get the funding that type of thing. Well, not even that is true, I pointed out, we talk about whether or not Trump has to spend the money that is in this budget. He clearly doesn't because we have seen over and over again, just on one issue, trainees in the girl's bathroom. Obama said, if you don't put the trainees in the girl's bathroom, I'll take your money away. Trump comes in and says, if you put the trainees

in the girls bathroom, I'll put your money away. Do the opposite of that, then I'll take your money away. And then you got Biden who comes in and says, you put the trainees in the girl's bathroom, or I'll take your money away. And then Trump comes back and he says, if you put the trainees and then I will take your money away. So they're going back and forth, but all of them, Republicans and Democrats, just on that

one issue. They're showing that even though the schools meet the qualifications so under the entitlement program, they meet the qualifications to get that money, that the president can say, but I'll withhold that money if you don't do what

I want to do. This is the argument that I've had from for the last five years, the people trying to make excuses for what Trump did when he incentivized the lockdown and the mass killing of people using hospitals being paid by him, bribed by him to kill people of ventilators and remdesevir and maltreatment and all the rest of this stuff that was deliberately being done by him. The governors were taking the money that he was funding that and telling them what he would like them to do.

And of course they had already prepared the legal authority and their states to do that based on the twenty year plan in practice, going back to Dark Winter. But that's the key presence. Have always done that. So and it's strange to me that they're not making that argument now. They're going back. In this Reason magazine article, they're going back to the Impoundment Act. They said, Trump views the Impoundment Control Act as an unconstitutional limitation on executive power. Well,

where did that come from? That goes back to nineteen seventy two, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments. It was a series of updates and expenditures that became better known as the Clean Water Act. Nixon believed though, that the twenty four billion dollar law was too expensive. This is this guy who created the EPA. But now he says, okay, but that Clean Water Act is too much money. I'm going to cut nine billion dollars out

of it. And so he vetoed the bill Congress and mustered the two thirds majority to override the veto. Nixon then simply refused to spend a large chunk of the fund. So he refused to spend nine billion of the twenty four billion dollars. So you know, depending on who you asked, did the Congress have the right then to come back

with this Impoundment Act? Because he defied Congress. They say, going back to the early eighteen hundreds, Jefferson decided not to spend fifty thousand dollars that have been appointed to build a fleet of new warships to fight on the Mississippi River. He said that's not necessary, and so he wasn't going to spend the money. And then Congress just back down and they didn't take him to court or anything.

But then when Nixon tried to do the same thing that a group of cities, including New York and Nixon's own EPA then got into a long battle with him in the Supreme Court in nineteen seventy five ruled that Nixon's refusal to spend the funds had been illegal. So if they apply this, then you have to spend them.

Like I said, we have now seen this on so many different issues, issue after issue after issue where Trump says, well, if you are not, you know, doing what I tell you want to do, and he's not the only one who does it, you know, if you are, if you've got speech at your university that I don't like, well I'm going to cut your money that type of thing. And so, you know, I think that it is still up in the air. It'll be interesting to see what

is happening. Trump, by the way, in this interview also said he doesn't rule out using military force to control Greenland. Oh yeah, he did rule it out for his World Economic Forum buddy Mark Carney. However, now that Mark Carney is in Canada, I guess doesn't have to fear invasion by the United States. Again, this is the same NBC Beat the Press interview on Sunday. Asked about using force, he says, I don't rule it out. I don't say I'm going to do it, but I don't rule it

out anything. No, not there. We need Greenland very badly. Greenland is a very small amount of people which we will take care of, will cherish them, and all of that. You know, So sincere isn't it small number of people that we will cherish and subsidize and give massive amounts of money to But we need that for international security. No we don't, No, we don't. And again, what a

lie that is. As I pointed out, you know, they've had a military base there since the end of World War two, since not the end of World War two. During World War two they put a base there, and they enlarged it. They have an early warning you know, nor Rid system. They enlarged it to ten thousand people on that base. They've now got two hundred. So obviously they don't need it for national security. They still have the base, but they've reduced it from ten thousand to

two hundred. How do you argue national security is needed for that. He was also asked about the idea of using military force against Canada and because he keeps talking about it being the fifty first state, he says that's highly unlikely. Why would you even entertain the idea for either one of these? He says, I don't see it with Canada, I just don't see it. I have to be honest with you. He said he had spoken to the new Prime Minister from the World Economic Forum and

central banks. The Central Banker of Central Banks. Mark Carney, he confirmed that they had not spoken since about making his country part of the United States. But you know, he likes Mark Carney, and he said that many times before the election, and after the election, he did say he didn't like the Conservative Sixty eight percent of Americans believe that Trump is serious about the US trying to

take over Greenland. Fifty three percent think Trump is serious when he talks about the US trying to take control of Canada. The survey commissioned by ABC News found the respondents didn't think that either annexation would be a good idea. So the majority of people think he's going to do something and they think it's a bad idea. About eighty six percent said they opposed the US trying to take control of Canada. Seventy six percent opposed trying to take

control of Greenland. Ooh, there's ten percent of the people. But don't do it to Canada, but do it to Greenland. And again, you know, when you look at what's happening with this, it doesn't make any economic sense. It doesn't make any geopolitical sense either. An interesting thing, you know, we're talking about Greenland, Canada, Panama. I was talking to my friend who has long ties and Panama. He's American, but you know, his family was down there. They've had

had ties down there. And he said, interestingly enough, because he reads he reads Spanish as well as English, and he gets the local Panamanian newspapers as well as an English newspaper that is there. And he said, there was a memorandum of understanding between the US and Panama when Pete Haigseth went down there, and he said, it was

really crazy what was happening with that. He said, there was this big display of military force, had all these ships there and all these planes there to intimidate the Panamanians and the Secretary of Defenses down there to talk about a memorandum of understanding. And he said, in the memo that was published in Spanish, it talked about recognizing you know, yeah, we're going to have a security partnership here,

but it's going to recognize the sovereignty of Panama. And he said, the Panamanian Spanish newspaper said yet, but the English version of that memorandum of understanding did not have that phrase in there. Did not have that in there. They said, so what's going on with this? They published one version in Spanish that's amenable to the Panamanians and another version in English that is not. And but you know,

it was briefly shown and it wasn't really published. So my friend contacted the American you know, the military and the and the State Department. It went through this long chain of command trying to find where he could see the America the English version of the MoU the memo of understanding, and they gave him. They pushed him around from one place to the other. That this long, long chain.

Bottom line is they're not showing it to anybody. They're not showing it to anyone, although they did get a version of it, and the people there did get a version of it, but out but our government will not publish it, will not give it to anybody. But the other people did get it. There Isn't that so fitting

that they would come up with two different versions. By the way, that I think heavily underscorees reason why we need to have one official language in the United States, and not too We can imagine what they would do with that kind of stuff, you know, putting one thing in one language like they did with Panala. You put it in one version but not in the other version on Rumble MAV twenty twenty two, government created a situation that sows seeds of division for people to be angry

enough to allow rights to be trampled. That's exactly exactly what is happening. And so when you look at this imperialism, it doesn't make any economic sense, it doesn't make any geopolitical sense. So much of what we're looking at falls into that category. We didn't even get a chance to get in. There's a lot of things we didn't get today. We'll get to them tomorrow. But I just want to say, you know, you start to prepare for this stuff. You know,

start to prepare. I had a lot that I wanted to talk about in terms of the pushback against homeschooling. Understand about that. Prepare about that. One of the things that you can do to prepare about that is you start to see the pushback and legislation happening in multiple states. If you're homeschooling, make sure that you were connected to the homeschool Legal Defense Association. They helped to establish our God given rights, helped to establish that under law to

homeschool our children. They can help you to defend that. Also go to David Knight dot gold and start to defend your right to transactional privacy. Financial transactional privacy, that is key. David Knight dot gold take you to Tony Arburn. Thank you for joining us.

powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us, while they hide everything from us.