Wed Episode #2184: Americans Are Trapped Between Mobs and the State

to act like gang members themselves. And so the question is how do we protect ourselves those of us who are got in gangs on the luck to us gangs on the right. I'm stuck in the middle with you, and which one is more dangerous? How do we fight back against this? And more importantly, we are going to go back and take a look at how our culture

got into the situation that it's in right now. What is happening to our families, our children, the relationship between men and women, and what is about to make that get a lot worse? I mean, there's going to be a lot of gasoline cord on this AI is going to be the thing that's going to do it. How

did we get to this situation? If we understand how we got here, then maybe all of the intentional distractions, chaos and conflict that are being created by Donald Trump and the news media, maybe we can transcend that, we can escape their gravitational pull. We'll be right back well again. You know, when I look at what just happened to another interesting case of a grandfather fifty six years old, an American citizen. He's foreigner who came here and became

a citizen about thirty five years ago. It's never had any criminal convictions, and you look at the way that he was singled out and treated, and it truly is amazing, and it's something that we have to pay attention to. We may you know, we all agree that rapists and murderers ought to be taken off the street, and I think many of us agree that illegal aliens who come here need to be deported as well. But it makes a difference how it's done, doesn't It doesn't make things

a lot more dangerous. I mean, every time you talk about one of these types of issues, the abuse of power by ice by the Trump administration, when did we talk about that? Oh? What about this? You know, look, we had this person over here who in a lot of cases, it wasn't even somebody who was political or trying to be provocative that got attacked. And we just had an incident of a family that was in a

car in Minnesota. They thought these protesters, thought they looked conservative, didn't know anything about them, so they went over and they attacked their car and the people in it. Is that different than what we're seeing from ICE. Actually, no, they had another incident. We had a group of four engineers during their lunch break, they go to a restaurant and one of them is anti ICE, and he's on a list on his phone that lets him know when

the ICE agents are doing something and so forth. Others were in favor of ICE was doing and so they were all over the place in terms of politics. But they're eating together and they're having a lunch break and the one guy who is on the list of leftists, he said, wait a minute, He said, they they've identified us as being ICE, you know, because they said there's four guys are dressed like this and they're such and such a restaurant. He kind of looks around and goes, ooh,

they're talking about us. And they thought that they were playing closed ice, because again, ICE is not following any of the rules that they have for cops are not wearing uniforms. In many cases, they're covering their faces. Now these guys are not wearing masks. Of course those days are hopefully behind us. Who knows they took put mask on us five years ago, six years ago now and now they want to put mask on themselves. God what they're doing anyway, we have these types of things happening.

Is so the Left is just as bad, except they're not as dangerous because they don't have the legal authority to kill you if you disobey their orders, right, I mean, they know there's going to be some consequences for them. The problem is that Ice knows that there will be no consequences for them. As Jdevan said, they have absolute immunity. And we've seen this over and over again. We're gonna

shut down the investigation. We're not even going to have an investigation, and we're not going to allow you to have an investigation as state or local into this shooting Overney Good. That's an admission, folks. I've seen this over and over again. When they hide their data about climate change, when they hide their virology data, when they don't do the studies. When they come after you because you show the data, they decide they're going to hide you. I've

seen this over and over again. The people who seek to suppress information are usually doing it because well, I won't say usually, say I have always seen it done because they're doing something criminal to hide. So let's look at the particulars of this particular case here again, you've got now, I think the solution to this is not

going door to door. You know, we've got government officials in Minnesota as well as in Washington State who have declared they are sanctuary cities, and they're actually coming against a sheriff in Washington State who wants to enforce the immigration laws, and he would do it with search warrants and things like that. Knowing who he's going after. You know, that would be a big advantag wouldn't it. I mean, if you're going to be law enforcement, how how much

like a Keystone cop do you have to be? I know who you're going after, And that's what we see in this particular case. But the rot is coming from above on the left. The rot is coming from governors and attorneys general who decide that they don't like immigration law. They're going to thumb their nose at immigration law, and there's no authority for them to do that. Immigration law is a power that has been delegated by the states

to the federal government. Now, if it was something like gun control, for example, we had a leftist or even Trump who decides he's going to do gun control and he's going to do it by executive order, and or however they do it, if they do it with Supreme Court decision, or if they do it with a Congressional act, it would still be a violation of the law. And of course that is happening all the time. The very existence of the ATF is a violation of the Constitution,

just like the existence of the Federal Reserve. But let's say that they've got some new rule that they're coming out with and the local law enforcement does not have to comply with that. As a matter of fact, they should stand there as the lesser magistrate, as Matt Tetela always talks about in his book, they should stand and interpose and nullify these laws that are against the constitution that gives them their authority because they swore to have

hold it. But when it comes to immigration law, there is authority for immigration, there is authority for ice to exist or something like it. Unfortunately, these so called law enforcement officers now believe that they are not subject to the law. And that's a much more serious circumstance in somebody coming across the border, folks, much more serious and because of the potential for abuse. And so the reality is is that they need to start at the top

and work their way down. If you're going to have governors and attorneys general that are going to defy the constitution, and if they are going to say and you're not going to investigate these fraudulent daycare centers, if they're going to stand in the gap, if they're going to aid and a bet criminal fraud, which again even of alves federal money, they should be prosecuted. They should. And this is not something where you send out an army of armed and armored thugs to go get in people's faces

and start pushing and shoving and shooting. This is going around with auditors and lawyers and doing it with due process. This is what needs to happen, he sees happened in an orderly way. Trump doesn't want to do this because his model is to have professional wrestling. Conflict and chaos. That is his mo that is his calling card, that is how he gets attention, and so he deliberately wants this kind of conflict at the lower level, when actually we'd all be better served if you're doing it at

the top level. So the problems are on both sides. At the top level, the problem is with a Trump administration and the in your face confrontational chaos that they desire to have. And at the top of the left in terms of state and local government, the fact that they want to completely flood our country and take it down cloward and pivot style. Those are the issues. But they want us fighting with each other. They won't fight with each other, they won't fight. The guys at the

top won't fight with each other. They want us fighting with each other. And so sanctuary cities and states are violating the law and you should start with them rather than the people that walked across the border, for example. So the image that we have here, I'll just pull this up. Oh that's the wrong one. Sorry, this one right here. This is a fifty six year old man. They had about ten to fifteen ice agents who break

in the door, you know, drug raid style. And actually, I've talked so many times about Brazil, and Brazil begins with this over the top raid of militized, armored up police kicking the door, coming through the ceiling, the windows, and everything else after this one guy. And it's a case of mistaken identity. And that is how the that's the thread that runs through the entire story. They got the wrong guy. And yet we have seen even though when Terry Gilliam did that in nineteen eighty four it

was so over the top. It's like, well, you know, this is satire, right, taking it to the extreme, and yet that's what it is in reality. Now there is no over the top satire. This is our reality. So ten to fifteen agents break in and you got this guy who's fifty six years old and his grandson is their five year old grandson terrorized the family. I mean, is it straight out of Brazil? The very beginning of Brazil? I heard something I didn't see anything. Did that go

out that the visuals go out? Anyway? Travis was trying to play it. Thanks Travis, the terrorise everybody. They drag this guy out in ten degree weather and he's wearing shorts and crocs, that's it. No shirt, not even long pants, no socks, nothing, crocs and shorts. He grabs the blanket that his five year old son was on as they're going out and wraps himself in that. The Ice agents I won't even call him law enforcement or cops. They don't deserve that title. They're beneath that. These guys drag

him out, put him in the car. They drive around for an hour with him in the car. The family doesn't know where he is after they have fingerprinted him and now done some investigation. You know, you take the grandfather and you do the due process later, says Trump. Right, at first that was just about firearms. Now it's about grandpa's You seize the grandpa first, you do the due process later. And so they grab him. After they do the due process, they realize this guy has never done

anything wrong in America. He doesn't violated anything, and he's here legally. These are people from Laos, the Hmong group. If I'm saying it correctly, I don't know if I'm pronouncing that right. It's Hmong, I'll say Jimong. A lot of them came over from Laos because there was a civil war there. War that the US got involved with at the time of Vietnam, and yeah, this is the vituals that he's putting on. This this is Brazil Terry Gilliams satire of nineteen eighty four, except who now live

in this satire. So these guys, ten to fifteen of them, automatic weapons pointed at people, fully armored, come in terrorize the family. This just happened. That was Icily did it. And then they drag the guy out without any clothes on into the ten degree weather, driving around for an hour. After they've done the due process, they realize they don't have a criminal here, and they bring him back and

drop him off as if nothing ever happened. No apology, right, And I'm surprised that they didn't take him in and charge him for the interrogation, which is what they did in Brazil. But then they put out a cover story because this is filmed by a relative was very angry about this and put it out, and some of the

people point out that it could have been worse. You know, we've had people who have been abducted who were not illegal immigrants, people who are not criminals, and they were disappeared and they don't know where they went some people whose crime was to come here illegally, which is a misdemeanor. And again, I think the real solution, First of all,

just stop the welfare magnet. You don't pay welfare payments to anybody that comes here, even if they come here as a legal immigrant, certainly not to illegal immigrants and every other country. You have to show that you can support yourself and your family before you become a citizen. So make that a rule for legal immigrants, and that illegal immigrants don't get a dime. That would do a

lot to stop this. And then, of course, if people are committing crimes, you actually punish them rather than turning them back out on the street. In a catch and release program. You see these people that they put up and they say, well, this person has been arrested for five different rates and they were released each time. Right, what is the matter with our justicistm So fix the

justice system. Go after these governors and these state attorneys general who are defying federal law that has been delegated to the federal government constitutionally. Go after those people first instead of the innocent people that are around there. But they have taken people away, and you relatives can't find out where they went. Even if they're illegal immigrants, they won't tell them, you know, what country they sent them to, or if they're in a prison somewhere. Just nothing. They

just disappear people. And you actually got people on the right now who are cheering the kind of governments that have done that in South America, like an Argentina and Pinochet's Chile. You know, I actually got people. Well, let's put them on a helicopter, take them out over the ocean, drop them. Yeah, you'd be careful about that. That's going to come back around to you. So again, a neighbor said, whatever you think this is, it's worse than you think.

That's his detainment told me by phone on Monday. Is what happened. They said, ten to fifteen agents. And so they take him out, they find they got the wrong guy, they bring him back. But then the lies begin from Homeland Security. So you had DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, who was putting out a whole series of lies about the shooting. As well said that his arrest, the operation was targeting quote two convicted sex offenders. See were they

named Donald and Jeffrey? Well, actually one of the Donald doesn't have any convictions for well, I guess he. You could say he does have sex offender victions. We just had somebody come out with allegations, a rocky veteran, a male had just come out with allegations that he was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein to Donald Trump, and he alleges that Donald Trump raped him homosexually. So we'll see what

happens with that. Anyway, with final orders removal from an immigration judge, they were looking for two convicted sex offenders, and so Tricia McLaughlin claimed without evidence that this guy lived with these two men and that he was detained because quote, he matched the description of the targets. A few hours later, they posted photos and information about the two Asian men that they were looking for. These were very young men. This guy is a grandfather. He's fifty

six years old. He doesn't look anything like these guys. I mean, even if you think all Asians look alike, right, there's an age difference. And of course we had a lot of Asian friends. They even joked about that there was a website all looked same and they were laughing about it. They said, they put this up and they show pictures of Asian people and they challenge you to say, is this person Japanese, Chinese, Korean? You know what is

this person? They said, we can't tell, you know, we're Asian, so anyway, but there are other ways that law enforcement has of identifying people. And the age difference was ludicrous. But they put up these people are the worst of the worst, and we were looking for them, and unfortunately we got this guy. But he lived with them, so he's kind of guilty my extension. That was their justification.

They didn't attempt to explain or prove the men were connected to him, and they both made to be significantly younger than him, and so they reached out for clarity the person who's writing this piece, But we didn't get any further feedback from that. And why, even under those circumstances would you take a suspect. Remember, you know, when we're talking about law enforcement, always in the past, police and law enforcement always very very careful to call people suspects.

You know, even when there was a room full of witnesses who saw them pull the trigger and shoot somebody and they've got it on videotape, they still call him a suspect. We don't have that from Ice. We don't have that from Christine Home and Trisha McLachlin. We don't have that from Trump. And so then there was a family statement that disputed this. The family said, no, mister Taw is his name right. He is a US citizen

with no criminal records, said the family statement. He does not live with, nor has he ever lived with, the individuals that DHS claims or targets of this operation. The only people residing at the home are mister Taw, his son, his daughter in law, and his young grandson. They do not know the individuals that DHS has referred to. The family said no warrant was presented. Agents did not ask for Tow's ID, but they quote, nevertheless, forcibly entered the

home with weapons drawn Brazil style. They may have been looking for Tuddle, but they got mister Buddle, and the two don't know each other. They said, Taw and his family have lived in this home for two years. Well, the narrative that we get isn't just coming from Tricia McLaughlin lying about this and saying out we're going out there, We're arresting all these criminals and so forth. It's also coming from the top, just like the repudiation of immigration

laws on the left is coming from the top. Here's Trump trying to justify some of this stuff.

But why did they do that. They did it because Trump wasn't building the wall, and he could have built the wall, and he could have done something to enforce immigration in his first term. Instead, after everybody figured everything dropped off right away after he got elected, and he got very quiet in terms of border crossings, and then everybody realized he's nothing but a paper tiger. I'll talk,

no action. And then you had the caravans. We'd never seen that before, the caravans, And how did he deal with that? He didn't know how to deal with that either. So don't talk to me about a government created problem, a problem that's been created by every Democrat and every Republican administration. They have let this problem fester and grow. They give money to people who come here illegally. It's almost like a bribe to get people to come here illegally.

And that's bipartisan, that's both parties. They let this go on for decades and then they create a big problem and they come in and say, well, you know, the only solution to this is to suspend the rule of law and have martial law, militarized federalized police who are accountable to nobody, who don't have to do search warrants, who can violate every aspect of new process. That's the solution we got for you. You see how they play this game, don't you. It's disgusting. And so this is what we're

seeing there in Minnesota. Now, we're also seeing in Minnesota a lot of clips of people saying the military is everywhere, and so people are putting up on social media all the movement of troops in Minnesota because Trump is ready preparing to declare an insurrection Act and use military force there because he wants confrontation. You know, we've had presidents who've used the military in the past to enforce civil rights stuff, but they did it in a way to

try to avoid confrontation. Instead, this is being done in a way to invite confrontation. And so that's on one side, that's the gang that's being set up on one side, and then on the other side they will put up pictures like this Daily Caller got this guy, right, some Anti five guy with a rifle there, a prey serious

looking rifle and wearing a mask as well. You understand, we've got two different gangs, right, We've got the Anti five gang wearing a mask and carrying automatic weapons, okay, and then we've got the military doing the same and ICE doing the same, and you and I are caught in the middle of this. We need to speak up about this. We don't need to go silently into this, and we don't need to join one tribe or the other. And quite frankly, the people who are the most dangerous threat.

There's not one or two guys out there with guns. Yeah, anybody can kill you, but it is the massive government operation that believes that it is accountable to no man and not accountable to God. Either. They can kill whoever they wish, and they don't even have to show any remorse. Whether you're talking about people in boats in Venezuela or you're talking about people on the streets of Minneapolis, they can kill whoever they wish. They just have to say, well,

I felt threatened by what they're doing. I felt threatened by those boats. I think they're going to bring drugs in. So we killed them. And then we didn't kill everybody the first time. We went back, circle back and eliminated the people who were struggling to stay afloat the shipwrecked people that we had just attacked. And so a daily caller spotted what appears to be mostly peaceful protesters. That's that picture I just showed you. And so these are peaceful,

mostly peaceful protesters. How about we have some mostly peaceful peace officers? Could we have that? Don't talk to me about the ends if you don't care what the means are, makes all the difference in the world. Trump Berger says, can't wait for David to watch Trump's speech at Davos. Well, his plane turned around for a last I saw. I don't know is he'd taken another plane. He had some problems with air Force one, which is a good example

I think of the futility and arrogance of power. Here's a guy who's got his own private plane, you know, massive airliner, a big entourage and everything. He's got all of the protections and everything, the best stuff that money can buy, the best stuff that money that they've printed up can buy. And so this is like having the beast, the armored car breakdown somewhere. He's on his way to rally and it breaks down. He's got to call uber. They had to turn the plane around and come back.

They're saying it was some kind of a problem. I don't know. You can't believe anything they say. All position is to lie, just like the Clinton's. I said this on the longest time about Bill on Millrick. I said the truth. They would be better served by the truth than by the lies that they tell. But their default

position is to lie about everything. I remember when we had that illegitimate son of Bill Clinton, who was the poor guy was you know, he bore some resemblance to Clinton, and his mother was a prostitute and said that Bill Clinton was the father and so forth, and he used to have the Arkansas State Police would come by and give him money every Christmas and all this other kind

of stuff. And then that stopped when Bill Clinton ran for national office and they would not do a paternity test to disprove that this guy was Bill Clinton's child. They gave him the cold shoulder, and he was going around trying to get attention, and of course because in for worth was trying to support Trump would go around and we would cover all these things. I felt sorry for the guy. You know, he says, Look, I'm not trying to get any money from him. I just tease

my father. I'd just like to have him acknowledge that. I say, Williams was his name. Yeah, Danny Williams. Yeah, yeah, Danny Williams. And you know, he again, he was sincere and what he wanted. I think I don't think he was looking for money. He was being used by people like Rogerstone, and that's certainly for political purposes. And I said at the time, I said, look, if Trump would not Trump, if Clinton would come out and kind of

embrace this guy to be a father to him. We saw that happen with Arnold Schwarzenegger, right, he had an illegitimate child by his maid, and the kid looks a bit like him and anything. But he's kind of mentored him and been a father to him. And you didn't get a lot of criticism for that. I mean, people

respect that. Even if they don't respect how this child came into the world and what you did to bring this child into the world, they respect you staying up to the responsibility people would have respected that for Bill Clinton, especially given the fact that you had at least Democrats say he's our first black president. Well, he could be the first absentee black father to actually take responsibility for

this stuff. But again I said, the truth would serve him better if they would admit to it and do something about it. That would help them, especially with their base. But instead, out of pride or whatever it was, hubris, they decided that they were going to deny the paternity of Danny Williams. Thank you for reminding me of his name. I'd forgotten his name, Travis. But anyway, so.

whether they don't have uniforms and badges. Because some of the ICE people don't have uniforms and badges. That's a big part of the issue there. And they're wearing masks, so how do we know they're not antiphile? We would take their word for it, right, We don't want to have mobs of armed people out they're harassing and arresting people though they don't know anything about. We got mobs of anti file that arresting people. Be goes, hey, you

look conservative. We've got Ice out there harassing and killing some people. Because it's like, hey, you look like a foreigner or you sound like a foreigner. I don't like your accent. What kind of American are you? Remember that line from Civil War? That's where we are right now. We don't want that from either side, and yet both sides will say, yeah, but what about Yeah, we got this, We got this antifig guy out there with a semi

automatic weapon, and you know what about him? And then the other guys, they'll say, the antiphi people say yeah, but what about the ice people. It's just what about ism? This is the downward spiral taking us all down the drain. Everybody's saying, yeah, yeah, my guys are bad, but what about these other guys on the other side. We've got to do something about them. So the you know, they're great,

they're violating the constitution. CBS News reported the Justice Department is investigating Governor Wallfs and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Fry over an alleged conspiracy to impede federal immigration agents during deportation operations. You know, what do we do about this? Where's the local law enforcement? Well, they are a wall as a matter of fact, and they're absent without leave, and yet many of them are getting leave, many of them are

getting paid leave. You had the governor of Minnesota, Walls signed the law back in twenty twenty three, giving extended medical and family leave to anybody who wanted it, and it began on January first of this year. So they signed the law on twenty twenty three, so that it's going to effective January first, twenty twenty six, and it has. And so you've got a lot of people, especially police officers, dozens of police officers expected to tap into the new

state paid leave program. Well, they're not really doing anything anyway, right, they're not out there saying, you know, have you got a warrant for this? Let's make sure they're not being a referee, right, or is Sheriff Taylor when we need them from Maybury? We need somebody like that to be the referee between these two different sides, you know, to be the adult in the room. And they're not going

to do that. And they're not going to protect people from the Antifa mob either, And so this part of the problem with this socialist blank check that they've written for people, and its like you say, you got a medical issue or you've got a family issue, Sure, go ahead and take off a couple of months. That's fine, We'll keep paying you. And there was no limit to the number of people that could leave from a given department.

In other words, there wasn't anything in the law that says, well, once we get up to certain percent, let's say twenty percent. You know, once twenty percent of the people are gone because of paid leave, then we have to wait until these people come back before you can take it. No, it's just as many people as want to do it. It can take it, because that's the way welfare programs work, right, they're entitlement programs. If you check the boxes, you get it.

It doesn't matter what the consequences are. It doesn't matter if we can afford it or not. You get the paid leave. And so that's the other issue. The thing you know, when you when you look at what they're not doing, that any think of any use anyway. So maybe I guess that doesn't matter. They're already a wall in terms of helping with things Guard Goldsmith liberty, conspiracy. Good to see a guard. The mayor and governor have

all constitutional prerogatives on their side. Per Article for Section four, the Feds are not supposed to enter without state request the Insurrection Act as blatantly and dangerously unconstitutional. I agree

with that. Now. I agree that the actions that are being taken by and let me clarify that you know what Trump is doing with the military and what he's doing in the way that ice is deployed, and you know, the thousands of them, they're armored up, you know, going house to house as they've bragged they're going to do. We're going to go door to door. They say, all

of that is wrong, all of that is unconstitutional. But when you have when you have state and state officials and local officials say we're going to block investigations into fraud, the Somali fraud, that is aiding and abetting criminal fraud, and so they have something that they can do about that. And if you say that they're going to set their state up as a sanctuary state, they don't have the

authority to do that under the constitution. Those powers have been delegated to the federal government to control the borders and that type of thing, and so there is no authority for that. So the problem is again the way that it's being done. That's what I've said all along. I don't disagree with the end of what they're doing, and I think they have constitutional authority for the end of this. We want to stop fraud, we want to stop illegal immigration and so forth, and unfortunately, you don't

want to stop the welfare fraud that is there. The welfare magnets bringing people in. But the way that they're doing it is all wrong. And you're absolutely right. You know, he is in with a massive armies invading Minnesota, and you're going to do it in other states as well,

because he wants conflict. Like I said before, they could do this in terms of a criminal Look, if you've got somebody and there's I forget what it was, is that like half of the money I think that had been put out for daycare and food relief and so half of it was fraud. If you're going to preside over that and if you're going to block any investigation of that, that's criminal. That's aiding and abetting a massive fraud, and it's a massive fraud on the entire nation because

you're using federal money to do that. I don't agree with those programs, but this is also fraud, and so there ought to be white collar investigations of this kind of stuff, not door to door kicking them down and dragging people out in the snow. I don't ever agree with that. So again you've got Todd Blanche, the Deputy Attorney General right under Pam Bondy saying we are not going to investigate the shooting over Nay Good. Very arrogant in this statement. Now, we don't normally look at shootings

like that done by law enforcement. If they say they felt like they needed to do, we'll just go with whatever they say. We did iver second, guess it right, We've got a huge problem with that. And we look at this guy, Todd Blanche. Where have we seen him before? His name first came up because he was the guardian angel of Glaine Maxwell. He was the one who went to talk to the Deputy Attorney General went to talk

to Gallaine Maxwell. That doesn't show any red flags, does it that the president would be so worried about what Gallaine Maxwell had on him and on the intelligence agencies. Remember, she deliberately posed with that book, you know, about spies and murders of spies and stuff like that, the tales that they could tell. She almost taunted the intelligence agencies about what she knew. And so Todd Blanche goes to her and has a very very long discussion with her.

Next thing, you know, she's moved out of the prison and into Club Fed where she's got very nice accommodations and gets special treatment even there. And so this guy this fixer for pedophiles, Todd Blanche, the White House guy Blanche. It's kind of funny that that would be the name anyway. So he has declared that Jonathan Ross the killer, was justified to kill and as this Reason article points out,

most Americans disagree with that. He said, why is it that, in general, about sixty percent of independence and more than that for Democrats, and a lot and nearly that many for Republicans. Most of them believe that the murder was murdered. I believe that from the first time I saw it. And so why is that if it's obvious, you know, you've got Todd Blanch, you've got CHRISTI no Home saying go back and look at the video. Well, they point out in Reason, most of the people have looked at

the video, and that's why they think it's murder. And when you see the film from the officer that was there, that he took, you can clearly see that she's not even looking at him, that she's supposedly trying to murder him. She doesn't have an expression of hate or fear or anything else. She's calmly turning the wheel. And you could already see from the first footage that was out there that she's moving forward the wheel iss turn, and I said,

have these people never driven a car. If somebody's telling you to get the car out of here, she's doing a three point turn. And one of the things that she had to do to back up was because this guy runs out in front of her car trying to use his body to stop her. That doesn't make any sense. That's not people who are trained in law enforcement told don't try to stop a car with your body. That's stupid. I mean I even had somebody want to criticize that initially,

as hum person said, well, what would you do? And I said, first of all, wouldn't try to stop the car with my body. And you can see from his footage that you know, he walks around and then he leaps forward just as she's starting to move forward. He leaps forward and leans into the car. But he still wasn't hurt. And all this nonsense about the internal bleeding, I mean, it's just been one lie after the other. Began with lies from Christinome that they were stuck in

the snow. They were not stuck in the snow. We can all see that's a lie. And then they were attacked with cars right when they were stuck in the snow. No, Christy, you might want to look at the video before you start making up lies. But that's the contempt that they have for us. No, they're not going to call me on this lie. They like me. I can say anything I want, you know, just like Trump. I can tell the main thing I want and they'll second that. They'll

go along with it. And so they lied about everything and how they're saying that he was bleeding internally, and people point out, well, you know, if you're bleeding internally, they'll keep you in the hospital for observation, no specifics. You know, what was that about and why did it stop? The thing I thought was a real tell with that where they said he was bleeding internally and the torso, well,

that sounds like a doctor's diagnosis. I went into the doctor and I said, you know, I got such and such a problem, and it's I think it might be something in your torso. I don't know. I mean, when you walk out of that doctor's office, if that's all he knows, he doesn't doesn't have a clue somewhere your torso, well, that's a good note. It's under my arm's legs or head right. That kind of narrows it down. It was absurd, and if he had had internal bleeding, they would have

not released him in a couple of hours. That was a cover story. It was a story to cover for Trump's lie that he was run over, which we could all see it did not happen. He didn't even get knocked to the ground, let alone get run over. And so the flip side of that was that I showed that video the very first day. There was a guy saying, I'm a doctor, let me help. Oh, stay back, you can't help. You know, you try to help, I'm going to have to kill you. You know that type of thing.

And the reality is that she was alive for several hours after that, and they refused medical help to her. The sheriff, who pointed out that they violated all of the rules of common sense and police engagement. Whether or not you think this is justified, he violated all the rules, said he'd had situations where his deputies had in defense shot and killed somebody who was shooting at them and trying to kill them. After they shot the guy, they

ran up to administer first aid to him. He said the same guy that had just shot at and just tried to kill them. They tried to help him after they stopped him. That's the way things supposed to work. That's the way a just war is supposed to work. Right. You are supposed to stop the purpose of the war is to stop the violence that was started by somebody else,

So you don't start wars like Trump does. And then your purpose is to end the war as soon as possible, and to avoid hurting anybody that is a non combatant. And when the threat stops, like you've hit somebody and blown up their boat, you don't circle back and kill them like the U boat commanders did. There. We say Nazis, you don't circle back and kill them. Instead, what you do is you administer aid. And that's what these guys are doing. That's what a trained cop is supposed to do.

That's not what the Trump people are doing. It's a very very dangerous precedent. They are rewriting all of the laws and the Constitution, and they're trying to rewrite moral law. Now, I can't do anything about the Constitution. I can't enforce that. But I tell you why, I'm going to scream real loud when they try to rewrite the moral law. So again, we're not investigating the shooting of Renee Good, says Todd Blanch. And by the way, they're not going to investigate anything

about the pedophiles either. So Minnesota's Bureau of Criminal Apprehension complained that the agency had been excluded from the investigation. And now you've got Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche saying that there's not going to be you know, first of all, we're going to lead it solely by the FBI. Now he comes out this last Sunday and he was asked, what can you tell us about the investigation? When will

that be made public? He didn't answer directly. Instead, what Todd Blanch said, well, we don't just go out and investigate every time an officer is forced to defend himself against somebody who was putting his life in danger. Sounds like he's already come to a conclusion here, doesn't it. There's a lot of conclusions in that sentence, isn't there.

We never do. There's over a thousand shootings every year where law enforcement officers have been in danger by individuals and they have to protect themselves and we and they have a lawful right to do so. The problem is he was never in danger. The problem is he was the aggressor. The problem is that he put innocent people bystanders at danger by shooting into that car and then turning that car into an unguided missile because he shot the person inside the car. Everything he did about that

was wrong. You know, we've had a lot of police departments who have decided that they're not going to do hide speed chases of people anymore, because you know, we've got cameras, we know the car, and we can follow this and see where it is and dispatch officers. They're eventually going to run out of gas or stop somewhere. We can do that, but we're going to keep our distance.

We're not going to try to match their speed and do everything they did, because we've had a lot of people who've been killed, innocent people who've been killed when we play those kinds of games. Same thing here, so Blanche said, just like Trump, just like Gnome, just like Vance, this is self defense. Even though she was driving past. Many shot to two shots, and you could argue the third shot. These were all shot from angles where he was not in danger. The car was driving past him.

And again, when you shoot somebody who is fleeing, that is not self defense, and I would say that that's not justified either. It's not justified if I do it in my home. If somebody breaks in takes something, they're running out with the thing and I'm not threatened, I'm not justified to shoot them in the back. And neither is a cop. And I don't care what the law says. It's not justified. We all know that. Don't let them

gaslight you with their phony laws. If the law says that, then the law is, as one person said, an ass and so are the people who are enforcing that law. We're not going to agree to a law like that. We should demand that it be changed. So it turns

out that if you look at the polls. Of course, the polls aren't going to determine the guilt or innocence of Jonathan Ross, and the government's not going to prosecute him, but it will have an effect on these politicians who are trying to rewrite the law and rewrite morality and so independence fifty eight percent of them saying the shooting was not justified, with Republicans more than a third said the shooting was not justified, said they weren't sure, because

you're always going to have these people who don't have an opinion about whatever it is that you asked them. You know, they never have their mind made up. So eighty eight percent of Democrats said the shooting was not justified, but again fifty eight percent of independence and even with Republicans more than a third said the shooting was not justified. So there's a heavy, heavy partisan aspect to this, but still a lot of people can see what happened with

all of this and these results. He goes through several different polls. I'm not going to redraw the numbers, but it's pretty consistent. That's about sixty percent of the people say. You know, when you average it out, we average out the biased Republicans and the biased Democrats, it works out to be about where the Independents are, which is about sixty sixty percent of the people saying it wasn't justifying. So again, he's been given a paid vacation and he'll

probably get a medal from Christino eventually. I mean, after all, they gave a medal to Fauci. I know it's a commendation. You know, we understand what that's about. So are they going to fall the law? They're going to follow morality. Know, they will always lie to you. And so the as they were saying that way, you wait for an investigation to speak out, Christinaham said, well, everything that I have

said has been proven to be factual and true. I mean being stuck in the snow, you mean being attacked by a car. All that was factual. Nothing you said was faction factual. Nothing you said was true, and we

can all see that you're transparently lying. So they point out here, know, Mike blanche And says, everybody can watch the videos and see and so Reason magazine says, if that were true, that the videos leave no doubt on that score, then why do sixty percent of Americans who have seen that footage say Good was not trying to kill Ross and that he acted recklessly. That's the least

of all this stuff. The witness reported that one of the agents had told her to drive away, which would have been a straightforward, in peaceful way to resolve the situation, but another agent took a more aggressive approach get out of the car, out of the car and started grabbing that and of course you can hear from the It's amazing to me to see these conservatives and people in

the past that I generally agree with. You know, I need a Broaderick and people like Ben Garrison saying, well, that's it if you look at the cops video that shows that he's innocent, the cop video after he shoots her, just a minute or so after she said hey, everything's fine, I'm not angry with you and all this guy he shoots and kills her, and then he mumbles on the video, effing bitch. Right, Yeah, that would be enough for me, folks, I would if I was on the jury. That's enough

for me. I can see and I can hear, and I don't need to get caught up in this partisanship stuff here. You know, I need a broaderyck that's putting stuff out. Well, she should have just obeyed the cops. Which cop are you supposed to obey? And if I don't obey a cop, are they justify in killing me? You can always blame the victim. It's a shame to see that happening with one Nita Broaderick again. You'd always say, well, you should never have let Bill Clinton come to your

hotel room. It's your fault, right, I don't blame her, but here she is a victim and she's blaming. It's like the people say, well, that Central Park jogger, she should have known better than to go jogging in Central Park and basically blaming the victim. And that's what Jannita Broaderick is doing as well. So the right has caught the woke mind virus, says Prethought Project, and their symptoms are mass arrest and censorship. And I said this for the longest time. I said, you know this is coming

again from the top down. I said, there were terrible things that were done to Trump in terms of law fair. It was so unjust and everybody could see the injustice of it that it propelled him passed all the debates. He didn't have to participate in debates, he didn't have to defend his past record, he didn't have to have any agenda for the future they wanted to talk about.

He just became the nominee. And I said, the problem is is that he's not going to go in and stop the kind of lawfair that was used against him. He's going to use that against other people. Why because he doesn't want to strengthen the constitution and the rule of law. He wants to strengthen himself personally. I'm the bad guy on the street. You better not cross me. Get on your knees to me. That's what he wants, and that's what MAGO wants as well, as a Freethought

Project points out, they prioritize ideology over reality. They silence dissent, They demand total conformity to a collective hive mine. Yeah, that was what we always said about the left, wasn't it. And what Elon Musk said about the woke mind virus, he was right about that, And now we have seen all that being done by the MAGA people as well. It turned the left into a caricature of authoritarianism, where liberty was traded for safety and free speech was branded

as violence. But here's the terrifying plot twist that f you're willing to admit in twenty twenty six, the virus didn't die when the Right started winning. The culture war is simply jumped hosts. The new Right has not defeated the woke mind virus. They have mutated it. We've traded blue haired social justice warrior hysteria for red hat Caesar fanaticism. That's exactly what has happened. You know. We always say

be careful, you don't become the monster you fight. Well, that is true for the tribes as well, isn't it. The symptoms remain exactly the same, an unquenchable thirst to use the violence of the state to crush their enemies. Especially when you see some news organization out there saying, oh, look, you know, we're going to collect there the tears of the left and all the rest that we're going to you know, crush them and all the rest. Just don't

trust an organization like that. Don't trust that the goal is not justice, The goal is monopoly. They don't hate the boot on your neck. They just want to be the ones who are wearing it. And so we see this happening with the conservatives all the time. When you cheer for a police state to crush the left, you're cheering for a machine that will eventually crush you. And so that is the thing that we need to remember. That's what I've always said. It's kind of a paraphrase.

We know this always right. Remember Gerald Ford's version of that, as he said, a government's big enough to give you everything that you want is big enough to take everything that you've got. Now, we're not talking about economic redistribution anymore. We're talking about the redistribution of power, and we're talking about two sides that want to hurt and kill each other.

And just like these people just driving down the street in Minneapolis and they get attacked by maybe an Antifa mob, or maybe they get attacked by an antipha by a ICE mob, simply because the way they look, you're going to have these different mobs are going to jump to conclusions. And that's the threat that we're all facing right now. And so Wayne Allen Root, He's always an interesting character to read, an amusing comical character to read. So here's

Wayne Allen, President Trump. There is a better way to empower Ice. Here are some creative ideas guaranteed to succeed and make liberal heads explode. Right there, there's a guy right there. His strategy, We're going to make liberal heads explode. We've got to collect the liberal tears and all the rest of stuff. And that's his justification. I need to hurt the other people. I need to hurt the other tribe. You can kind of dismiss anything that Wayne Allen Root

has to say. But I thought it was interesting to look at it. I thought, well, one of his recommendations with this stuff, and so you got to own the left right. I'm so tired of this nonsense. But he had about five different suggestions, and interestingly enough, the last suggestion is something that I've said from the very beginning. I was really floored to see Wayne Allen Root agree with me on something. So idea number one, this is a key idea. Let's change the name of ice to nice.

That'll make all the difference in the world, won't it. Well, you know, the interesting thing is, if he was a little bit more literate, you would understand that that was the name of the organization totalitarian organization in a C. S. Lewis novel. And you know, just like Mystery of Truth, that kind of sinister relabeling of that kind of stuff. That's not going to make any difference. He So a number two said protesters are paid sign executive order banning

paid protesters. All right, I can kind of see that. The problem is then going to be, Well, at what point do you call this compensation? I mean, did they set up a website somewhere and now you're going to call that paid profit protesting. He said, If you're paid to do this, it's fake speech, so it'd be banned. Well, I agree, I agree with that in principle, but again, political speech is political speech, and people can pay for political speech, and where do you draw the line on

this stuff. So that's an unworkable situation. He said. Number three, no more kid gloves. Spray them down with water and ten degree weather. Yeah, you know, I noticed that they drag people, but they don't know who they are. They dragged them out in ten degree weather. So yeah, let's double down on this stuff. Let's be harsh with people. He said. Not only that, but dye of the water red, so that we can identify them with this die and

I will know who they were. It's like, oh, okay, so now you're admitting that red is the color of communism. I thought that the MAGA people were all clueless about this. They said, when the mainstream media labeled them as red states, they embraced it and boasted about it. So again, then he has his fifth idea. Anybody arrested at these violent protests should be busted to far away federal prisons or

detention centers. I look at that and I thought, you know, it seems like, as we're coming up two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Decoration of Independence, it seems like that was one of the things that King George the Third did. You know, Let's remove these people out of the area where they lived, and let's bring them into a jurisdiction where I can nail them. Right, the left has done that. They use New York and Washington, d C. To get people.

So let's bust them away and listen them to some as he would call it a red state work, and really give them our justice, you know, that type of thing. I don't agree with that. But then finally he said, here's his grand finale number six, and this is the one that I agree with. He said, I said this ninety days ago, and I said it when all this stuff began. As well. He said, stopped sending ice into areas where violent and angry protesters and rioters blocked the

streets and the politicians won't cooperate. That's what I said. I said, if Trump isn't actively trying to get conflict and chaos, why doesn't he go to the places where he's welcome. He can come to Tennessee and the people would work with him on all this stuff. For the most part, you know, he would be a very friendly environment and you wouldn't have all this conflict. But he wants the conflict because the conflict is vital to his political and public relations. Right, That's what the man is

all about. He wants conflict not just within America, but he wants conflict with other countries. He wants conflict with the Democrats, but he also wants conflict with Republicans. That's what he thrives on. So again, doesn't get it. The whole point of this is to have conflict. As I said at the very beginning of this, if Trump wanted to really fix the problem, he could go to the top and he could start coming after people who are

aiding an abetting massive fraud, for example. And part of that fraud, I think, is this whole illegal immigration thing. And certainly the federal government has the authority to enforce immigration law. So if these people want to set themselves up as a sanctuary city, come after these politicians who do that type of thing. Instead, he wants conflict at

the grassroots level. He wants a civil war at the grassroots level, because he knows and we need to all know that we are at a fourth turning and people don't have any trust in these institutions. They can see how corrupt they are. We have massive financial fraud by the federal government, both bipartisan groups, you know, coming up, We're going to hit forty trillion dollars of debt probably the end of this year. And that's the real issue,

and that's going to cause major economic consequences. And so he wants a war. He wants foreign wars, many of them. He wants to have domestic conflict, maybe even a civil war that suits his purpose. That is his wag. The dog responds to all this. He wants the conflict. It's the key part of all of this stuff. So again, yeah, if that's a big tell, isn't it, Maybe Wayne Allen Ruton needs to go back and look at that. So we got another comment here from Guard trash you and read it. Yes we do.

But again, you know, I think that certainly on the fraud issue, when you've got people that are coming, would you agree with that, Guard that if you've got mayors and other people who are saying, yeah, we know that these daycare centers are fraudulent, but we're not going to let you do anything about it because we love our somalis, right. I think that is something right there there, aiding and a betting criminal fraud at the very least. I think the other issues are an issue as well, But it

all comes back to the welfare state. The welfare state is unconstitutional to start with. It's fraudulent to start with in the general area of that, but of course then there's additional fraud on top of that. It's just like the Cares Act, right. What Trump did to like everybody down was unconstitutional. He bribed everybody to do it, and then he bribed you to be silent about it with a Cares Act. And yet where did most of that money go. Most of it was taken up of fraud.

The stuff that was supposed to go to small businesses went to large businesses. More than fifty percent went to the five percent of the largest businesses. They redefined what a small business was for that purpose. So everything about it was fraudulent, as is most of the stuff that

government does. But at some point you got to start saying, do something about it at some point, and so Guard says, yeah, Trump is in Switzerland where they mainly speak German, and he just told Davos, Without us, you'd all be speaking German.

That's even better than the ja FK line. When JFK went to Berlin and the Berlin airlift, when they cut it off, and he says, heman Berliner, and he thought he was saying, I am from Berlin, right but Berliner was a jelly donut, and so they cut that off right away because you can hear the crowd laughing at him because basically what he was saying to them, you know, I'm an oreo or something like that, and it would

have been heman in Deutschlander or something, right. But anyway, the yeah, that's a new line.

major problem. And so we're going to talk about the central problem of this. How do we get to the situation of the disintegration of families, the disintegration of culture and relationship that we have with each other. How do we get to that point? And so we're going to talk about that when we come back. Stay with us. We'll be right back day than anything. Using free speech to free minds. It's the David Knight Show.

the flu shot. She said. You know, my husband I we never got flu shots before. We never had a problem with this, and this child is very healthy. We don't really know what happened with it. And the strange thing they said was that you know, wasn't the first person in the family to get sick. Other people had been sick, but you know, we don't know how she

got this disease. It's like, yeah, you go back and look at the cold house that the British had for forty five years that Mark and Say and Bailey talked about. They did everything. They had people coughing each other's face, you know, to try to transfer the coal. They transferred mucus, all the rest of the stuff. They can figure out

how it was transferring. And the lady even in this article, she pointed out, she said, and I'm not really sure if it would have helped in this particular case, because you know, we have this new subclade X or whatever this thing is called strain of flu, they tell us, And that's not what this flu shot was for. And you know, they have this crystal ball that they consult. I guess I don't know how they know how to make up their flu stuff, because they make the stuff up.

They decide in advance that there's going to be this particular strain of flu, they say, and then that's the one that they manufacture the vaccine for, they say, And then they have everybody taking that. So even in their fictional world of virology, the stuff doesn't add up. Even if you believed that they knew that there was a virus that was I mean, if you believe that a virus is causing this, even if you believe they knew the virus that was causing this, they don't know the

virus that's going to cause that this year. So how do they vaccinate for that? The whole thing is nonsense. The whole thing is a fiction. And so you know, when we look at all these different stories about how we get here, we got this gravitational pull of politics and government that is dragging us into these things. Yeah, one flu over the cuckoo flu, that's right, Travis. Anyway, it's pulling us into this. But like I said before, this is all downstream from what is happening to us

as individuals. What is happening to us religiously right, The politics is downstream from the culture. The culture is downstream from what we believe about God, and so we need to go upstream and look at the source of all this pollution in our society and what happened to family, what happened to education, what happened to culture? And why is it that women, not just in the United States but globally, why have they turned hard left as men

have kind of you stayed where they were. It's interesting a theory about this and some new data that's come out. A lot of people like to talk about the awfuls the affluent, white female urban liberals, right, and yet it's not simply an urban or white thing. This is something that's happening across the globe. There's some kind of a global thing that is happening, and it's an interesting idea. But let's begin with the schools. We've got a Kansas school.

This is a report from zero Hedge. Hey, Kansas school has banned students from naming Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump, or Jesus as role models. And what's the first thing you think of as a Christian with that? I think, first of all, Jesus is not a role model. He's Lord. It's a big difference. We just got finished with all the Christmas carols that we're singing, right, Hark the Herald Angels sing glory to the newborn role model. Right, No, that's not it. Christ is King, Christ is God. He

is not He is Lord. He is not simply a role model. Yes, we can learn things from him, but that's not the purpose of Jesus. And so there's a problem with this to begin with. But you had intolerance at this school. That's elementary school. Don't even mention the name of Jesus. Right. Parents at an elementary school in Kansas are upset after students reportedly told they were not allowed to list Trump or Charlie Kirk, or even Jesus as their role models for their assignment. This is coming

from a school guidance counselor. Her name is Casey Countryman. That's the unusual last name I've ever seen the name before. So Ms Countryman gave sixth graders an assignment called quote find your Voice as part of their quote leader in me program, they were asked to identify their role models, but any conservative role models were apparently not allowed. Well again, let mean great the author of this article here and say,

Jesus is not conservative. He came to set us free, not to give a a new set of rules, not to get us involved in a political party. You know, when you look at the freedom in Christ right, a lot of people say, well, look, you know he took the tank commandments and he put him on steroids. And yes, that's right. You know. He said, Now you've heard thou shalt not kill, right, or I shall not murder. Actually

it's more acred. But he said, I say, if you hate somebody, you've already killed them, murdered them in your heart. You've heard not to commit adultery, but if you look at them with lust, you've already committed adultery in your heart. So yes, he is giving us. He is saying, well, you know, the standard is much higher, and you're not going to meet that standard. But at the same time, he died for our sins, he died to erase our shortcomings.

At the same time he tells us that it's an impossible standard that is there But what he's really trying to do, I think in this is not just to say well again it's an impossible standard. I think what he's trying to do is to say to you that if you accept his forgiveness, if you follow him, you can be freed from the chains of hate, you can be chained, free from the chains of lust and other things like that. Right, sin is slavery. We don't see it as that. We think of sin as freedom, but

it really is slavery. And so if we understand his perspective on this, it is if we make him lord, we follow him, then that is and we trust in his forgiveness, so we are no longer enslaved by our own sense of failure and things like that. That is a very freeing thing, and that is really his purpose. He didn't come here to be a role model, you know. C. S. Lewis, as a matter of fact, said, well, a lot of people say Jesus is a great role model. But he said,

that's not right. He's either a liar, a lunatic, or he's Lord. Right, he claimed to be the son of God. So he's either a liar or he's crazy, or he really is. And so yeah, do follow Jesus. You know, people say, you know, what would Jesus do that type of thing, And that is really kind of shorthand for you know, how did Jesus advise us to live our lives? Right? Like, a lot of the things that we look at as prohibitions are not things that are going to justify us

before God. There are things that are going to hurt us if we don't do it. In the same way that you tell your toddler, Yeah that's pretty, that's red, but it's a fire. Don't stick your hand on that range, right, don't touch that. That'll hurt you. So he's trying to free us in that sense, I think. But he is not merely a good moral teacher. He's not merely a role model. He is Lord, the name, the title above

all other names and titles. And so these people who have the kids in school are concerned because and they should concerned about this. This guidance counselor, what kind of guidance is she giving kids? What kind of council is

she giving kids? When a student selected Trump as a role model, the guidance counselor reiterated her prohibition even more angrily than she did when one person chose Charlie Kirk stating that the students could not write political or religious figures on the board and in fact excluded political and religious topics altogether. Well, again, she doesn't know what is happening, and we have the blind leading the blind in this school.

Reports note that the children picking secular potentially controversial figures did not receive the same backlash from the councilor you know, stop and think about that secular. Where do we get that? You know, a secular a juxtaposition to religious as we typically see. I don't see it that way. Secular at its heart is really the same word that we use for second right. It has as the essence of its etymology, the idea of something that is fleeting, that is temporary,

that is passing. So when you have a secular outlook, you're focused on the things of this world that are passing very quickly, as opposed to I'd say the antonym is not religious, but the antonym is eternal. You can look at things that are eternal, or you can look at things that are secular that are here. For a second. Now,

when you talk about eternal things. That's why I became people lumped it in with religious as the antonym for that, but again administrators placed a disciplinary memo in her file. A teacher who had talked about Charlie Kirk during Constitution Day choosed him as an example of free speech, and they put a a disciplinary memo in her file threatening future action, told her that she must immediately shut down

any spontaneous student successions on undefined controversial issues. So free speech is too controversial for them, and we're going to have censorship, right. The agenda's clear that children are being bullied and extorted into abandoning conservative ideas well. Again, I you know, conservatism is not an idea. These people are not really trying to conserve anything. And really it is

simply a reaction against change. And the problem is is that conservatives will react against changing bad things that have been put into place by the leftists. Case in point, the schools. These parents are interested in conserving the schools. They don't see what the schools have become. They don't see that the schools are not fit for purpose of educating their children. That's the conservative ideal. They're forced to embrace progressive talking points as a way to keep peace

in their academic lives. You have to understand that all education is religious. It's just whose religion is going to be taught. This is something R. L. Davit he made a great essay about right after the Civil War, and he pointed out that you can have education that's vocational or whatever. There's a lot of things that you can learn and if you fundamentally get down to it, reading

and writing and arithmetic, right, those are basically vocational. Those are simply the tools that you use to get an education, the tools of learning. But the education itself cannot be separated from values and worldviews and your religious beliefs. That is the core aspect of it. And of course the people used to understand that in America. They would talk about the pursuit of virtue, right, and how do you

define virtue? It really gets to the point where you can have a grammar school where you learn some of these tools. You learn to read, write, and learn how to do math. But then you get to the point after the grammar stage, you need to get to the point where you're involved in rhetoric and when you're involved in critical thinking. That's when the education begins. And we have completely lost sight of that in our schools.

slogans and start taking control of your own children. How about that. You know you are part of a hive mind. If that's all you want to do is is blow up the leftist's minds and cause leftist tears and all the rest of this stuff, maybe you too might be absorbed in some sort of a high mind. So we need to get serious about this. We need to get intentional about training up children in the way they should go, because when they're old, they will not depart from it.

Do you believe that? I believe that? And so then I see this article. This is on the Federalist. It's time to end discrimination against homeschool graduates. And so even when you look at tech and vocational education, it's not real, they say, unless the authorities, unless the academics and the government people say that it's real. You got to have you know that piece of paper.

honorary degree of THHD THHD that Doctor of thinkology. Some of the square roots of any two sides of when I saw these triangles equal to the square root of the remaining side, oh jog, I got a brain.

called again? To take it in tanum you know. So he doesn't need to speak English that well to teach math. And he was a good math teacher. But I got to kick out of the way he pronounced that anyway. So, yeah, we need to get the government and these colleges to recognize that we know something. Do we really need that? Oh? It's fine. So you got a representative of congressman out of North Carolina as put forward the Homeschool Graduation Recognition Act.

And you know, we never had a formal ceremony who represented you with a piece of paper? Travis, you or Lance that.

the boys. I said, to anybody who's not going to hire you simply because you're home schooled and you don't have some kind of a high school or college degree, I said, you don't want to work for people like that. They're not going to recognize your abilities and your contributions if they're so focused on credentials, So just go find a real employer if you want to work for somebody. Ensure equal treatment for homeschool graduates, we're going to have

the government is going to mandate that. We've got to fix this. So the root of the confusion traces back to the nineteen nineties, when the first major wave of homeschool graduates started looking for opportunities and higher education. What kind of opportunities is that? The opportunities to go into death to and not understand what the Pythagorean theorem is.

That's what they're going to put you in there for. Regrettably, the amendment was placed under a statutory heading designed for individuals quote who are not high school graduates, a relic of the era's skepticism towards homeschooling. And so they want to fix this, and they want to compel people to regard the homeschooling degree the same as a high school degree. I would be insulted to see a homeschool degree the

same as a high school degree. When you look at the functional illiteracy of the vast majority of people coming out of homeschool out of high school, should say I wouldn't want to be lumped with those people. So joined by colleagues across the political spectrum. And here's an example of this, which I think is kind of funny. One of the representatives, Lucy McBeth of Georgia, shared her personal experience as a homeschooling parent. Mary Miller of Illinois had

similar sentiments. Committee Chairman Tim Wahlberg, himself a homeschooling father of three, also spoke in favor. Finally, Representative Bob Hoder of Missouri highlight his family's homeschooling journey while advocating for the measure. So these are older people, they haven't been homeschooled themselves. But again this testifies to the fact that a it's popular and b it doesn't hinder people. So again, like the scarecrow, don't need validation. It's fine if you

want to get validation. I'm not saying that you shouldn't have that. And if you want to make yourself an indentured servant to the banks in order to get that validation that piece of paper, that's the career choice that you need to make. But you might want to think about that and think about whether it makes any economic sense to go to college anymore, and also what they're

going to be putting you into. You know, I did everything I could to discourage and hamper the boys from going to college because I had had situations with Marxist atheist professors who were wise in their own eyes, and although it didn't affect me, it made me angry. Actually it hardened my values. But again I always take the position not to lead them into teptation, so I didn't

want to lead them into a college education. I didn't see any value in it anymore because of the tuition rates and the rest of the stuff that was happening. Your own personal choice, your knowledge may vary, so again they want to get validation from the government. Meanwhile, we got up to twenty five percent of US colleges may close soon, says Brandeis president at a meeting here. And what he's saying to them. His name is Arthur Levine.

He is the president of Brandeis University. He predicted twenty to twenty five percent of US colleges may close soon due to disruptions in higher education. What he's really talking about is the fact that people realize that it's a participation trophy. The grading is not you know, both the entrance qualifications have been set aside by many of these colleges, as well as the actual evaluation of the grades that there don't mean anything anymore, and much of what they

teach you is irrelevant in the real world. And so he said, the grading systems lack any meaning, they don't have clear standards, and so there is an also great inflation and academic a no academic rigor. And again but as long as you pay these people, they will give you that piece of paper e unum pluribus. Right, So they will give you all of that stuff and split the society up rather than unify it. Our whole society is undergoing a transformation, he said, pointing to the shift

from a national industrial economy to a global knowledge based one. Now, stop and think about this, And he does mention that the model of higher education is really kind of a product of the industrial revolution, and it really is. It's like an assembly line. It's like a one size fits all, but it's actually that one size doesn't fit anybody. And

he's not the first one to point that out. He had John Taylor Gatto, who was New York State Teacher of the Year a couple of times, and he was a big advocate for home schooling, and one of the things that he said was, look at how it really is set up like an assembly line. Even the day to day operation of the schools is set up like an assembly line. He said. You get started on something and you're not able to go too far in it before the bell rings and you've got to go do

something completely different. And what John Taylor Gatto did was he would organize field trips for his students and he would go with them, and you know, they would go out into the real world and it was really more like an apprentice type of observation thing. And so he wanted to expose expose them to real world things rather than have them cut off and isolated and grow up in this artificial environment where they are socialized by everybody

that's their own age. He wanted to have a very different system, and he eventually just walked away from it. And so now the president of Brandeis University is saying that as well. You know, if you have a global knowledge based system, when you stop and think about it, all the information that you need to teach yourself to

do anything is all on the internet. You don't need a teacher or a guide, and if you do need a teacher or a guide, you can easily find somebody who is an expert and whatever it is that you want to learn. And so what is the purpose of these institutions? They really have become like an Industrial Revolution artifact if you look at it that way. The problem that we have is that we have so much information.

There's a lot of things out there. As I said before, education is simply about how do I do X. It's also about the wisdom to know whether you should do X or not. And so you need to have some wisdom in terms of consuming this information. There is so much information out there, and that's really going to be on steroids with artificial intelligence, and so you need to have some wisdom and some discernment in how you evaluate that information, how you use that information, and things that

are not simply technical or vocational. A key component of the proposal is a shift towards competency based education that measures student skills and knowledge instead of relying solely on grades. You know, and that's true of potential employees. When somebody is going to look at and say, wow, I don't know, you don't have a piece of paper from a high school or a college or something. I don't think I'm

gonna hire. If they're looking, however, going to give you a try and evaluate your character, your work ethics, and your ability. That's a very different thing. You want to work for somebody like that, You don't want to work for somebody that's just like a let me look at your your CV and then make a decision about that, and you're either there or not. So again, I remember, when you know, forty years or so ago, when I was in the workforce, there were a couple of companies

when they went out and hired programmers. They specifically did not want people who were computer science majors or engineering majors or whatever. They wanted people who were liberal arts majors that had studied classic literature and things like that, people who had been trained to think critically. And they said, well, if this person, you know, has been trained to think about things critically, then we can train them in programming.

And we prefer to be the ones to train them in programming, because we found that a lot of people come in with computer science degrees or engineering degrees, they have been mistrained in terms of the way they approach this. So if we got somebody who has shown that they can learn a subject and they can think critically, let's bring them in and expose them to the technology, and we'll teach them to do the technical side of this

and the way that we wanted. I thought that was always a very interesting approach, and that would be especially true today when you're looking at artificial intelligence. You are trying to communicate with a prompt what you want, and so it's a very different way of interacting with things.

So they said they addressed the concerns about grade inflation, saying grades have lost much of their meaning and they've lost their meaning from the very beginning when they don't care about your SAT scores and the rest of this stuff. And so in many cases, what this has become is nothing other than a participation trophy for indebtedness. Another example

film school. I remember a director saying, yeah, I like film school graduates, but I like them as production assistants because they have shown that they will do whatever you tell them to do, no matter how ridiculous or stupid it is, and they won't question it. But he goes, when I want somebody who is creative, I'll get somebody who has not gone to film school, somebody who has worked in the industry and has shown me what they can do. Also, I thought that was an interesting approach anyway.

Levine also addressed the rise of anti Semitism on college campuses because he's Jewish. Again, this is the woke mind virus of the right. Don't criticize a foreign government because you might hurt the feelings of somebody who identifies with that foreign government. You know, we got a lot of Jewish people who don't identify with Israel, and then we've got a lot of Jewish people who say that they are trands israelis right. They identify with Israel and that's it.

So don't criticize them. You hurt their feelings. And don't criticize the policies of that government because you'll hurt their feelings. And we need to get over that as well. But here's the key thing, and this is the article that

I really wanted to get to. This is actually a zero Hedge article that was taken from an ex post an x article, and it was a chart that was put up based on some research showing over time how women had drifted very leftward, radically leftward, and that men, although they kind of trended up a little bit, they would have periods where they go back down and they have basically averaged out. They basically stayed where they were for a long period of time, whereas women have radically

moved to the left. They said, why is that? Why have young women moved left while young men have basically stayed the same, As all this is happening, And so when they started looking at the question, Bill Ackman retweeted this and this post that showed the measurement there, and his comment was simply, why why has this happened? Well, this person said good question. Most answers that I've seen, or either well, this is tribal, women are emotional, or

at surface level, it's social media. Social media is bad said, But what we've been told radicalization for the last ten years is exactly the opposite of what has happened in reality. We've been told that men are increasingly radicalized to the right and that this is a bad thing when actuality what is really happening is that women have been radicalized to the left and men have stayed basically where they are.

And so they'll tell you that this shows that women are getting enlightenment and they are progressing, But what the graph really shows is that they have been captured. And there's another way that men have been captured as well. In all this, and the article gets into this, is that the pattern is not simply American. However, it's also global.

The Financial Times documented last year that the gender ideology gap is widening across dozens of countries simultaneously the UK, Germany, Australia, Canada, South Korea, Poland, Brazil, Tunisia. Young women are moving left on social issues. Young men are either stable or they are drifting to the right, and South South Korea, not Carolina. South Korea is the extreme case. Young Korean men are now overwhelmingly conservative and young Korean women are overwhelmingly progressive.

The gap there is even wider than in the US. Contributing factors besides mandatory military service for men, eighteen months of your life is taken by the state while women are exempt. There's also brutal economic competition, but the timing of divergence still tracks along with smartphone adoption. Whatever is causing this, it's not simply American. The machinery is global, and so women evolved in an environment where social exclusion carried enormous survival costs. And you know, that's one of

the things. Somebody asked me what my favorite movie is, and I said, well, i'd have to if I was honest about it. I have to say this year has been pride and prejudiced because I watched it so much when I was in the hospital. The contemporary movies were just horrible, and you know, it had very nice cinematography, very nice music,

and it was very RESTful to sat there. I couldn't really think much about anything, and so I just enjoyed the cinematography and the music, and then After a while, I started paying attention to the plot, which is secondary. What I found interesting about it was that, you know,

Jane Austen was kind of an emerging feminist. There's an ongoing theme in the sense that in the society at that time, you know, women had no value if they were not married, and so they're all, you know, doing all these moves about, and parents are trying to get them married off to this person or that person because that's their future, and so all around that, and that was so antithetical to our society where marriage is now despised, especially by women. But I think it began with that.

And although I could see that that was a system that she didn't like and she was pushing back against, it was still refreshing to see a society that was trying to bring people together, trying to produce families, trying to create relationships, and we've abandoned all of that stuff.

in personality research. David Schmidt's work across fifty five different cultures found the same pattern everywhere. Women average higher agreeableness, higher neuroticism, meaning sensitivity to negative stimuli, including social rejection cues. Men average higher tolerance for disagreement and social conflict. The differences aren't huge, but they are consistent across every culture

that was studied. And so when you look at where we are today, everybody is now, however, becoming You know, it was the women were there to kind of pull things together, and there was that adhesive quality that was put there by women who would build the home, build the family, and that type of thing. Oh, everybody has become atomized and isolated. How do we even talk about culture? Right? Culture is a group think, a group thing, not a

group think, but it is a group thing. It is a set of common values, it's a community, it's all these other things like that. You can't have culture if everybody is atomized and doing their own thing. You know. I even think about this in terms of music, you know, because we had in the middle twentieth century, we had these mass media communications. Everybody was listening to the same music, you know, love it or hate it, You heard the

same songs. And now everybody's got their own personal playlist that's there. How does that evolve into a culture. I don't know. It has to be a shared thing in some way or the other. But the point out, so again getting back to what is causing this, what is the mechanism that is here. So the same environment is going to affect men and women differently because they are different. And it's not just physically different. It's not just different skeletons.

It's different approaches to things. And that has always been consistent over time. Well, social media is a consensus engine. You can see what everybody believes in real time. That's what it was designed to do, by the way, by government. They wanted to see what everybody was thinking in real time. They wanted to see if their propaganda was working. I've pointing that out many times. So now your government and corporate masters can see what everybody thinks, and they can

see it in real time. Disagreement is visible, it's measurable, it's punishable at scale. The tribe used to be about one hundred and fifty people, but now it's everyone you ever met, plus a world of strangers who are watching. Look at the timeline. Facebook launched in two thousand and four, but was college only until two thousand and six. The iPhone was launched in June of two thousand and seven,

Instagram in twenty ten. Suddenly social media was in your pocket and it was in your face all day, every day. And this is where we start to see the radical departure rapidly going up, with women globally, not just in the United States, going up being radicalized by this. Women were roughly stable throughout the early two thousands. The acceleration starts about two thousand and seven two thousand and eight. The curve steepens through the twenty tens as smartphones became

ubiquitous and platforms became more sophisticated. Women by nature more liberal. But the radicalization coincides with the rise and smartphone adoptions, and what you can see from the graph as you can see, you know, when they're graphing conservative liberal values, you can see that there there was always a spread between men and women, but you see this radical divergence after the smartphone and social media stuff kicks in. The

machine turned on and the capture began. The mental health collapse with teenage girls tracks almost perfectly with smartphone adoption, with a stronger effect for girls than for boys. The same vulnerability that made social exclusion more costly and ancestral environments made the new consensus engines more capturing. The machine wasn't designed to capture women specifically. It was designed to capture attention, but it captures people more susceptible to consensus

pressure more effectively. Women are more susceptible on average, so it captured them more. And so again we can look at the institutional industrial schools that had already shown this type of thing. You know, we knew this from the very beginning when we school the kids. You know, they were giving lots of young boys riddling all the time because the girls are very happy to sit there and put all their pencils in a row on and they could set in the desk all day and do stuff

like that. But the guys, we're getting very fidgety. They had to get out, they had to do things. There's just a fundamental difference that was there, and so they are always more susceptible to that type of thing. Institutions respond to this.

So the institutional response is to make the environment safer, which means that we have to remove conflict, which means that we have to censor disagreement, which means that the consensus then is strengthened, so the counter arguments get removed or deplatformed. And the loop closes. So universities flipped sixty

percent female while simultaneously becoming a progressive monoculture. The institution young women trust the most during the years their worldview forms feeds them into a single ideology with no serious opposition, and so then for years they are surrounded by peers who all believe the same thing. You have professors who all believed the same thing. Their reading lists are pointing to the same thing. Disagreement is not even rare, It

is socially punished. You learn to pattern match the acceptable opinions and to perform them. Then they graduate into fields that are typically going to be female dominated, things like human resources or media, or education or health care nonprofits, where the monoculture continues. So from eighteen to thirty five, many women never encounter sustained disagreement from people that they respect.

The feedback loop never breaks, and so this explains one of the reasons why when they encounter when they encounter a disagreement, the response is just outrage. You know, I can't believe that anybody would ever think that. I mean, you know, nobody that I've ever known thinks anything other than what we all think together, Right, Men, took different paths. They got into the trades and engineering, into financed military fields where results matter more than consensus, fields where disagreement

is tolerated, even rewarded. The monoculture didn't capture them because they weren't in the institutions being captured, mostly because they were kicked out of those institutions. But that's a different story, says this person. Then you had the collapse of marriage, you know, the thing that would have astounded Actually even Jane Austen, I think, and this probably matters more than

most people think. Single women interact with government more as a provider of services, but married women interact with government more as a taker of taxes. So one group is going to see them as a provider, the other is going to see them as a taker. The marriage gap and voting is one of the most consistent predictors marriage rates have collapsed. Precisely during this period of divergence. Men saw marriage collapse from a different standpoint. They saw family courts,

child support, alimony. The rational response was skepticism of expanding government power. But the algorithms operate for so even though it's the same phenomenon, you had different perspectives on this. The algorithms, meanwhile, are optimizing for engagement. Engagement means emotional response. Engagement means spending time on the platform, clicking, sharing, commenting.

Women respond more strongly to emotional content on average, They're more empathetic, they can be more easily manipulated with sad stories that higher neuroticism, again, the higher sensitivity to negative stimuli. The machine learned this, and so it fed them content that was calibrated to the response patterns. Fear, outrage, moral panic, stories about danger and injustice and threat and wars and victims. Men got different feeds because they responded to different triggers.

The algorithm doesn't really have a gender agenda. That has an engagement agenda, but the engagement looks different by demographic, so the feeds diverged. We've seen this type of thing we talk about AI psychosis. Yeah, people like the story

I had the other day. A guy who was just retired and he had had a very stable family life, raised his three or four kids, and then they retire, and he's been the tech field, and you would think that he would even have some skepticism about software that's there, but he got captured by this AI. How did he get captured by it, Well, it gradually began to feed some you know, it would notice that he was on some tangent or something, and it would reinforce that in

order to keep him engaged. And that's a key part of these chat programs. Look, they can assess where you are and they give feedback to them. So that creates a psychosis, even in many people who didn't have anything that could be discerned by anyone, it was so small if it was even there, but it reinforces and it magnifies that, and it did that in the case of many adults and a lot of children. That's a real danger with it. So anyway, women ended up in information

environments optimized for emotional activation. Men found alternatives like podcasts, forums, cars, wars, the manosphere, etc. Feminism told women their instincts and biology were oppressive and wrong. Wanting children was brainwashing, Wanting a provider husband was internalized misogyny. Their natural desires were false consciousness installed by a patriarchy, and many of them believed it. They built their lives around it. Career first, independence, freedom

from traditional constraints. But now they're thirty five, unmarried, measuring declining, fertility against career achievements. And this is the trap. The sunk cost of admitting the ideology failed is enormous. This is the same type of thing we see with Maga. Right. They poured so much energy and things like that end of this that even the people that I talked to that got caught up in this January the thing paid a tremendous penalty. They could move away from Trump. The

sunk costs were just too much. They didn't want to admit to themselves that they had followed a lie and a liar. They didn't want to move away from it, so they doubled down. Same thing is true with this, he said, You'd have to admit that you had wasted your fertile years on a lie. You'd have to admit that the women who ignored the ideology and married young were right. You'd have to admit that your mother was right.

I think you can see why there's so little defection, not because the ideology is true, but because the psychological cost of living is higher than the psychological cost of saying of staying. It's easier to double down, it's easier to believe. The problem is that society hasn't changed enough. Yet this is the same thing we see with the

left and the right cults, especially with MAGA. You know, they look at all of these different issues that are out there, and it's just that you know, Trump is right, It's going to eventually work out that way. And I didn't follow the pied piper down to prison. Many of them were.

the issue is that you've got different failure modes. He said. Men were not immune to capture, they were just captured differently. Women got ideological conformity and men got withdrawal. They moved into things like porn or video games, or gambling apps or outrage content. The male capture wasn't believe this or face social death. It was here's an endless supply of dopamine, said, you never have to build anything, And so different machines,

different failure modes. Women got compliance, men got passivity. The male line on that graph saying flat through twenty twenty isn't necessarily healthy. It might just be a different kind of sickness, men checking out instead of being pulled in. Or it might be that everyone and everything moved more left. It's just that women moved left. The mail line is not flat anymore either. The data from twenty twenty four shows that young men are now shifting to the right.

Young men are now actively moving more conservatively as a reaction to all of this. Women got captured first. The capture was fast between twenty seven and twenty twenty, men resisted longer and they were captured in a different way. But as the gap became visible and culturally salient as men are the problem, they are now pushing back on this, and so we haven't really gotten finished with it. I

hate to snop in the middle of this. The bottom line is that now the passivity is turning into active opposition, people like Andrew Tate, Nick Fointage. That's what this little episode they did with Kyle Hitler was really all about. Now these guys are doing it because they want money, but they know how to push these levers just as if they ai And here's the bottom line. I'm going

to jump to the bottom of this. The reality is is that all of these factors that are pulling these things together, all these things that are atomizing us and putting us at war with each other, whether it's left, right, male, female, all these different things, it's only going to be exacerbated by artificial intelligence, because artificial intelligence is again going to be optimized to engage and to monopolize your time. And so this is what we're looking at in the future.

How do we pull out of this. We have to see something that is different than this, something that is transcendent. We have to see the long term timeline. We have to see I think, the value of age, old cultures and traditions, and we have to embrace that. Most importantly, we have to embrace what is above culture, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. When we abandon that, we're vulnerable. We're vulnerable to all these different things, and there'll be

all kinds of deceptions and manipulations that will be coming. Well, that's all the time we got for we today. Sorry about that, and I wanted to get much further ahead. A lot of other things I want to say, but we'll cut it at this point. Thank you for joining us. Have a good day. The common man. They created common Core and dumbed down our children. They created common past, track and control us. They're Commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future. They see

the common man as simple, unsophisticated ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find at Thedavidnightshow dot com. Thank you

for listening, Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. Ddavidnightshow dot com