Mon 10June24 The David Knight Show UNABRIDGED

Earlier today, Attorney General Dana Nestle was joined by officials from the Department of Justice and the FBI to announce state and federal charges against 13 members of two militia groups who were preparing to kidnap and possibly kill me. We’re grateful to the FBI and law enforcement to discover these domestic terrorists and stop them. You know, it’s the sort of behavior you might expect from ISIS. You might see a number that high in a sprawling narcotics conspiracy that stretches from coast to coast and beyond. That’s a pretty high number in a case like this. It really reflects, I think, how deeply the government has been diving into this investigation to try to make these cases.

It was just literally a bunch of working class guys who, on the weekend, got together and, you know, exercise their rights and trained with firearms. So the FBI says, hey, we’ll just pay for everything. Who arranged the meeting? The FBI’s paid provocateur, Robeson, was getting paid to set this stuff up. So they make the route, they set the locations, they make the plan, they do everything. And Adam’s literally just sitting in the basement of vacuum repair shops smoking blunts all day. You’re gonna hear that my client was the leader of this group, but I think you’re also gonna hear that there was an election held to identify the leader, and it was, Dan, how can I frame this social situation to make this naive person appear to be a dangerous, violent terrorist? The whole goal was for the FBI to spend millions of dollars to create militia groups, record them saying offensive stuff, and then frame them in a fake conspiracy.

And as you can see, knkfilm.com is where you can find that trailer and where you’ll eventually be able to find this documentary that our guest Christina is working on. Thank you for joining us, Christina. Thank you for having me. I appreciate it. Well, it’s good to have you on. We talked a couple of months ago, and I was surprised to see that our interview is not playing on rumble. I don’t know what’s happening with that, but that could be a technical issue. I don’t know, but we do have it on other platforms. But I wanted to get an update as to what happened with bank of America and your debanking.

Let’s talk about. There’s been some changes in some of these cases that are there because they’re still ongoing. And so we’ve had some people that have been acquitted, but some others are in jail, and there’s other cases that are being appealed. And so we’ll do an up on that, and then we’ll get an update on your documentary. But let’s talk first about the debanking at bank of America. Tell us what the current status is of that. Well, it’s just a mess. I don’t even know what the current status of it is because I keep getting conflicting information from them.

But what happened was, like, five days ago, I noticed my bank card stopped working. So, like, nobody called me. The bank did not reach out to me. Nobody told me they were going to be terminating the account. They just did it. And so I noticed my bank card wasn’t working. So then I tried to log into my online banking, and I could not log in through mobile banking. It said my username didn’t exist. And then it was, like, prompting me to create a new one, but that wasn’t working either. And I’m like, what is going on? So I’m thinking there’s a technical glitch or something.

So I actually went into my physical branch location to ask them what was going on to see if they could figure it out. And the girl at the front desk told me that the risk department had decided to sever the business relationship and she didn’t know why. And of course, like, the, I don’t blame the bank employees. Like, I don’t think that woman in that location knew anything about this. These decisions are obviously being made by higher ups at the bank. So she puts me in this cubicle and says, here’s a phone, and puts me on the phone with the risk department.

And I’m trying to get get some kind of answers because I’ve had this account for almost ten years. I’ve never had any issues with the account with bank of America before. So I’m trying to ask them, like, well, why was this decision made? How come nobody called me? What’s the problem? They wouldn’t tell me. They were saying these canned responses that are like, bank of America’s terms of service say that we reserve the right to sever the business relationship at any time without reason or notice. So they just say, you agreed to the terms of service, and so they don’t have to give you a reason.

And I said, okay, well, can you tell me what the current balance of my account is? Because I had deposited checks. That’s the other thing. I was physically in the bank a few days ago to make deposits and nobody said anything to me then. So I’m waiting for checks to clear, and I go, well, can you tell me the balance? They would not tell me the balance of my account. I can’t log in to see it I can’t see my transaction history. And so there’s like, no answers. And they made it clear that they weren’t going to give me any.

So I go, okay, I leave the bank. I go home. I call again. I try to get somebody else from the risk department that maybe can give me more answers on the phone. And I’m on the phone with them for five minutes. They are refusing to tell me any more information other than they’re terminating the account. And I said, can you transfer me to a media liaison? You know, transfer me to your media department? I myself am a journalist, so I’d like to get a quote from your media department about your corporate policies. And if this is part of them, they told me they couldn’t transfer me to a media department or a media rep, which I think is a little bit ridiculous.

So they were, they made clear, too, in that phone call that they were not going to restore the account and that they weren’t going to give me any information. So I had the presence of mind to record when I was in the branch location talking to the woman there. So I put a thread up on Twitter just telling people, people, warning people, if you are in bank of America, get your money out of the banks. It’s not safe with these banks because this is what can happen to you. And I posted the video. I had no idea it was going to go, like, viral the way that it did.

And everybody was tagging bank of America online. And that must have stirred something up with bank of America, because the day before yesterday, they started blowing up my phone in the evening and telling me that executives were investigating and other parties were investigating. And I said, well, is law enforcement investigating? And they said, no. And then they told me that the account had been restored, but it’s not restored. As far as I can tell, I still have no access to online. I can’t log into online banking. And it says my account is locked. I don’t believe they restored the account.

I think they told me that because I think they wanted the pressure to go away for them. But as far as I’m concerned, as far as I know right now, I still can’t see my account. I still can’t see my transaction history. I can’t see the current amount I have in there, and I cannot access my funds. Now. They also told me when I was in the physical branch location and I was on the phone with the risk department and asking them, well, can you tell me my account balance? They’re saying no. And then I said, okay, well, if you’re going to make this decision to terminate my account without notice, can I withdraw the funds I have in there now and then just go to a different bank? They said no, they were going to hold the funds hostage and that I would receive a, quote, check in the mail, but they would not give me a timeframe of when I could expect this.

And for people who are, you know, small businesses, independent journalists, filmmakers, every bit matters and counts. Like, I have a shoot coming up in less than two weeks where I have an additional crew member. I have to pay. Like, I am counting on my funds to come through. So having something like that happen, not just to me, but to anybody, it causes a lot of disruptions. Another interesting thing about this is that they chose to do it right after I publicly announced that I was going to be making another trip, because a lot of people have supported the film.

The whole film has been done through crowdfunding. So I let people know. I give them updates on the progress and status of what I’m doing. So I told people I was going to be doing this, and they also did it the day before. A bunch of my auto pays go through. So I’m getting emails about payments being declined, which is still happening, by the way. They claim that they restored the account. I’m still having payments being declined. So again, this is not true. Nothing they’re telling me makes any sense or is adding up at all. And so this is where we stand today.

So I just, this maybe will be your next documentary, because this is something that’s happening a lot. As I talked about it yesterday, you know, Nigel Farage, he had that same type of situation, and they denied that they had debanked him and everything, but more investigations, they eventually got ahold of some internal emails, and it turned out that the CEO of a bank that was partially owned by the government itself had said, we’re going to shut this down. And so we’re seeing this happening everywhere. You know, with Nigel Farage, we’ve seen John Eastman also got his account at bank of America shut down.

He was a lawyer for Trump, and then, and he had a second account at USAA, which is for, people in the military can open up an account there if they’ve been in the military, and they both shut down his account. We’re seeing this debanking being used for political purposes. Increasingly. I myself have had a problem with it. I talked about it yesterday after had the show for five months. Paypal shut it down. I spent 2 hours on the phone. I wish I had recorded it. But the guy kept digging, and digging is very helpful, but he said, the only thing I can find is I got one message, delete this account immediately.

And they shut down Paypal and Venmo immediately. And like you, I had, a lot of people were trying to send me payments, and they were being declined. It’s like, what’s going on? Where’d you go? That type of thing. Yeah, yeah. And this is. I mean, this is incredibly disruptive. It starts with people like Doctor John Eastman, like you said, trump’s law, who arguably is somebody who’s way more important than me, small time filmmaker that most people don’t know of and haven’t heard of. So if they can do this to me, it’s just a matter of time before they start doing it to regular people.

And that is incredibly concerning because I happen to be very lucky. I am a small independent filmmaker, but I happen to be well respected, and I have a lot of peers who know about me and support my work across the board. So I was lucky that I had enough people. It could amplify this. On social media, if you don’t have the privilege of having a semi public platform and you’re just a regular person, and they decide to do this to you for your politics, you don’t have recourse. You don’t have the ability to cause a social media storm to get executives to call you and tell you they’re investigating what happened.

That for normal people, no. They would be in a position where they couldn’t access their money, they couldn’t see their account balance, couldn’t access their transaction history, and would be told to wait for a, quote, check in the mail. At a time where inflation is through the roof, most Americans live paycheck to paycheck and are one medical emergency away from homelessness. They want you to wait for your own money, and they’re not going to give you a timeframe of when you can receive this check in the mail. Then there’s also the issue of while you’re dealing with being debanked and trying to go to another institution, while this other one is still holding your funds and payments are being declined, this also adversely affects your credit score in the meantime, as payments get declined, as you’re trying to move to a new institution, and maybe you don’t have the funds to open up an account because you’re waiting for your check in the mail.

So what do you do during that time? Do you wait however long it takes for them to send you your money and in the meantime, your bills are just not being paid, or you have to pay them with credit cards and run up credit card debt. This is not acceptable in America. Banking has gotten to the point, like social media, where it is ubiquitous, and it’s essentially like a utility now. Okay? You can’t get through your daily life without having a bank account being able to conduct transactions. And so they cannot get away with doing this, and we can’t allow it.

Also, an interesting thing, 15 attorney generals have written a letter to bank of America demanding explanations for what they’re doing with debanking conservatives and dissidents. My attorney general for my state of Virginia, Jason Mayorkas, is one of the attorney generals who signed on to that hoping. And I’m trying to reach out to his office because I think that if somebody does some digging in bank of America’s internal communications, they’re going to find something where my account specifically was flagged. And I believe it’s because of the work I’m, I’m doing on this documentary. And I think that’s what it was.

Oh, absolutely. And we’ve seen this before. As I pointed out yesterday, bank of America, in terms, in terms of turning over all kinds of information about all their customers who are doing transactions in and around Washington on January 6, they had colluded with the FBI. The FBI can ask them for anything they want, and they take the position, just like they do with phone companies. That’s their data. And if they want to voluntarily turn it over, the FBI doesn’t need to have a search warrant. And so bank of America worked with them. And the reason they’re doing this is because bank of America, like all of these two big, big to fail banks, are highly connected to the federal government.

And of course, they were creatures of the federal government. Bank of America kicked off all these mergers that created a handful of banks that were too big to fail. Ten years later, at the same time that Clinton took out, we bailed them out. And then they want to debank us? I don’t think so. Yeah, but that’s the political collusion that they have there. They approved that merger in spite of the fact they knew they were going to wind up with about a half dozen banks that were too big to fail. They approved that, and then they removed the restrictions on getting involved in speculative investment.

That’s why these banks could then go in and buy up like bank of America did, Merrill lynch, and things like that. They removed the Glass Steagall act. They allowed these big bank mergers. And here’s where it’s all going to go, Christina. This is, when we look at this and the politicization of this and how rapidly this is all seized, this is a preview of what’s in it for everybody with CBDC. This is the way they’re going to do with it once they get CBDC. Oh, well, you wrote this post on social media and they noticed it.

All of a sudden now everything is locked. You’re locked out of everything. And that’s what they can do. Once they get to a completely digitized central bank digital currency, they can shut everybody down just like they’ve done. You. You just outlined some of the immediate things that you’re going to be facing. But you know, that check presumably is in the mail, but in the meantime, it’s a tremendous hassle for you. Presumably they’ll send it, but if we got CBDC, they just shut you down and leave it that way and there’s nothing you’re going to do about it.

This is why people need to rise up against CBDC. We need to rise up against what is happening with these big banks like bank of America. But this is where it’s ultimately going and it’s going there for everybody. The social credit system like we see in China and the debanking. Absolutely. That’s, I think what’s even more concerning is how quickly I think that we are moving into that new financial system. I think also, and this may, this is just my speculation, so I’ll just say that as a caveat. I believe they’re purposely going to crash the economy.

I think they’re doing it now on purpose. They’re allowing the regional bank crisis to get worse. I think they want that because when the regional banks fail, they’ll once again come in to consolidate power and to say, because this happened now we need a new system. We need the CBDC, we need a great reset. A new reset, right. We’re going to reset the financial system. That’s what it’s going to be. And that to me is terrifying because that means in the future they can, like you said, shut you down overnight and you will not have any recourse.

Another weird thing they were asking me, too, when I was on the phone with them is they were asking me about like, checks I had been depositing and they’re asking me about my transactions, things that isn’t, frankly, isn’t their business. They’re like, you know, I obviously receive donations from people, so people send donations from all over the world. I don’t know who’s sending them, but they were asking me, do you know who sent this check? Were you expecting this? Do you know what this was for? And things like this. And I’m going, what does it matter? Whose business is this of yours? And they were saying, well, there could be fraud, not on your part, but on other parts.

And it’s like, well, isn’t it your job then to investigate that and do the due diligence? You’re the financial institution, not me. No. And it was just really weird. And it seems to me like they’re looking for an explanation and an excuse for what they did to try to say they didn’t debank me, to try to lie about what happened and say, oh, no, there could have been fraud and it just flagged our system and was a mistake. It was not a mistake. When I went into the bank, nobody said anything to me about potential fraud or a red flag on the account.

No, they just said the risk department decided to terminate the business relationship. But now the story has changed since they got all this flack on social media and conveniently also today, or it was yesterday, their response is due to those 15 attorney generals. They’re supposed to reply to the letter about specifically what they are doing debanking conservatives and dissidents and the attorney general. We’re asking them to change their terms of service to explicitly State bank of America does not discriminate against people for religious or political reasons. I doubt they’re going to make that change to the terms of service.

So we’ll see what happens. But interesting timing. Yeah, they have friends in high places that’ll make sure they don’t get punished for that. I mean, they have been selected as partners and all of this stuff. And when we look at all of this cancel culture directed at people for what they say on social media, you know, they can kick you off of social media and life goes on. And it goes on. Even if you got a media company or something like that, it goes on without even being on social media. But when they weaponize the financial system against us, as they have made all indications they intend to do in a chinese style system, that’s where it’s going to be untenable for people and that’s where the screws really come in.

And so that’s what we really have to be concerned about. Out. And again, you’re at the very front of this. Let’s give, give us an update as to what’s going on with these particular cases, because there has been some changes in the cases of Barry Croft, Adam Fox, who were convicted back in August of 2022. Yeah. So we do have what I will say, I at least think it’s good news. So we just had oral arguments on Adam and Barry’s appeals at the 6th Circuit in front of a three judge panel that the oral arguments, I believe, went well.

The defense got ten minutes each, the government got 20 minutes. And it was really interesting listening to the judges on the 6th Circuit. Ask Nils Kessler, the prosecutor on the case, about why the government was basically preventing all of this exculpatory information from the defense to be included. And one of it gets into the statements made by the informants that were incriminating for them. The government was able to keep a number of informants completely off the stand. One of them was their main pefel informant, Steve Robeson. He was a key architect of the plot, maybe even the main architect, along with the other main informant, Dan Chappell, also known as Big Dan.

And so they, by preventing him from testifying, he was able to plead the fifth. And the defense had requested that the judge compel him to testify. The judge did not. So the government argued that anything that informants said on audio would be hearsay and that the jury wouldn’t get to hear it. Well, all of the audio that we have, and the defense did, by the way, they filed a motion. It was called out of court statements that they wanted to bring in. It was essentially all the things that were exculpatory in nature. For the defense. There’s a whole list of individual statements, text messages.

They wanted to get in in front of the jury. And the judge denied that motion with this bogus blanket hearsay ruling across the board. And he stuck to that at the retrial of Adam and Barry, because, remember, the first trial ended in zero convictions, two acquittals, and a mistrial on Adam and Barry. So they retry them. And then there were a number of other issues with the retrial as well that were also talked about at oral arguments argument, one being an issue with potential juror misconduct. There was a juror on the jury in the retrial of Adam and Barry who allegedly, according to three different witnesses at his work, when he received the jury summons, he said, oh, I hope I get on the Whitmer case.

I’m going to hang those guys. Those were his exact words. And this was according to three different people. Mid trial, the defense lawyers brought this to Judge Anker’s attention. They had their private investigator find other corroborating witnesses. The judge did not hold a proper. What is called a remmer hearing where the defense could interrogate the juror and ask him, did you say this? What the judge did, and this is highly unusual, is he brings the juror and the government in closed chambers without defense lawyers being there, and he says, I don’t have any video of you saying this, and you’re not under oath, but there are allegations.

You said this. Did you say it? And the juror does not deny saying it. He does not explicitly deny it. He goes, I don’t remember. I don’t think I did. Well, the judge goes, oh, okay. And then just allows him to continue on. Now, when it comes to things like impropriety in these trials, especially one that is high stakes like this, there’s not even supposed to be the appearance of impropriety. So even the appearance of misconduct by a juror should have gotten that juror removed in an alternate it put in his place. It’s also interesting that that juror went on to be the foreman of the jury.

Isn’t that nice? Yeah. Also other things that happened, like one of the guys that took a plea deal, Caleb Franks, at the retrial of Adam and Barry, the government limited their cross examination by the defense to 25 minutes, but the prosecutors had an unlimited time with Caleb Frank so they could spend 50 minutes with their direct. And then. And when it went to the defense to cross examine him, they got 25 minutes. And when it got down to the last few minutes, Judge Anker starts doing a physical countdown. You have two minutes left. Are you really going to waste your time with this crap line of questioning? And he starts disparaging them, and he’s only doing this to the defense, not the government.

So it’s very clear. And he’s doing this in front of the jury. It’s clear to the jury who the judge favors, what side the judge favors. So this is completely inappropriate. This is not a fair trial. It is a kangaroo court. Those were the issues brought up on oral argument, and the main one, though, being the hearsay stuff, because the judges on the 6th Circuit, the three judge panel, asked the appeals lawyers for Adam and Barry. Well, what would you like us to do? You know, they said, we’d like a new trial where we can actually admit evidence and call witnesses, you know, like what you’re supposed to have.

So they go, okay, that’s. I think that’s where we’re going. The government now has two weeks to respond. Their argument, which was interesting at oral arguments about the hearsay thing, the prosecutor, Nils Kessler, tried to say, well, they don’t have any specific statements that they want in. And I’m like, what are you talking about? I’ve got the binder here. They filed an entire thing filled with all of these. These are all statements that they wanted to get in. These are all things Steve Robeson said where he’s directing a man named Frank Butler from Virginia to start a quick reaction force.

He’s trying to get him to kidnap and kill Ralph Northam. That’s why we have the text message from the handling agent, Jason Chambers, saying, mission is to kill the governor specifically. That was about Ralph Northam and a separate thing they were doing while they were doing the Whitmer hoax because they really wanted it to be a multistate plot. And you’ll hear more about that in the documentary there. That’s amazing. I’ve seen this type of thing as well. And all the cases that I’ve looked at in detail. You go back and look at the Bundy ranch, for example, the amount of exculpatory evidence that they ruled out.

And they did that and got some convictions early on. But before the conclusion, in terms of coming after Ammon Bundy and some of the others, they had a whistleblower from the Bureau of Land Management. And it’s because of that whistleblower coming forward that they didn’t get convictions on everything because they ruled out and excluded all kinds of exculpatory evidence. I saw the same thing with Ross Ulbricht and the Silk Road trial. He’s serving three consecutive life sentences. He’ll never get parole. And the reason is, is that after they convicted him, the prosecutor, and when they were doing the sentencing, they said, well, you know, he put out this murder for hire thing, and he was never even indicted, let alone found guilty of that.

That was just something that was thrown out to the media. And they kept the fact that there were FBI agents who were running Silk Road and had, and were currently, as his trial was going on, these two FBI agents were on trial themselves for embezzling money out of Silk Road. Anything that they applied to him could have been applied to the, could have been the FBI agents that were doing it. And they kept that away from the jury, that these guys had all the keys to the website and were embezzling money and were on trial themselves for that type of thing.

And so it is amazing how the justice system is rigged. And when you look at any of this, this, any of these trials, it’s just amazing how they, they exclude all this evidence that would clearly show that somebody is innocent. Yeah. And I like to remind people we have a legal system, not a justice system. That’s right. It’s a legal system which is designed, of course, to bring in money and, you know, to punish people that the government doesn’t like. And the entire thing is, like, most of these judges are former prosecutors. Like, the government has every advantage, even though they have almost unlimited resources.

And the people they’re up against are borderline indigent for the most part. Like, for the, you know, in the Whitmer case, certainly, where those guys were reliant on public defenders, and I believe that they didn’t think it was going to go to trial. I think they believed they were going to arrest these guys and do this shock and awe thing of like, you’re facing life in prison. We’ve got a 99% conviction rate, blah, blah, blah. You know, they do these scare tactics. And a lot of times, public defenders will work with the prosecutors in this way because they have a big caseload.

They encourage, often their clients, to take plea deals for something they didn’t do. That’s right. They’ll say, well, you know, this is what you’re up against, and they scare you, and they make you think that you cannot win going up against this machine. And that’s what it is. It is a well oiled machine in place. The legal system is basically a racket, and it’s a scam up and down. It’s all about making money. And I say this as somebody who worked as a paralegal for many years and saw it from the inside. You know, I went to criminal, I was in the criminal justice program in high school, and I had this silly idea about, like, just the justice system, and that’s not how it is at all.

Once you really experience it, you go, oh, this is like a Ponzi scheme, basically. You know, they have these court appointed guardians ad light them. They do. They have all these things with them. They’re just there to make money and not to help people, but destroy them. And as you point out, most people won’t go to trial. It’s. I don’t know what this is something 93% or whatever, just. Just plea out and take a deal because the thing is so rigged and because we don’t have independently thinking juries, you know, we don’t have jury nullification as talked, you know, the judges tell them, no, you can’t do that.

Sometimes specifically, they find out that you’re doing jury nullification, they will remove you. They may not remove you. They may leave you and as the foreman, if you said, I’m out to get this guy, but if you say something about jury nullification, they’re going to immediately remove you. So it is very rigged. And they do come up with all of these. It’s like shock and awe, overwhelming people, people with all these extra charges and everything. You have to firmly believe in your innocence and in order to push back against the system and actually take it to trial.

I think. Yeah, I agree. And I think that they assumed these guys were going to just take the plea deals and that this wouldn’t go to trial and none of this information would come out. I think that’s what they were expecting. I don’t think they ever thought anyone was going to hear about Steve Roebuck, you know? Well, give us an update as to what’s going on with the documentary. And I’m sure that it’s taking a hit now because of all this stuff. And I’m sure that’s the intention. Yeah, we are, you know, as I had said, we’re preparing to do another shoot.

This one is pretty important. So I’ll be traveling back to Michigan. It is just overwhelming on just to try to do it as such a small crew. We’re very small crew, so we’re just a few people and, and it’s very difficult. But where we stand right now is we’ve got one more shoot. I’m going to be spending a week in Michigan, going up and down the state. I have access for a limited time to certain very important areas of interest from the case that are basically essential to the documentary. So this is probably my most important trip.

And then there’s one more I have to make, and then we should be able to get back into post production. But every time I say that, there’s always something that ends up happening, because the. It’s such a complex story, right. This is four years, four different trials, 14 defendants, 20 unindicted co conspirators, everybody’s family and friends. So it’s a lot to, to put together. There’s a lot. I think people have a misunderstanding of how much work goes into doing something like this, how expensive it is to make a documentary. They, believe it or not, they don’t actually just get made by themselves overnight.

It takes a lot of work, a lot of resources, a lot of financing, and we have been very lucky and very blessed to have been able to essentially crowdfund this so far. My family has also helped out and they’re very supportive and I’m very, very lucky to have them because they know that this is something that is important to me, that I’m passionate about. So I will not put the film out until it is complete. And I am going to be going through things in detail in the documentary because nobody else is going to do it.

Somebody had to preserve the historical record. So I have a lot, a lot right now that we’re sitting on. So hopefully, yes. What they’ve done now with the debanking right before I have to travel is causing a lot of problems for me because it’s, you know, I have enough trying to plan a shoot, which is difficult enough with a small crew. Like, our time and resources are so tight that I have to schedule things to like the hour for what I’m going to do each day because of my limited time. So I already was trying to do that.

Now it adds more things that I have to deal with first. And then, of course, some of my money is now tied up, and I don’t know when I’m going to get it. Luckily, though, they did not get the bank account for the documentary itself. And I think the reason for that is because I did not use any big bank I knew going into it. When I created the fundraiser for the documentary, I created a separate account just for that. I had a feeling that they might try. So I went with, like, a bank that is not a big bank that a lot of people haven’t even heard of.

And I think that’s the only reason why that one has survived so far. So if you have donated to the documentary with the give, send, go fundraiser, you have nothing to worry about. Those funds will. They’re fine. They have not gotten any of that. That’s good. That’s good. And that’s one of the key things. We need to. Need to think about that. We need to look towards local banks, smaller banks, banks where you’re going to know the people and not the banks that are so tightly tied into the federal government and the FBI and other things like that.

Like bank of America, I think it’s very right. Bank of America, who has collaborated with the FBI, as you said, with January 6, this is one of the things the 15 attorney general said in their letter to bank of America. In the first three paragraphs, they said they collaborate with the FBI, change their name to the bank of the FBI. Yeah, right. It’s like banking with J. Edgar Hoover, you know? Yeah. I feel like they just wanted to cause inconveniences for me and to try to do this right before I had to leave for a shoot to make it more difficult for me to slow down my progress, to throw things in my way.

That’s happened from the beginning, by the way. Like, I came into this to filming this very objective about the situation and about the guys, and I just wanted to know the truth. And as I started doing it, things kept happening that just was reinforcing what I was seeing in the discovery of, like, how vindictive the government can be and what they will do to people who they just don’t like. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Like, I have had, and I think I talked about this before when I was interviewing Adam and Barry. I interviewed Barry right before his sentencing the night before.

I said, is there any statement you want to get out? I have a small platform, but I’ll put it out for you. He said, yes. I put it out like a five minute video, maybe at 09:00 at night. The next morning, the prosecutor, Nils Kessler, is quoting from it at Barry sentencing to call him unrepentant and completely radicalized for not taking responsibility for the FBI’s plot and maintaining his innocence. But then he also said that he was a spiritual leader. He was like the blind Sheik and all this other nonsense. He gave Barry 19 and a half years.

So Barry ended up getting more time than Adam Fox, who the government initially said was the ringleader and focused on Adam. Adam got 16 years, though. Barry got 19 and a half. And I think that’s because at that time of sentencing, Barry was participating in the documentary more than any of the other guys, including more than Adam. And I think it was punishment to him specifically. So that night after their sentencing, I’m interviewing him again. I said, do you guys want to get statements out to the weaponization committee? I will record them. I’ll get them out.

The guys wrote their statements. I record Barry reading his as a four minute long statement I published the next day. The next morning, both Adam and Barry are moved out of new Ego county and sent to different supermax prisons across the country. Adam sent to Florence supermax, Barry sent to Terre Haute, where they then tell him when he gets there that he’s going to be moved into the communications management unit, the CMU, which would have prevented his ability to basically even communicate with me through letters. So at that point, once they did that, oh, and my house was raided twice.

At the same time, these guys were moved to supermaxes. So all of these things were happening that are sort of like, plausible deniability for the government that, oh, maybe it’s just coincidental timing that this is happening, but it’s just one thing after another. And these really seem like with the debanking now, also with the Bureau of prisons labeling me a security risk for no reason, I have no criminal record. I’m somebody who was in the criminal justice system, worked in law for many years, volunteered with the orthodox prison ministries before I even started this documentary. So I should have no issues with the BOP.

They’d approve me for visitation with one of the guys. Then I called before I came for the visit. I get there physically, they say now I’m not approved anymore. And they wouldn’t tell me why. They wouldn’t let me visit one with them. The poor kid, you know, he had just gotten his hair cut. He was ready to get his picture taken with me and he was sitting there waiting. And I can’t call him to tell him they’re not letting me in. Well, I find out later that they tell me that the Bop is denied my visits now because I’m a, quote, security risk.

They wouldn’t sign off on it, though. Nobody from Bop would sign a name to that and nobody would tell me who made that determination when it was made and on what criteria that was made. So we have a FOIA request in right now with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. I attended a Bop oversight hearing. I met the director of the BoP, Colette Peters. She told me she was going to facilitate a visit. And then this is what happened. This was the result of that, right? She put me in touch with her media person who was supposed to facilitate this visit.

And I get this email with just from a generic bop dot gov dot, you know, email with nobody’s name on it saying, you have been, you know, you’re. They had approved me first and then they said they rescinded the approval and I’m a, quote, security risk. Wow. Well, yeah. Nobody will tell me why. That’s what exactly looks like the no fly list. We look at all these different things that they have come up with in just the last few years, last 20 years or so. Things like the no fly list, things like the communication management unit that you mentioned.

I’ve talked many times to Marty Goff who was put in there. His big crime was he came after a harvard affiliated children’s hospital up in Boston because there was a medical kidnapping case there. He embarrassed them. They got him sent to prison and they got him sent to a communications management unit because he was connected to a lot of different people. So we look at these types of things. These are structures that have absolutely no place in a republic that has a bill of rights like we do and a constitution like we do. They belong in a dystopian totalitarian society, which is what we have become.

Folks, if you start to peel this back, all of these different structures are being, have been set up. They’ve already been applied to a lot of people. The question is, when are they going to broaden this out to everybody? Because that is what’s going to happen. And it makes it very concerned about things like CBDC and these other things, digital id and stuff like that, because we see the totalitarian heart of our government, that it despises the principles that America was founded on. It truly is amazing. If people want to find, keep up with you and find it, they can go to KNK.

Is it film singular or film plural.com? dot kn kfilm.com. good. Okay. And there they can find how they can donate and support. You got links to all of that stuff there. They can see the trailer that we played at the beginning this. And I would imagine, you know, as you move forward, I mean, these, these trials are still in appeal. They could continue in appeal. I guess you’re going to have to just kind of, you know, put, put something there together, and then you could always do an update as some of these things are resolved. And I would imagine that after the, the core of the story is told, that there would be an opportunity to go, for people to go back and dig deeper.

You know, that’s what we’re thinking. Yeah, we’re thinking of. We’re focused right now on getting the first part out. Part one, I think, is going to be the main focus. And then after that, maybe a part two and three, because this is going to be, there’s just no way you can get all of this information into one film. You have to do it that way. So we’re focused now, but we can’t even get part one done without doing this last shot. We were in post production, we were working on editing, and we’re like, you know what? We just can’t.

Without access to certain locations, which I was able to secure. This is the other reason why I think they really don’t want me doing this last trip, because I’m not going to say what it is, because that would be foolish, as I know my assigned agent is watching and listening. But they have other ways of tracking and monitoring all of your communications. I already know that they’re monitoring mine. Certainly they monitor all my communications with the five guys who are still in prison. And so I feel like they really don’t want me coming for this last shoot because this is going to be my most important one, and I’m really looking forward to it.

Also, I will say for the appeals of the state guys, Pete Musico, Joe Morrison, and Paul Bellar, the three who were tried at the state level for, quote, providing material support and then moved to federal BoP facilities across the country on the eve of their heels. All of those guys could be incarcerated, by the way, until 2063. So that’s about 40 years for nothing. Paul’s 25 right now. It’s just insane to think about. And he’s been incarcerated since he was 21 years old. Joe’s only 29 right now. His two young kids have not. They’re like babies.

They have not gotten to be with their father at all. And then Pete is his father in law. That’s their grandfather is also incarcerated. So imagine that father and grandfather are incarcerated for something they didn’t do, and it could potentially be for 40 years. That is just insane to think about. What we know for that is for Paul. We have a hearing on him about bringing him back to Michigan. That hearing is coming up June 7 in Michigan, and it looks like the defense has filed for a writ to kind of compel them to bring him back to Michigan so he can meaningfully participate in the appeals process.

Because right now, as it is in Minorsville, Pennsylvania, he’s got no access to a Michigan law library. His Michigan court appointed public defender can’t meet with him, doesn’t make those drives. So he’s had no contact with his lawyer. Legal mail is returned to sender. So he has not gotten the transcripts he needs to prepare for his appeal. And then it goes on and on. All of the attorney client privilege phone calls are being monitored by a third party. And I’m not saying that this is coming from court filings in the case anyway. Can go look at the exhibits where they, the attorneys are saying this, a third party is monitoring the phone calls.

We all know who that third party is. We also all know that Whitmer is the head of the MDOC. As the governor of Michigan, she is actually the head of the Michigan Department of corrections. If you don’t know how the organizational chart works, that’s how it is. So even if we do bring all three guys back to Michigan pending a appeal, my concern is as soon as they step foot in Michigan, they’re getting put in the hole and contact with them is going to cease. And that’s my concern right now, is keeping in touch with them during this time, because we have no idea what’s going to happen.

It’s also very weird that the trial judge is still overseeing the appeals. Judge Wilson. And this is the bizarre thing. They say, well, Judge Wilson in this court of claims process, if he decides, like he’s going to decide to take up an appeal on his own rulings, why are we wasting time with this? Then they go, oh, well, after, if he makes a decision after that, then it goes to the, like the Michigan court of appeals or something and with a three judge panel, and then they’ll make a decision. And I said, so why are we doing this then? Is this just to waste time and just to keep these men in prison? He’s, Judge Wilson’s not going to disagree with rulings he made.

That’s just nonsensical. And so I just have no, I feel like I’m in clown world. I have no idea what’s happening. And as somebody who worked in law, I have never seen something like this occur where the trial judge becomes the person overseeing the appeals process. I’ve never seen that happen before. Amazing. Well, it’s a story that really has to be told, and it’s something that we should all be concerned about. How our government has loosened the chains, that we’re supposed to bind them down, as Patrick Henry said, bind them down with the chains of the Constitution.

But the fact that we have these bureaucracies, because that’s what the FBI is. It’s a federal bureaucracy, bureaucracy that we have these bureaucracies that will entrap, that will bait and entrap. And then we have the, and that’s part of this, a big part of this. And then the other part of it is how they will deny due process, how they will deny a fair trial, how they will apply excessive punishment. All of these things are part of this story and of so many other stories. But if people can see this in one story, they, they might understand, you know, just how important it is and these other ones.

And I know that you’re going to have a lot of problems with getting this scene. Take a look at the movie that Clint Eastwood did about the Olympic bombings in Atlanta, for example. Right. And Richard Jewell and what happened with that. They came after that movie in so many different ways. They used the me too thing to shut it down. There’s going to be all kinds of frivolous and slanderous things that will probably come out just like they threw against Clint Eastwood to try to shut down this film, to get people to not see it because that’s the way they operate.

And that was an excellent movie, and more people should have seen it because that gives them a glimpse into the real, the reality of the FBI. It’s not this carefully prepared and presented image that J. Edgar Hoover would always do through Hollywood wood and through his tv show that he ran, you know, for years and years when I was much younger. But that’s, that’s a pr thing, and they work on that very much. So, of course they’re going to be opposing you. They oppose anything that shows them getting it wrong and getting it vindictive. And so.

But we should all be very concerned about what is happening to our government. And we need more documentaries about these types of things. But your film is very important. It was also the, the template for, for J six. The same guy that ran that operation goes to Washington and runs the J six thing to entrap people. We got people that are, we’re seeing such, so much excessive punishment of pro life people of J six, people of these guys. It truly is amazing what our government has become. I think it’s. It’s disgusting and it’s very sad. I’m somebody who, you know, I’m a very nice lady.

I love to give people the benefit of the debt out. And, you know, I try to be very positive and stuff like that. But this, the process of, like, working on this has really. I don’t want to say black pilled me, but it has. I already was aware of, like, FBI corruption. In fact, my research of Patcon is what got me started covering the Whitmer case, because I had been looking into that prior to those guys getting arrested. Once they got arrested, I’m going, oh, my God, it’s Pacon all over again. And I’m seeing it. But experiencing it is different when it starts happening to you.

These cointelpro tactics that they do or like what the east german Stasi did, they had a program called Zerzatzang, which means decomposition, where they would do very bizarre things to people, including going into their home and rearranging furniture and then leaving. And just to make you think that you’re going crazy or you say to people, yeah, I think my home was burglarized. Whether they steal anything. No, they just rearrange the furniture. That makes you sound psychotic, but these are the things they would do to people. They would arrange for failures in your work, and you didn’t know.

You would just think that you weren’t progressing in life, that you didn’t get the promotion. But really they were arranging for these things to happen to you to make it as difficult for you as possible to do whatever it was you were doing they didn’t like. Typically, that is dissenting from the official narrative and exposing their criminality. And these are the kinds of things that they do, the things that give them plausible deniability, but it’s just little death by a thousand cuts. And of course, you know. You know about that, I know about that. They know about that.

And there isn’t any restriction on their part from a moral or a legal standard. There’s no restrictions on whatever they do. So if they see something that the Stasi people did. Oh, yeah, we could use that, you know, and so they’re gonna adopt any and all of this stuff because. Because there is no controlling legal authority for these organizations. And it doesn’t matter. You know, the FBI is there. But when we look at all these other different aspects, whether it’s the EPA coming up with arbitrary things to shut down our infrastructure, there is no control. And Washington is absolutely out of control.

None of the people in Washington will do anything about it. They’ll hold show trials about this or that, but they keep fighting funding at all. They’re big superpowers that they can cut the funding to it. They don’t do it. Instead, they’re giving them massive new budgets and bigger budgets, and they’re doing the same thing with the IR’s as they are with the FBI. Here, have another big pile of money. We love what you’re doing. Right. Well, lying to us, you know, and fundraising off of these little show hearings that they do hold. There’s zero oversight of the FBI.

The weaponization committee has been a complete and total farce. The nerve of them to refer to that as a church committee 2.0, I just think is ridiculous. But that’s where we are. Jim Jordan has been a complete failure. He has been such a disappointment. I myself have tried to get information to the committee, to Jim Jordan himself, about the Whitmer case specifically, to get them to urge them to investigate. Like I said, I even got statements from the men themselves and gave them. Handed it off to them. And I’ve gotten no response from the weaponization committee.

And I’ve heard from, you know, we’ll just say people behind closed doors that they’re not interested in getting into the bottom of it because they’re donors. It’s not on their list of priorities for their donors. They go on a list of, like, one to 23. That would be number 23 at the bottom of. And I’m going, the american people, though, it’s number one for them. Who cares about your donors? So we get Hunter Biden. We get this nonsense that, frankly, nobody cares about. All of these political dynasties have Nepo babies. Hunter Biden isn’t any different. Different by any stretch of the imagination.

Who cares? You know, it’s just stupid. But this is. And then there are five men still incarcerated, ripped from their families. Barry has three daughters. Joe has two daughters. Pete has daughters, grandchildren. Paul, they threw him in there when he was 21 years old, before he had a chance to start a family. They’re taking time from these men that they’ll never get back for something they didn’t do. And yet we can’t get Jim Jordan to look into this. We can’t get him to look into the blueprint for January 6. We can’t get the weaponization committee to investigate this case, the most egregious example of weaponization in recent history, which, according to the government, it was the biggest, the greatest domestic terrorism case in a generation.

We can’t get the weaponization committee to investigate that, then it’s completely useless. And it’s just a farce. And it’s just there for them to grift off of it by taking little two minute sound bites of themselves at these show trials and that they rush to put on social media or they get their Fox News appearance. That’s all these people care about. They don’t give a damn about these men, and they’re not going to until we make them, until we put enough pressure on them publicly to do something. Speaker one? Oh, I agree. Yeah. They absolutely don’t care about any principles whatsoever.

And they don’t understand that if they allow a government that is weaponized and totalitarian, that eventually is going to come back after them. As Michael Hayden say, we’re not interested in everybody. We’re only interested in interesting people. Well, guess what? These congressmen are also interesting people. They’re being blackmailed, probably, but they will also find themselves up against the wall when they really drop the hammer on this stuff. And you look at these politicians who are getting censored or even Trump with all of these other things that they’re coming up against him. He could have done some things to, to stand up for free speech.

You could have done some things to shut down this kind of weaponization, which was around the entire time. But if you don’t do anything about that, it’s going to eventually come around to you as well. And that’s the thing that they don’t know. And they don’t, they don’t seem to care about, they think that they’re above the law as well, and they really don’t care what happens to you and I, and they don’t care what happens to these other people. They don’t support justice whatsoever. They think they can skate through and do whatever they want. And for the most part, they’re right.

You know, you got Menendez beat the first trial, so coming after him a second time. But, you know, the, they can pretty much do anything they want and get away with it. So I guess, you know, maybe that’s what the whole ballgame is about. That’s why I think we need to have this documentary. We need to expose this to the light. That’s the way we disinfect this stuff. And then people need to understand just how rotten Washington is. So people start directing their energies away from these people like Jim Jordan, who aren’t going to, to do anything and start looking at what, if anything, we can do at the most local level.

I think we’re going to have to take this country back from the grassroots up, and we’re going to have to, first of all, disavow any, any idea that we’re going to get this solved from the top down. The top down the top is completely rotten. Absolutely. Yeah. I agree with you 100%. I think that’s, honestly, I think that’s why the Whitmer guys were targeted in the first place, because they were the guys on the ground that said, we have to step up and do nothing when they saw the country burning to the ground in 2020 during the mostly peaceful protests, these were the men that said, let’s get our community together and protect our communities.

That’s what they were doing. And that’s why they didn’t like them. That’s why they wanted to target them, because they were men who said, we’re not going to sit here and allow you to loot buildings and businesses and burn them to the ground. We are going to organize. We’re going to show up armed, and we’re going to stand out in front of these buildings and we’re going to guard them. They don’t like that. They didn’t like the men, armed men coming together, organizing themselves and saying, no, we’re not going to allow your tyranny anymore. We’re going to stand against it.

And it was that, it was simply them saying those words that got them targeted. And I’d also say for people who think they know what happened with the Whitmer case. They do not. There’s so much to this story that no one knows about that I haven’t even talked about because I want people to see it in the documentary that you think you know what happened here. I can assure you you don’t. You’re going to see what happened firsthand, and you’re going to hear from the people that actually happened to themselves, and you’re going to also see the lies that were told about these, these families and these men, and you’re going to see them for who they really are.

Yes. It’s very important. I really hope that you get this thing done, and the sooner the better. And I know you want to get it done as well. Knkfilm.com is where people can find it. I would also say this, christina, you better air gap your editing equipment and things like that. Make sure that it’s not connected to anything that’s connected to the Internet so they don’t put a virus on your machine and take it down, you know, do all that kind of stuff. I’m serious. I mean, I’ve had Mark hall, who did a documentary about Fatala Gulen.

He made sure he had his stuff air gapped, and he was getting threats as well from that organization. So, you know, air gap, your editing machine and this other stuff, make sure you got lots of backups of other things as well. Guard Goldsmith, I would give the last word here to guard, has liberty conspiracy. And he says to Christine, he says, this is a key conversation showing how both Christina’s work on the film and David’s work on his show can yield new and wider benefits. I keep wondering if recent probes I had with stocks at Merrill Lynch bank of America owned, as you noted yesterday, David stem from this kind of targeting.

Keep up the great work. Yeah. The network that is there, and it’s going to get so much more extensive with their leverage of artificial intelligence and other things like this. We’ve got to try to establish some firewalls on this tyranny. If we don’t, it’s going to be unlimited and so unbelievably pervasive. So people need to start thinking, thinking about that. We need to put some air gaps between us and the Internet because that’s one of their key tools, you know, for our essential things like finances and food and other things like that. Get an air gap.

Get it out there separate from some of these other things. Thank you so much for joining us, Christina. Sorry about all the problems that you’re having. But, of course, thank you for fighting. And we know you’re going to get this thing finished. Knkfilm.com thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Well, that’s it, folks, for today. And again, I’ve got some stuff I didn’t get to today, but it’s, we’ll save it for tomorrow. We’ve got some things happening tomorrow. And it is very important for us to understand just how far from the constitution the federal government has gotten not to get drawn into these personal, petty rivalries between presidential candidates and the uni party.

That’s there to keep you distracted from the real things that need to be done with your life, your family, God and your community. Keep those things there and focus on that. That’s what you can do something about. Thank you for joining us. Let me tell you, the David knight show you can listen to with your ears. You can even watch it by using your eyes in, in fact, if you can hear me, that means you’re listening to the David Knight show right now. Yeah. Good job. And you want to know something else? You can find all the links to everywhere to watch or listen to the show at the davidknightshow.com.

that’s a website. Speaking of liberties, we have Alex Newman of libertysentinel.org joining us, and he has just put out an excellent book about education. You’ve heard me on this program for years. Quote Alex on his, I think, perfect metaphor. As a matter of fact, it’s one of the chapters that he’s got here about the burning building and how the schools are like a burning building. Get your kid out of the burning building, then work with your neighbors to put the fire out before it burns down the entire neighborhood. And that’s what our schools are like. And the government involvement in it that he lays out in this book goes back 200 years.

It’s a very meticulous, iterative process to get us where we are. So joining us now is Alex Newman. Good to talk to you again, Alex. It is great to be here. Thank you so much, David. Well, thanks for coming in. Let’s talk a little bit about this, because, you know, there’s a lot of familiar names. Thomas Dewey, of the Dewey decimal system. I remember when I was in Tampa, there was a school that was named after Horace Mann as well, and I didn’t at the time know who he was. But when we got into homeschooling, I learned who he was.

Kind of give us an idea of how this thing has. I look at it, and when you look at the table of contents and you read. Read the book. It makes it very clear this is a long term plan, plan of incremental takeover, very much like what Antonio Gramsci said. You know, we’re going to march through the institutions. You know, forget about this, you know, shooting people on the streets type of thing. It’s more effective if we take over the institutions, and that’s really what they’ve done. It’s been a long march through the institution of education that has lasted over 200 years, hasn’t it? It has.

It’s been a tremendously powerful movement that has largely operated behind the scenes, at least in terms of their true agenda. But it does go back a couple hundred years. And I always start with before the government got involved in education, because a lot of people don’t even realize. There was a time when the government didn’t educate our children. In fact, there was a time not all that long ago when government didn’t educate our children. Parents were primarily responsible for that, and if they needed help, they’d go to the church. And at that time, we were the best educated people who had ever existed in human history at any place on the planet, at any time.

It was extraordinary. We had 100% literacy rates in our cities. We had 95 plus in the rural areas. Alexis de Tocqueville came here from France in the 1830s and was astounded. He said every citizen knows the history of his country, the leading features of the constitution, the evidences and doctrines of his religion. He says everyone gets the elementary notions of human knowledge, which today we probably equate with a master’s or a PhD. He says somebody wholly ignorant of these things is a sort of phenomenon. They did a study in 1812, Dupont de Nemour, not more than four in 1000 young people, he said, were unable to write legibly, even neatly.

So this is where we were at before the government got involved. And then came a socialist. This was before Karl Marx had come along. This was before communism was even a thing. His name was Robert Owen, married into a wealthy textile family, an actual socialist. Back before this was really a thing. He believed so passionately in these silly ideas, get rid of private property, live as a collective, get rid of the family, things like this. That he bought a piece of land in Indiana and started a commune called New Harmony, very rapidly failed. The whole thing came crashing down.

Not because communism is stupid, though, right? Not because getting rid of private property in the family doesn’t work. It happened because these people had been educated and raised in an environment filled with christians and individualism. So he started writing these really weird essays where he argued, actually, really, for the first time that I can find since Plato, the raging totalitarian who thought we ought to have philosopher kings lording over us, and they could use government schools to brainwash us all into being good submissive serfs. So he argues that the best government would be the one that does the best job educating its population.

And of course, these ideas did not take off in America, as I mentioned, we had a fabulous education non system where everybody got a great education, mostly at home. To the extent that anybody outside the home was involved, it was typically the. The clergy. And he set up a secret society. I know conspiracy here. We know about this because a whistleblower who was part of the secret society defected. He became a Catholic and repented of his involvement in this wicked plan. And he said they had two surface level goals. They wanted to change public opinion to convince Americans that education should be handled by the government, or at least that the government should have some role.

And then they wanted to get men elected to legislatures who would support that concept. But the ultimate objective, this is a direct quote from Orisas Brownson, the defect who left this wicked movement. He said the ultimate objective was to get rid of Christianity, because they understood that Christianity was like a big brick wall. It was an insurmountable obstacle to their plans for utopia. So that didn’t take off in America, as I mentioned. But the prussian ambassador got ahold of these ridiculous essays that Owen was writing, and he was very popular at the time. There were Owenites, as they were called, his followers and disciples.

So the prussian ambassador gets these essays, takes them back to his master, the prussian dictator. And of course, prussian dictator was still smarting from losing a war with Napoleon. It wasn’t going well for him. They thought, hey, this is what we need. So he orders his interior minister to set up this government school system based on Robert Owens ideas. According to Robert Owens autobiography, he so much approved of this idea that he ordered this to be constructed in Prussia. First ever education system of the state, by the state and for the state. And then from Prussia, it was re imported into America by Horace Mann, who you mentioned, there are still all across this country government brainwash camps masquerading at schools named after Horace Mann.

The guy was also a socialist. He was a Unitarian. He rejected the Bible. He believed the government schools should equalize all men. He wanted the Bible out of the schools under the guise of getting rid of sectarianism, which we need to understand. The Bible was the primary textbook in those days, trying to think of education without the Bible in the early mid 18 hundreds was like an oxymoron. How could you possibly. So that didn’t go over well. But he imports the system into Massachusetts right away. The dumbing down takes off, the quackery takes over, and then he travels across the country like this ridiculous evangelist preaching the good news of salvation by government schools.

We’re going to get rid of 90% of the crimes, and it’s just going to be a wonderful utopia. And so he gets this system in place in state after state, so that by the early 19 hundreds, every state now has intruded somewhat, at least, into education. Some have set up networks of government schools and then work war. One big turning point. That’s when, for the first time in american history, most american children are in government schools. And that’s when John Dewey bursts on the scene. He had been writing and rambling about education for a long time.

He actually went to the Soviet Union and just loved what they were doing. This is so incredible. He wrote about it, too, David. This is incredible. Everybody who goes to a government college to learn education will learn that. John Dewey is this hero, the architect of America’s wonderful progressive system. They won’t learn about his essays about the Soviet Union, about what a great city they were published in the new republic. They’re still in their archives. And so he wanted that in America. And very interestingly, he teams up with the Rockefellers to fund this. So you’ve got it.

Sounds like a bad joke, right? A super capitalist and a communist walk into a bar and they decide, hey, let’s dumb down the population by setting up a government school system. But it’s the truth. And so that’s kind of the genesis of this. And it’s been getting worse with every generation moving toward this goal of a dumbed down, fully indoctrinated population that will give up its liberties, turn against God, turn against the family, turn against the country, and, you know, revolution by other means, if you will. It’s fascinating. And I had example. I’ve talked about this in the past.

When I was in Raleigh, there was a counselor there before the Soviet Union fell. And she went to Moscow and she came back. She said, you can go anywhere you want to in Moscow for a nickel. We need that here in Raleigh. And it’s like, is this woman smoking? That means. Sounds like. Just like Dewey. But, yeah, it is. It is interesting, isn’t it, how you see these, these so called capitalists teeming with the communists to run this kind of stuff through? You were talking about how in the early days of America, the literacy rate was so high.

And, of course, we know that because look at the impact that Thomas Paine’s common sense had on people, right? Everybody was. It had a big impact because everybody read, and they were able to come comprehend what they read as well. And so it really was a system where people didn’t spend 18 years to get a little bit of understanding and to be miseducated. I think today what we’ve seen is that this is all about social engineering. And, of course, you break that down in your book, just like you broke down the history of this, how it went from socialism to the people who embraced Marxism.

I mean, Owen was out there even before Karl Marx’s out there, wasn’t he? That’s right. Yep. And promoting really similar ideas to what Karl Marx would come along and promote a few decades later. A lot of people, when they think of where did the government schools come from? The first one they could think of is Karl Marx, because he, of course, proposed in the communist manifesto, in the ten planks, that government should control the education of all children. They should be free in so called public schools. But really, Robert Owen deserves the real credit for kicking this movement off, of course, with a major assist from the dictator in Prussia.

Now, I cannot yet. I’m still looking. I can cannot yet conclusively connect Horace Mann to Robert Owens secret network. Right? What the whistleblower described as a secret society based, incidentally, on the Carbonari, this nasty, vile group headquartered in Italy. So I can’t connect them definitively yet. I suspect there is a link there beyond just went to Prussia and then Horace Mann imported it back. But I can’t prove it yet. By nature, secret societies are difficult to. To track. But it’s so interesting how every one of the critical men in creating the system that today we call the public school rejected God, rejected the principles that America was based on and had this utopian vision involving, really what Karl Marx called for, eliminating private property, eliminating nations, eliminating family, and moving toward this alleged brotherhood of man.

Yeah, yeah. They see themselves as God. And so they don’t want any of that competition that’s out there. They want to be, especially today, omnipresent and omniscient about everything that we’re doing everywhere, that we’re the big brother move. You know, we talk about the prussian involvement, and we see that in things like kindergarten, right? This whole idea that we got to get the kids very early, as you pointed out, going back to Plato, he was talking about that you know, we want them to see the state as their family and don’t even want them to know who their parents are.

We will raise them from a very early age. Everybody understands that. Totalitarian dictators have understood that. Of course, the Bible warns us about that as well. You know, you get these kids when they’re young, and you train them, they’re not going to depart from that. And the dictators know that as well. And so it’s a real battle to try to get the kids at the earliest possible age, isn’t it? It is. And Robert Owen, that was one of the things he pioneered. Even before setting up this ridiculous commune, he had this textile manufacturing operation on the British Isles that he had married into.

Again, he married into a wealthy textile family. And one of the social experiments that he tried there was getting these young mothers to come work in the factory and promising to take care of their babies, right? So they were getting two three year old kids in these social engines engineering center. This is like, really the pioneering effort to do this. And you said something else, David, that I really want to pick up on, because it’s so critical for people to understand, is they see themselves as gods. So John Dewey wasn’t just a communist in the traditional sense of the term.

Now, in his defense, he did reject violent revolution. He believed that slowly brainwashing the population over a period of generations would be a better way to achieve total power, in his defense. But one of the things that he did, one of the things that he’s best known for, other than his education blabbering, was something called the humanist manifesto. So John Dewey and 30 something of his buddies, members of the clergy, unitarian clergy, academics, philosophers, and other leaders, came together and they wrote what they called the humanist manifesto. Today we call it the humanist manifesto, one because their disciples have released new and improved versions.

But right at the very beginning of this document, and this was their religion. And again, in their defense, they were open and transparent about the fact that this was their religion. Don’t know where they found enough faith to believe some of these idiotic things, but, you know, it’s a free country. You can believe whatever you want. So the very first tenet of their false religion was religious humanists regard the universe as self existing and not created. You know, you can compare and contrast that with the word of God, Genesis one. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

You can contrast that with our declaration of independence. Right? The self evident truth that God created us. God endowed us with unalienable rights. God made us equal etcetera. And so clearly, clearly they’re telling you our religion is fundamentally at odds at a most basic level with the Bible and with the principles that America was founded on, which largely came from the Bible, despite being called self evident truth. So there we have something really critical. Now, as you read through the rest of this religion, it’s kind of just warmed over Karl Marx. I think they said we need equitable distribution of the means of life, which is another way of saying abolish private property and have the government control the means of production.

So we’ve got to institute a radical change in methods and motives. We’ve got to get rid of the profit motive as the organizing principle for the economy. So it was communism, but there was a really, really critical undertone that it wasn’t stated explicitly. If there is no real God, that just leaves us as gods. It will be you and I who determine what is right and wrong, you and I who determine what rights or privileges you may have. And I tell people, like, they thought they invented a new religion. They pretended like they were invented a new religion.

This is literally the oldest lie in the book. If you go back to Genesis, chapter three, you’ve got Satan saying that very same thing. Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. So this really was a false religion from the pit of hell. And this was one of the reasons why John Dewey was so obsessed with the schools. One of the guys who co signed this humanist manifesto, his name was cf. Potter. He wrote a book called a new religion. And in this book he brags, he says, we’re going to use the public schools as the greatest ally of humanism.

And he kind of laughs, like, what is your Sunday school, your theistic Sunday school are going to do? Teaching some of the children for 1 hour a week when we have them for five days of humanistic teachings? He didn’t even answer. The answer was obvious. Absolutely nothing. So along comes the Supreme Court in 1962. They say, you can’t have prayer in the schools anymore. By the way, this was a nonsectarian prayer. It was a catholic priest, a protestant minister, and a jewish rabbi came together and wrote a prayer like, hey, God, please bless our school, bless our family, bless our parents, bless our country, bless our children, teachers.

Amen. And so Supreme Court said, no first amendment. You can’t have that because apparently the state of New York is Congress. Wait, no. That’s how dumbed down we were that people bought into this. 1963 comes along. They banned the bible in school. Again, they cite the first amendment and the guy who wrote the dissent in this case, Justice Potter Stewart. I encourage people to read this dissent. It is beautiful. It’s wonderful. It should be required reading for everybody interested in education and everybody interested in constitutional. He says, what we have done here is not neutrality with respect to religion.

What we’ve done here, he says, is establish the religion of secularism, or what John Dewey would have called humanism. Under the guise of preventing Congress from establishing a religion, the Supreme Court established a false religion, forced us to pay for its propagation with our taxes, and forced our children to be brainwashed with this false religion. So we’re full circle. You’re right. They think they’re gods. You know, we used to go frequently when we lived in North Carolina, we used to go to Colonial Williamsburg. And they had a very good guy there who did a good job of impersonating Thomas Jefferson.

And he would take questions. And of course, I knew he wasn’t going to respond to anything that was contemporary, anything that was going to be political. But I would throw it out there to kind of speak to the audience. And every time I was there, I would always ask him a question. I say, you said that you stood up very much for freedom, free exercise of religion, and not having an official state religion. You said it, it was an abomination for people to have to be forced to attend a church, and it was also an abomination for people have to be.

To be forced to pay for something that they disagreed with. But then you also set up the state university there. Would you admit that perhaps a government education system is no different from an enforced government education system, which is what you just pointed out. It is. So that’s why I was trying to get people to understand. You understand that we’re right back to having an established religion. It’s just that the seminaries are the colleges and the places where they indoctrinate everybody on a daily basis. Are these government schools and you’re forced to pay for it? We’re at the point right now where they were at some of these early colonies.

Over a period of time, they transitioned away from it. At first, everybody had to attend the official state church and pay money to it. Then they said, well, you don’t have to attend, but you, you still got to pay for it. That’s where we are right now with homeschooling. You don’t have to attend this state religion they call government schools, but we still got to pay for it, aren’t we? That’s exactly right. And, you know, the Bible actually teaches this early Americans would have recognized, I think, pretty quickly what’s happening here. Jesus is quoted twice in the Gospels, in Matthew and in Luke.

He says, whoever’s not with me is against me. And so I encourage people to think about this for a minute. Are the government schools with Christ? Well, and if the answer is no, and it obviously is no to no, christian or anti Christian would even deny that at this point, then that leaves one option. They are anti christian. And to your point, you know, the Bible teaches proverbs 22 six. Train up a child in the way he should go, but he’s old. He will not depart from it. In Luke, Jesus is quoted saying that students are not greater than their teachers.

When they’re fully trained, they’re going to be like their teachers. And so we have a system here that was designed to instill a worldview in your children, was designed to handicap them, literally. We can get into that. There’s a reason why half of american adults are functionally illiterate. And when you put all that together, you realize this is a profoundly religious exercise. It may not be a religion that an average person would recognize, but it is religious. And in fact, I think education is inseparable from discipleship. The question is, who is doing the discipling? Is it parents? Is it pastors from an official religion? Or is it a school that doesn’t tell you it’s a religion, but is still instilling very religious concepts in nature? All of the fundamental presuppositions that underpin the worldview taught in the public schools today are profoundly religious, and it takes an enormous amount of faith to agree with them.

The idea, for example, that everything came from nothing, I mean, that contradicts everything we know about physics. It contradicts the most basic tenets of common sense, and yet that is the underlying philosophy that underpins virtually everything that is being instilled in these children. As far as the worldview goes, how can it be that we can accept this tenet of faith being taught to children, children, but not stop and say, wait a minute, this is a profoundly religious exercise. So we need to understand that this is not a secular school system. This is a religious school system masquerading as a neutral school system? That’s very true.

Do you talk about Rl Dabney in your book? Because I remember he was a chaplain. It’s actually Stonewall Jackson’s chaplain. And after the war, he blamed the civil war. It had its roots and the government school systems talking about in Massachusetts, where it was first established. But he wrote essays saying, and very, very prescient about where we were going to be. And it, you know, not even a century, about a century later, that’s when the Supreme Court started doing that. But he said, there’s absolutely no way that you can have government involvement in education without violating the free exercise of religion, without establishing a religion.

He goes, it’s only a question of which religion is going to be established. You can’t have neutrality and have the government funding it. You can’t have the government involved in any way in education or it is going to be establishing a politicized religion. And he was talking about that in the 1860s. Yeah. So I don’t mention him in the book, but he was absolutely correct. And one of the things that’s interesting is that actually the southern states were the last holdouts when it came to government schools. They resisted until the bitter end. It wasn’t until reconstruction that the, the northerners force these institutions on the south.

But to your point, I just had a piece published in Newsweek just about a week or two ago, and I quoted two modern scholars, and people can think whatever they want about these two guys. One is former us attorney general Bill Barr. And I’ve got my obvious concerns with his background and all the rest of it. But what he said in a 2021 speech, he said, this militant and extreme secular progressive climate of our state run education system is the greatest threat to religious liberty in America today. And of course, he is correct. I also quoted a Columbia law professor, Philip Hamburger, arguing that public schools, by definition, violate the First Amendment rights of parents.

And that’s because they force parents, or at least very strongly pressure them into substituting their own speech. Right. What parents would tell their own children for what the state wants to tell their children. And so this is an infringement on our religious liberty. This is an infringement. Infringement on our freedom of speech. It’s an infringement on our parental rights. It’s an infringement on our property rights that they’re extorting us for thousands of dollars every year on our property to be able to pay for these brainwash camps to hurt our children. So this is a fundamental violation of every tenant of a truly free society.

And yet today we’re supposed to think of it as american, as apple pie. It’s not. It’s wicked, frankly. You know, when people ask me how to reform it, I said, why would you want to reform it? It’s like asking me how I want to reform my cancer. I’ll pass. Thank you. I want to get rid of the cancer. And it’s not because I’m anti education. Is because I’m pro education. That’s right. That’s right. But they have inextricably linked education in schools and people’s minds, and they’re two different things. We’re talking about an institution versus, you know, something that you actually have the education, something you have, but you don’t need to have the school system.

That’s, as you’re pointing out. We see the way this evolves. You pointed out in your book. Let’s talk a little bit about the Frankfurt school and its effect on education. Mostly we talk about the Frankfurt school and its effect on Hollywood and entertainment and media and stuff, but talk about its effect on education. Yeah. So the Frankfurt school, once again, we intersect with John Dewey, right? So he had set up this experimental school at the University of Chicago and funded by the Rockefellers. They gave him $3.1 million through the general Education board, one of their early philanthropic efforts, if you want to call it that, Frederick Gates, the guy they put in charge of it, was a total message, bragged about how in our perfect world, these people will yield themselves with perfect docility to our benevolent, molding hand, all this gobbledygook.

So eventually, once they come up with this formula that they really like. So John Dewey’s experimental school graduated. A bunch of kids who couldn’t read, couldn’t write, couldn’t do math, couldn’t tell right from wrong. And so they loved this idea. So John Dewey then goes over to Columbia University and at Columbia university starts bringing in a bunch of these progressives. Now, the Frankfurt school is happening over in Frankfurt. So the Frankfurt school, the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt, Gotti, they had actually been a project of the common term, the communist Internationale. And you mentioned Germany.

This is in Germany for people. Yes, right. In Frankfurt, Germany. And so they actually, this idea was hatched by the Comintern. They came to the same conclusion as Gramsci, although they would never admit it publicly. But Marx was wrong. Marx was wrong. He thought it was inevitable that the working class was going to rise up in a revolution. And then, you know, they finally, after 60 years of realizing that wasn’t going to happen, said, okay, fine, that’s not going to happen. We’ve got to do something different. And so Gramsci and the Comintern, through the Frankfurt school, concluded, hey, we’ve got to break down these cultural barriers to revolution.

We’ve got to attack the family, we’ve got to attack the church. We’ve got to attack the values we’ve got to attack patriotism. So they went after the institutions, the values, the attitudes that they understood were blocking revolution. And so that that really was where the Frankfurt school came in. Now, I want to be clear. Sometimes people say, well, if you don’t like the Frankfurt school, you must be pro Nazi. No, no. The Nazis and the communists were very, very close cousins. In fact, the New York Times reported before the outbreak of world War two that the Nazis, the Hitlerites, actually regarded Vladimir Lenin as the second greatest man in the world, second only to Adolf Hitler.

So really very close beliefs. I mean, they had some differences on, you know, racial issues and stuff, but they were all in favor of the state uber alles. They were all in favor of genocide against. Marx actually advocated genocide against the groups that hadn’t reached the capitalist stage, because he just thought they were too backwards to do anything with. So they had a lot in common. But eventually, the Frankfurt school, the socialists, the communists there, had a falling out with the National Socialists, and so they had to flee Germany. And John Dewey, with Rockefeller money, brought them to Columbia University.

And then from there, they spread out across our country like a cancer, University of California, etcetera. And they started promoting these incredibly subversive doctrines under the guise of academia. Right? They all got set up in universities. A lot of them actually went into the education field to educate educators, and they came up with these very subversive ideas, like, for example, the idea of the authoritarian male. So dads and husbands in America were basically fascists, right? They were lording it over their wives and children. And of course, they understood dads and husbands were critical to protecting their families from this tide of wickedness.

And so they figured, we can emasculate the dads and the husbands, the fathers, the patriarchs. Itll be a lot easier to steamroller over this society, spread this notion through the colleges, through the schools of education, that the american father was somehow a totalitarian, that he needed to be stopped. They spread the idea of perversion and filth being in every element of our culture. So they spread all these evil doctrines. And again, education was one of the primary fields they went into. So this was a critical component of hijacking the then existing government school system, weaponizing it further, again with money from the big foundations, and turning it, it into the most effective tool for revolution, really, I think, ever conceived in human history.

It’s interesting to see, as you lay this out, I think, about what we’ve got in terms of these institutions. I think about the building of a building and how long it takes to lay the foundation, and then all of a sudden, after the foundation is there, boom, the stick walls go up. When you got the framing going up, it goes up very, very quickly. And that’s really what we see. We see this foundation being laid over a very long period of time. And then you have these stages where it goes through and spurts and a lot of stuff happens all at once.

And we’re in, I think, the final stage of this stuff now as we see everything changing incredibly rapidly. I guess maybe we’re in the stage where they’re decorating and painting things with a drag queens torture this analogy here to that point. But people are looking at this stuff now. We got a good shot at this. During the lockdown, people were able to see on Zoom what was actually happening in their kids class. But it’s just amazing how rapidly this has changed. But I’ve seen all of this stuff throughout my lifetime. I began school before you had this court decisions saying that you got to purge God out of the schools, and it was even the government schools, and it was a.

It took a while for them to implement that. So I was in that system for a few years and gradually saw this kind of stuff change. I had like a front row seat of this dumbing down and degeneracy that is going on in the school system all of my life. And it truly is amazing to see that. And I think it’s very important. That’s the real importance, I think, of your book, is for people to get that sense of history, to see how this is done iteratively, to see how these foundations were laid over a very long period of time.

Talk a little bit about, of course, something that’s a little bit more recent, but still several decades back. And that’s common core. And of course, we had the republicans heavily involved in that as well. We did. And, you know, common core, I think, is misunderstood by even most of the people who follow closely, mostly education. Yes, it dumbed down the population. We know that it’s objectively provable. The federal government actually hired a group, CsAIL, to do a study on this, and seven years into it, they said, whoa, the negative effects of this are just wild. We don’t even know where the bottom is because we haven’t hit it yet.

We’re still going down so terrible from an academic perspective. In fact, they put two subject matter experts and only two subject matter experts on the common Core validation committee. This was the handpicked committee that was supposed to rubber stamp these things and say, they were great. Both of them refused to sign off. The math expert, Doctor James milgrom of Stanford, said, some of this is based on incorrect math. Like, no, I’m not signing off on this garbage. The english expert, Doctor Sandra Stask, I know her. I serve on a board with a very nice lady. She said, look, this is going to reduce the critical thinking abilities in children.

You’re taking out good literature and you’re replacing it with Obama’s executive orders and EPA regulations on roof installation. No, I’m not. So signing off on this. So both the subject matter experts said, no, the federal government knows it’s making your kids dumber. A lot of people look at it as the nationalization of education. And yes, it was. That was a process that started decades earlier. In fact, the George HW new World Order administration had really, really put the pedal to the metal on nationalizing the school system just very shortly after the birth of the US Department of Education.

But really, what common core was even more significant than those two other things, which I don’t want to downplay this significance of those. It was the globalization of education. And that’s what people don’t realize. So Bill Gates of hell went over to UNESCO headquarters in 2004, and he signed an agreement with UNESCO. UNESCO, for those who aren’t familiar, is the UN’s education agency, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and cultural Organization. And so Bill Gates signed this deal with them back in 2004. I’ve got a copy of the deal he signed on behalf of Microsoft. They vowed that they were going to work closely together on creating global education standards, global curricula, global teacher training programs, and global technology systems to make sure it was all being implemented properly.

Well, he comes back to the United States and starts dumping millions of dollars. And then by the time it’s all said and done, $2.3 billion into this project called Common Core. Most of the funding, of course, came from taxpayers, but Bill Gates provided the genesis there, just starting the ball rolling. And they actually bought ads. I’ve got some of these ads. I play them when I go out and do talks on this, where their, they’re bragging that common core state standards are actually going to align american education with international standards. They’re saying this proudly. They bought ads to tell this to the american people.

Let’s go back a little bit more. In time prior to 2004, the UN had concocted what they call the world core curriculum. And the guy who wrote it, Robert Mueller, he was the assistant secretary general of the UN, one step below the actual secretary general, he says this needs to be taught to every child in every school on planet Earth. I’ve got a lot of these documents, I’ve got a lot of these materials in my office. And in the forward to the teacher’s manual. He says something astounding, David, and I think this is really the most critical thing to understand about what’s happening on the educational front today.

In the forward, he says this is based on the teachings of Alice Bailey and the tibetan teacher Duval. Cool. And it’s very easy to read right over that. Well, Alice Bailey, I’ve got her books here. Here’s her book, Education in the new age. She was the founder of the Lucifer publishing company, literally, that was the name of the organization. It’s still around today. It’s called the Lucius Trust. And the tibetan teacher was actually a spiritual entity that Alice Bailey claimed to be communicating with. She called it an ascended master. And so channeling these demons, she wrote books like education in the new age.

And people can read this. It’s absolutely bonkers. I mean, you almost can’t believe it until you read it yourself. We need a one world government. We need a one world brain. The government school system is going to unite humanity into this global society where we’re going to evolve to a new age of consciousness. The only problem that she says is these people who insist on this great heresy of separateness, which also known as bible believing christians who are told to be holy and to not participate in these wicked things of the world. Christians are the obstacle to this one world, world utopia on whom the global world core curriculum is based.

So that’s what’s happening here, folks. The schools are preparing your children for submission to an all powerful one world dictatorship based on the rantings of crazy women and her demons. Yeah, yeah, her ascended masters. And of course, we keep seeing this stuff about ascended masters keep reweaving itself everywhere. You know, even when we break off, we got a conservative group. We got like Michael Flynn leading prayers to an ascended master that he verbatim from Elizabeth Clare Prophet, you know, the reawakened stuff. So you constantly have this, this occultic ascended master stuff weaving itself back in, even in, you know, nominated, you know, nominally, you know, they call themselves conservatives even in those circles.

It’s always there. It always finds a way back in. It truly is amazing when we look. David, can I stop you there for just one moment because I want to pick up on this ascended master theme, especially since you seem to be interested in. So even before the world core curriculum. Actually, George, HW Bush had hired a lady. This is the new world order guy, right? Who said, we’re going to have a credible United nations going to use a peacekeeping role to implement the vision of the UN’s founders. So he hires a lady for the US Department of Education named Doctor Shirley McCune.

Surprise. She’s also talking to ascended masters. The true story. She wrote a book with one of her buddies called the light shall set you free. Same general idea, right? The ascended masters told me we got to evolve into this new higher consciousness state. So she is the lady that they put at the Department of Education to start leading the charge for the national testing, the national accountability, ultimately the national standards. And she gives a speech to the 50 governors. George HW Bush convened all 50 governors together. And she gives a speech, I’ve got a copy of the speech, I’ve got the video.

And she says to them, look, the schools, you know, the real purpose of schools is, and she said, transforming society. She says, we’re fundamentally restructuring society and we have to understand that the social change function of schools is what’s going to get us there. And now fast forward to more recent times. You’ve probably heard of social emotional learning. In fact, I have a chapter on this in the book, SEO people Sel. Yeah. And the NEA, the National Education association says, now this is the most important function of schools. And it’s in all the schools, even in some christian schools, by the way.

And so I started investigating this years ago, before people had done any real critical research on this. And they still had all the documents publicly available. So I went to CASL. This is an organization funded by Bill Gates. It’s the premier sel organization. It’s called the Collaborative for Academic, Social Emotional Learning. And right there they had a history tab on their website. So I click on the history tab, and right there in plain English, it says, the idea for sel came out of conversations that we had at the fifth institute. Huh? What is the Fetzer Institute? I had never heard of the Fetzer Institute.

So I look it up real quick. Turns out it’s a new age, occult, bizarre place founded by some crazy rich guy, a disciple of Alice Bailey. And they’re doing these invocations to the ascended masters and all that. So this theme of the occult, this theme of the ascended masters bringing us into the new age runs through this entire program. And yet your average christian has no idea. 80% of christians in this country are still sending their children to these pagan, godless, diabolical indoctrination centers. And you just want to shake them. Like, wake up, you fools. What’s happening to your children? Don’t you care? Yeah, absolutely.

And you talk about the fact that even private schools are going to have Sel there. And a big part of this is one of the things that concerns me about charter schools, about private schools. Whenever you take the government’s money, then they’re going to start telling you what you’ve got to do, even if it means putting boys in the girls showers and that type of stuff. Which takes us back to the Department of Education, and I believe. What do you think about the department? I think its primary function was there to bribe and to blackmail people to get these things through, because that is such a powerful superpower that the federal government has where it can just create money out of thin air and then they can channel it through the Department of Education and they can use that to take over charter schools or private schools or anybody who takes the government coin we even see, especially in colleges, I mean, look at how they’ve been able to control colleges through the power of the purse and the money.

And that’s the way the federal government operates most of the time. Would you agree? Absolutely. And that’s why they set up the department of Education. I quote William Zoster in the book. He was former leader of the communist party here in the United States, and he wrote a book called Tour to Soviet America. This was 100 years ago. He says, one of our key objectives is to establish a national department of education that’s going to be used to cleanse all the schools of everything that might be considered religious or patriotic or bourgeois. We’re going to turn them into institutions of revolution.

And actually that goes back to. We started off the conversation with Robert Owen, the whistleblower. I mentioned Orisus Brownson, when he’s exposing this whole agenda, why they’re doing this. He says the great object is to get rid of Christianity. And what he says is our goal was to get a system of state and then national education so that we could then bring religion into contempt. So that was the goal from the very beginning. The totalitarians, the anti God fanatics wanted a national system where they could then much more simply control all education in this country. And now this is actually being bumped up to the global level.

So Arne Duncan, who spent seven years as secretary of miseducation under Barack Obama, this guy was bragging about how UNESCO is the partner of the US Department of education with the implementing global education initiatives. So that all he actually, he quoted a communist terrorist. He said, education is a weapon that we’re going to use to change the world. So they’re telling you all this. I mean, you don’t have to listen to David Knight and Alex Newman. These people will tell you what they’re doing if you’ll just listen. You won’t see it on Fox News, you won’t see it on CNN or on the front page of your local propaganda organ owned by the USA Today or whatever.

But these people are telling you what they’re doing if you’ll just listen. And of course, it’s not something that the politicians going to talk about either. You know, at least in 1980, it was created in a campaign year by Carter. And Reagan said he’s going to get rid of it, but of course he didn’t. He had people like Charlotte is Phyllis Schlafly, who went there to help shut that thing down, and they left in disgust. Charlotte is that. It’s the deliberate dumbing down of America, and it truly is. That’s what it’s about. But it’s gotten beyond that now.

It’s not just dumbing us down, it’s pushing us down into degeneracy. You know, when you look at. And you got chapters, of course, on critical race theory, but also one of the chapters, totalitarian agenda behind the lgbt sex. Ed, I’ve looked at this for long. The transgender stuff is obviously sexual component to it, a grooming that is there. But as we start to see this other stuff and the furries and this complete detachment from reality starts me to believe that they’re moving us into that other branch of secularism, transhumanism, preparing kids to live in this, to be completely incapable of operating in the real world, not wanting to be in the real world, but also to push them into a virtual reality, which they’re already doing in the schools.

I can’t believe that in the schools they let the kids dress this way, have things, paws that have claws on them that they can scratch people with. I mean, that is the absolute breakdown of any kind of discipline. But you have to ask yourself, what is there agenda? And as you can see in your book, it is a very clear agenda. It is a very clear goal of all this stuff is all converging on this and marching progressively forward. Talk a little bit about that. But I do want to spend some time in terms of talking about the positive vision.

It’s very important for people to understand how the school is really on fire. A lot of people don’t realize it’s on fire. They don’t realize that it was a deliberately set fire, and, and they don’t see the implications of it for society, for the neighborhood in general. And that’s what your book really does lay out. But I want to talk a little bit about positive vision, but talk a little bit about what is going on with this, this lgbt thing. I mean, it’s a sexual component, but I think it’s also got something to do with this transhumanism in high tech and virtual reality.

Even though we’re talking about costume characters of this point. What do you think? You are absolutely right, David. There’s no question about it. And so there’s two. There’s actually multiple agendas, but let’s talk on the two that you just hit on. And they’re both discussed extensively in the book. The first is the lgbt thing. I think one of the major reasons they’re pushing this is actually to take down the family unit. And if you go back and you look at the history of sex education, Wilhelm Reich 100 years ago described himself as a Freudo Marxist member of the Communist Party.

And he said, we’ve got to get the sex ed in the schools so that we can turn children away from their families, so we can undermine their credibility, we can undermine the influence of the church and basically grab ahold of the minds and hearts of these children and write on a blank slate. That was why they did it. You look at Georgie Lucox, the deputy commissar of education and culture in the Bella Kun communist regime in Hungary, short lived communist dictatorship. He ended up going to become part of the Frankfurt school, incidentally, he was doing these nasty, raunchy puppet shows in front of kindergarten kids for the purpose of breaking down the christian moral order.

And he said so, right? So you look now at the modern iteration of this. First they told us, oh, just loving homosexuals just want to be married. Just quit being such a prude. And people say, well, don’t kids need a mom and a dad? Well, you know, it’s better to have two dads than no dads, right? Or it’s better to have two moms than no moms, right? So they first, they started off by saying, well, it’s really not that important to have both a mom and a dad, which, of course, anybody with two brain cells to rub together knows is ridiculous, right? Yes, you can survive.

You might become a great human being without one of those. But the optimal condition, the divine order that God has established is for a child to be raised by a mother and a father, a loving marriage relationship. Well, they figured, hey, if we can get the mom or the dad out of the picture by marketing this homosexual marriage and homosexual adoption, that’s a good first step. Now you come to the next step, the transgenderism. Well, now they’re saying there’s no such thing as a mom or dad. The gender is a social construct. You could be any.

I’m a non binary. You’re a non binary free spirit. Whatever. So now they’re saying not only is a mom or a dad not essential, now they’re saying there’s no such thing as a mom or dad. So you can see this is a calculated assault on the nuclear family so that the state ultimately can usurp control over the raising, education, discipling of these children. Now, the transhumanism element is just as significant. They’re telling these kids right now, you can transcend your. They call it sex assigned at birth, really your sex, right? You can trans, you can transcend your sex.

You might be a boy born in a girls body. Well, why in the world shouldnt you be able to transcend your humanity altogether? Why shouldnt you be a cat? Why shouldnt you be an elephant? This converges with the technology in a very, very evil and dark way. David Ive got a section in the book on the first conference on AI and education hosted by the UN in Beijing, of all places. And they openly said in their final declaration, were going to fuse artificial intelligence with education. Were going to connect these kids to the system, and we are going to use this to manipulate and ultimately change their attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors.

This is what they said in the final document. So that’s where they’re moving in China now. And a lot of schools are using these headbands that monitor the children’s brave wave brainwaves and feed this information into a computer so that it can be processed by the algorithms and the AI to determine whether the child’s paying attention, etcetera. Now, with neuralink, folks, you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to project the lines here and see where this is going. It is dark. It is wicked. Bill Gates actually predicted just last year, I believe, that soon we’d be able to replace teachers with AI.

That’s what’s happening. Teachers are going to become glorified babysitters. The kids are going to sit there on their tablets, and eventually, with those stupid goggles on their face, learning all about how great open borders are, abortions, etcetera. There’s no education going on here anymore. And the sooner parents realize that the better. Oh, yeah. I want to replace Bill Gates. That’s what I want to replace. We could get a nice AI who’s not quite as wicked. Anything would not be quite as wicked as would be perfect. Yeah, exactly. He’s out there, you know, pushing against math now.

I mean, he really is going the full. Yeah, two plus two equals five stuff. But, yeah, it truly is a war on parents, especially, as you pointed out. You just think about the fact that you must use these pronouns, but you must not say mother and father. Right. Or mom and dad or whatever. There’s that kind of mind control that we see out there, and it really does go back again to the UN and to the children’s rights movement that was there. UN convention on the Rights of the Child. If they can say that children have rights, then that’s their legal way of shoving parents out.

And so even though we didn’t sign on to that treaty, ever, the only country that didn’t, they are still enforcing this through the courts, enforcing it through the schools and all the rest of that. But let’s talk a little bit about homeschooling, because it is an amazing opportunity. You know, God has left us this open door for us to have a family, for us to have a relationship with children, for us to actually be able to educate our kids about the things of this world as well as about God. And that is a very, very important window that is there.

And it’s never been more open since after the lockdown. People are open to it. They’re looking at it, and there’s so many more resources. And when we homeschooled our kids, it truly is blossoming there. And there’s an opportunity for anybody who wants to do it. Talk a little bit about that. Yeah. I do regard homeschooling as the gold standard. If anybody is capable of doing it, and I believe almost everybody is capable of doing it, I cannot recommend it highly enough. It’s one of the best decisions you will make in your entire life. Also one of the most important decisions you will make in your life.

So I go back to the Bible. In Deuteronomy, chapter six, Deuteronomy, chapter eleven, you have God explained to his people how they ought to be educating their children. He says, you know, you need to be teaching them about God and God’s laws and God’s ways and what he has done for us. When you wake up in the morning, when you’re walking by the way, when you’re sitting down to eat, when you’re laying down to go to bed at night at all times. You should be educating your children. And I think the most fundamental part to understand, and I do believe, you know, we have freedom.

We can delegate some of that responsibility and authority to others, whether it be a homeschool co op, you know, christian school that is thoroughly vetted and well examined. But with that said, I do believe homeschooling is the gold standard. I believe it’s the best possible thing that you can do. Always doing it with community, right? Getting together with other families, getting together through your church and having fun with it. But I think ultimately we need to get back to a real understanding of what education is. And this is one of the things that the system has caused us to lose.

What is the purpose of education is a fundamental question that people don’t even ask themselves anymore. What do I mean when I say I want my child to be educated? Now, if you ask Google, which tells you men can get pregnant, Google will say, the purpose of education, true story. They say the purpose of education is to make your children successful members of society. I asked a couple AI’s, they said the same thing. They cited the Washington compost as a source. So the purpose of education then is either college and career readiness or making your child is successful, whatever.

Is that really the purpose of education? And I would argue absolutely not. That’s not even third or fourth down the line. And what does it mean, like in a nazi society or a communist society, to be a successful member? Does that mean you’re good at snitching on your neighbors? That mean you’re good at guarding the concentration camp and torturing political prisoners? It’s absolutely crazy. So I say we need to go back to the word of God to understand truly what an education is. And God gives us, again, a lot of freedom here. He doesn’t say you need 25 credit hours of science and 32 of Matthew, but he does give us the foundations.

Proverbs one seven. Proverbs 910 says, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. It’s the beginning of knowledge. So if the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, and there is absolutely no fear of the Lord being instilled in our children in virtually any educational setting, with a handful of exceptions in this country, how much wisdom and knowledge are they getting? Well, the answer is none. Absolutely none. At best, it’s counterfeit. So we’ve got to go back and ask ourselves the fundamental questions.

I actually end the book with a very, very long afterward. Maybe it would have been better to divide up as several chapters. But looking at what did education look like before the government took it over? What does the Bible say about education? What are some resources out there for parents who are thinking about these questions? And I believe this is one of the most important things we could be thinking about and talking about. David? Oh, absolutely. And just as you said earlier, when you’re talking about a family, you said a two parent. That would be ideal, and that’s the goal.

But, hey, you know, we still need to be a parent, even if there’s just one of us. And when you look at homeschooling, you can say, well, I would like to do classical homeschooling. That’d be great. But that’s really a lot. I don’t know if I could do that. Well, you don’t necessarily have to do that. You know, you, you can aim for certain things. If you don’t have two parents in your family, there are other ways that you can do that, especially now. There are so many more resources, so many more people who are looking to partner in community, to help to do this.

And so there’s a lot of resources that are out there. And sometimes we look at this and say, well, I can’t do the ideal, so I won’t even get started. But what I have found is that if you do this with the purpose of honoring God, God has always promised us that he will honor those who honor him. And there, it’s an amazing blessing. Everybody that I know, and I know a lot of people now, since I’m older, who have homeschooled their kids and everybody that did it, they are so blessed by the relationship that they have with their kids and have no regrets whatsoever about it.

It’s one of the best things you can do with your life. And when you’re looking at society, you know, this whole thing about the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, well, these people who want to rule the world have been rocking the cradle, and we need to get their hands off of our cradles because they’ve rocked our world and they’ve rocked it in a very negative way. And we need to take back control of the cradle and we need to take back control of our kids. And I think that whatever you can do is a move in the right direction.

We did a very informal homeschooling curriculum with our kids, but, you know, we were there with them and we talked to them in the way, as we’re in the way, so to speak. And so it was kind of a peripatetic form of instruction, but there’s so many different ways that you can do it. And it is an amazing blessing to have that relationship with your kids, one of the best relationships you could ever have in life. And the best way to have that relationship, I think, is to work with your kids. I’m so glad that you did this book.

And again, you understand that, as you said, you’ve got a very long afterward toward a christian vision of education. And what did we have and what could we have? Again, that’s up to each and every one of us. We don’t have to get the permission of Trump or Biden to educate our kids ever. You know, even if they try to impose that on us, we can still do it ourselves. And so that should be our attitude that we’re not going to do. But right now, we have this amazing opportunity. I said to my wife 30 years ago when we started this whole process, I said, you know, isn’t it interesting how we’ve lost freedom in every aspect of our society except when it comes to education? And somehow God has left that door open, hasn’t he? Absolutely.

And it’s such a joy. You know, I would warn people that the totalitarians are coming for us, so we’ve got to stand firm. This is a non negotiable issue. You will not have my children, and that’s a line that will not be crossed. And every parent needs to make that determination. We will not let someone go cross that line. But they’re coming at us from all angles. They want to criminalize homeschooling. They want to start giving us government money so they can suck us back into the system we just fled from. So, folks, watch out. Right now is a great time to homeschool.

Pull your children out of the burning building right now. Cut your ties with the government. I mean, obviously, I recommend that people follow state laws as best they can on these issues. You don’t want to get in unnecessary trouble. But if it comes down to it and they say, hand your children over, the answer has got to be no. If I’ve got to go to another country, if I got to go underground, it’s not happening. They’re not having my children, period. End of discussion. Yeah. Yeah. We’ve got homeschoolers here not too far from where you live in Tennessee who were political refugees out of Germany because they wouldn’t let them homeschool.

They were take their kids away from them, and they’ve been here for over a decade. And now the Biden administration tried to deport them a couple of months ago, then they gave up after there was a lot of publicity about it. But that’s the heart of our current federal government. They are in alignment with these, these Germans who want to take the kids away from people. That’s really where we are. So we’re not, not that far away from it. It’s important for people to understand the foundation of this. And again, you can find, you can find the book at your website, right.

Libertycentinel.org and tell us again the title of the book. I’ve got it here, but it’s a couple pages over. Go ahead. So it’s indoctrinating our children to death. Government, schools, war on faith, family and freedom and how to stop it. You can get it anywhere. Good books are sold. If you want a signed copy and you don’t mind waiting couple weeks and paying shipping, you can get it from my website, Liberty sentinel.org, forward slash shop. Good and do that instead of giving the money to Amazon. Thank you so much, Alex. And let me say thank you to the people here, Wayne Wonder.

Thank you very much for the birthday gift and tip. And also Owen, thank you very much. Appreciate that. Thank you all. Have a good day, everybody. The David Knight show is a critical thinking super spreader. If youve been exposed to logic by listening to the David Knight show, please do your part and try not to spread it. Financial support or simply telling others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread. Father, people have to trust me. I mean, trust the science. Wear your mask, take your vaccine, don’t ask questions. Using free speech to free minds.

It’s the David Knight show. I don’t know that I’ve ever done anything or been involved in a team effort, because that’s what it was, a team effort that had more return on investment than that one in which we engaged it. Afghanistan bell to the Taliban. If you want a better new normal anytime soon, Americans need to put on a mask. He told me that there was no chance that my religious accommodation or that any religious accommodation would be granted. And sure enough, within hours I was terminated. I had no income, I had no healthcare benefits, I had no job.

They come in hand shaking, angry, telling us that they don’t want to hear about our rattlesnake religion, saying that we never wanted to be seals and that we’re not courageous enough to fight war. Anything below 95% capacity in a raid is considered critical. My rating, the rescue swimmers, we were at 89%, and the commandant is ready to cut these guys loose over a vaccine mandate for an untested shot. The oath is not for the easy time. The oath is for the hard times. And it’s whenever you have to make that choice between doing what the constitution says or doing what someone else is telling me to do.

Be a patriot. Protect your fellow citizens. I took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States. Every military member does that. So if military members rights are not protected, they’re not protected for the rest of society. These are the individuals that are actually willing to risk their lives to fight for the constitution. Are you willing, would you be willing to throw your stars on the table over a principle? Would you be willing? And that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

And I meant it. Sealsbeatbiden.com and that is a very powerful documentary. And you saw our guest in that documentary, David Schonz, because he was involved in that fight. And we’re going to talk about that. But before we get to that, I want to talk about what is going on with the face act, because David Shaunce doesn’t just, he’s got military experience as a officer and he, he knows how to represent people in the military sphere, legal sphere, but he is also a Christian who gets involved in this. And so we’re going to begin by talking about the freedom of access to clinic entrances, the FacE act.

Thank you for joining us. DAVIS it’s always great to have you on and you’re always there at the most vital issues, I think. Thank you for joining us today. Hey, it’s a pleasure to chat with you again. Well, thank you. I’ve talked about this briefly this week, people here, it was in Tennessee, just outside of Nashville, or right around that Nashville area, several people, six of them, who have pro life people who had a peaceful protest at a clinic and they’re now been convicted. They are awaiting sentencing. They may get eleven years of prison and up to fines of $250,000.

And this is really being weaponized by the Biden administration. It’s been on the books for a while, hasn’t it? Right. So the face act was first passed by Congress and then signed in 1994 by President Clinton. And this really was, this is the kind of legislation that really was a Trojan horse. The idea was it would also protect clinics that provide actual pregnancy care and not simply planned parenthood, abortion mills and other things. Unfortunately, that’s not how it’s used. And it really has been weaponized by the Department of Justice, particularly under the Biden administration, to go after christians who do things like prayer and sidewalk counseling outside of abortion clinics.

Yeah. And we haven’t. 1994, we haven’t heard anything at all about it. Now all of a sudden, we’re hearing it over and over and over again. It really is amazing how they’re using this talk about some of the other cases as well. I mean, we’ve had situations, and we’ve seen the picture of a guy that they tried to get with a face act, and they sWat teamed his family and all the rest of the stuff. But he wasn’t even close to the entrance of it. That was up in Pennsylvania, wasn’t it? I think, if I remember correctly.

Right. Yeah. You’re referring to Mark Howard. So that was a protester who’d done a lot of work, a lot of prayer and counseling outside of abortion clinics. And what happened in his situation, and this is really, really instructive for what we’re dealing with. On the face act he dealt with. There was a very angry, violent, vile person who was constantly coming at him, trying to antagonize him, and actually was yelling vile things at Mark’s son. And so Mark stepped in between this man and his son. The man fell down. There was some physical contact. The man fell down.

And what was interesting is the local authority, authorities in Pennsylvania looked at this case, looked at all aspects of this situation, did an investigation and dropped the charges. And then all of a sudden, you know, the DOJ gets involved. They swat Mark and his family, you know, early hours of the morning. That’s how they like to do these. And I’ve spoken to FBI agents that are whistleblowers that are, you know, threatened they’ll lose their job if they don’t do these SWAT raids, to arrest these people, which is completely unnecessary and unfortunately puts agents at risk when they do this.

But I think Mister Hauk’s case is a really good example of the problem with the Face act. And one of the main issues with the Face act is why is the federal government, why is there federal law that targets behavior that would otherwise be legal behavior except the location where it’s at, number one? And number two, there are already laws on the books in every state. There are already city ordinances that would deal with anything inappropriate that’s happening these places. So the reality is, if someone is breaking the law, if they’re actually obstructing access, if they’re trespassing, if they’re committing assault, even if they’re being disorderly all.

There’s local ordinances, there’s city ordinances, municipal codes and state law that would prevent that illegal activity and would address it. But that’s not good enough for the Department of Justice. And so again, this was, you know, to me, this face act really is a trojan horse that once they’re inside the wall, now you have a politically motivated department of justice that is anti christian, anti faith, doesn’t like anyone saying things that are against the narrative on abortion as some sort of medical care. And that’s the real issue now. So it is being targeted. And these people are people with no criminal history, no violent past that are now facing over a decade in prison for peacefully praying and singing outside the entrance to a clinic.

And, you know, it’s not just the fact that, as you pointed out, that local law enforcement looked at and said, there’s nothing here. And we all saw the, they had video that was on outside camera there. Everybody could see that there was nothing, no big deal. And so, you know, the video was there. Everybody could see that local law enforcement saw there was nothing there. And yet the Biden administration comes after them. And at the same time, as you pointed out in 1994, when they created the face act, it was going to be comprehensive for a lot of different things.

But they don’t do anything on the other side to protect crisis pregnancy centers from even arson or bombs that are thrown on them. They won’t even investigate that, will they? No, they absolutely will not. And that, that’s a critical issue. You know, no one, I would never, no one’s advocating any kind of violence or law breaking when it comes to sidewalk counseling outside of these clinics. But what they are really talking is that peaceful behavior, they want to end that. They want to scare people into not even doing the kind of counseling that saves lives, that saves these preborn children over and over again.

And I think the other interesting issue about the case in Tennessee, as well as just the face act cases is federal courts and the DOJ are not reacting well to the Dobbs decision. And here’s what’s so important. You know, there’s an argument to be made that the Dobbs decision is, look, there is no federal right to an abortion. That’s right. If that is true, then, then what is it that these individuals are doing? And why does the federal government have any role or jurisdiction over this? Because, again, what they’re alleging is they’re doing something that is violating a federal right.

That’s why the federal government has jurisdiction. But even in the case in Tennessee, the judge refused during motions practice, and as they, the attorneys were drafting the jury instructions, and I spoke to the attorneys, the judge refused to entertain that and even refused to instruct the jurors on the fact that Dobbs says abortion, there is no federal right to an abortion. There’s no constitutional right to an abortion. Refused to instruct the jurors on that. So again, I think that’s a significant issue, and that may be the end of the face act. If federal courts, if the appeals courts and ultimately the Supreme Court look at this and say, okay, wait a minute, we have ruled there is no federal constitutional right to an abortion.

And so where is the jurisdiction for the federal government on the face act? So that may be the undoing of it. Unfortunately, as things happen here, you have individuals with no criminal history, no violent past who could be doing significant time in federal penitentiaries waiting for relief from the Supreme Court if it ever comes. Speaker one, would they, would they have to go to jail if their cases on appeal? Would they still incarcerate them? It’s up to the discretion of the judge. Wow. It’s up to the discretion of the judge. So often people do sit and wait in confinement while their case is on appeal.

Wow, that’s amazing. And, you know, when you look at it, it’s the judge’s instructions. And when I covered this case the other day, I said, I talked about a guy who was a marijuana advocate up in New Jersey, called himself New Jersey weed man. I forget what his real name was, but, you know, he was, he was that, that was the name that he went by. And he had a large amount of marijuana. They were going to try, try him as a trafficker. And he said, you know, I think there’s enough people here that don’t like the criminalization of marijuana that I could get hung jury if I argue for jury nullification.

And he did that. He took, it is actually in the state constitution. The jury should judge the facts of the case, but also the law itself and the penalties that could be imposed. And, and that goes all the way back to William Penn in England. When they came after him, he helped us establish jury nullification. And so he showed that to the jury, and the judge said, take that down, I’m going to lock you up. Well, the jury had already seen it, so they voted seven to five to acquit him. But the prosecutor came back and he went before another judge.

The judge let him put up that card, which quoted from the New Jersey state constitution, and he let him keep that up, and then he got his acquittal of twelve to nothing. So it really comes down to the judges instructions. In many cases, judges will tell the jury, you have no right to judge the law. You’re just here to judge the case. And I will tell you, you know, these other things, like you talked about the fact that the judge would even keep them from, keep the attorneys from telling them, talking to them about the implications of the Dobbs decision.

But what about jury nullification? Let me ask you, as a lawyer, what do you think about that? It is a Hail Mary thing, and he couldn’t find any, any lawyers who would do it. That’s why he represented himself. So, you know, jury nullification is. This is, this is my frustration with it. As a practicing attorney, the reality is that jury nullification was a fundamental part of our constitutional system. Thomas Jefferson himself said that the jury is the only anchor yet imagined in the mind of man by which a government can be held to the principles of, of its constitution.

Now, that’s a, that’s a mouthful. But think about what they were saying. All of the founding fathers believed in the concept of jury nullification. In other words, if the federal government or any government is going to put a citizen on trial, ultimately not the judge, ultimately the jury can say factually, this may be accurate, but we do not believe this should be called a crime. Therefore, we are going to say not guilty of a criminal act. And, and since our founding, there has been a gradual at first, and then a much more, you know, violently rapid movement to eradicate the concept of jury nullification from our court system, which is truly unfortunate.

The end of the day, our system, there are so many checks and balances in our system. But one of the critical ones was this concept of jury nullification, where a jury of your peers, of your fellow citizens, could look at the government and say, no. Yeah, yeah, no. Not guilty. And, and be. And not guilty because of the constitution, not guilty because of morals, ethics, justification, whatever it is. Not guilty. That’s right. That’s right. Yeah. There was no question that William Penn was defying the rules to not meet as a church. If you’re not meeting as the official state church.

No question about that at all. They shut that down. And that was such a foundational thing, even into victorian times. Gilbert and Sullivan, who did all the light operas and stuff, they even had one called trial by jury, because that was such a fundamental concept. If you stop and think about it, it is as important, if not more important, than something like free speech, because that really is where you can stop the tyranny is with a jury nullification is such an important thing. I looked at that and I said, now, if you would have gone in for jury nullification, I got to believe that there’s going to be a couple of people, even in liberal Nashville, because of Tennessee and surrounding areas, they got to believe they could at least find a couple of people who say, no, I’m not willing to lock up these law abiding, family oriented people for a decade and give them a quarter of a million dollar fine.

I got to believe you’d find at least one or two people like that until the prosecutor got tired of coming back after him, I think. Yeah, I know. Honestly, that’s what I was hoping for in those cases is that there were people that were just willing to do the right thing. But again, in federal courts in particular, they’ve done everything they can to prevent attorneys from arguing for jury nullification. Attorneys can be held in contempt for doing it. There’s only a couple states where it’s still part of the constitution. One of the New England states, I can’t remember which one off the top of my head, still has it.

It still happens there. That’s the only state where it’s still there. But it is a challenge, practicing law, to essentially allow a jury to see and understand what you are saying without crossing the lines with regard to jury nullification and trying to empower them to do the right thing. And I’ve successfully done that without blatantly arguing jury nullification against the instruction of the judge. As an officer of the court, there are limitations that are placed on an attorney, but juries can see through to the right thing, and they need to be empowered to do that. So there was a subtle, you know, reform that needs to happen.

And again, it would have to be subtle at first and then not. But we need to go back to that concept of jury nullification. It’s absolutely critical. Yeah. And it’s so bad that, you know, as you point out, if juries, you got a juror who openly says it, even the jurors have to be careful when they do jury nullification in most cases, because they, if they start to talking about jury nullification, you get kicked off. That’s right. If you don’t want to, if you don’t have the time, jury duty, just tell them, you know, about jury nullification, they won’t seek you in the first place.

But you know what you’re talking about in terms of the way the Biden administration has really criminally applied this law that is 30 years old. It is. And weaponized it for political purposes, abuse this law. It’s another example, isn’t it, of how things go wrong when we try to centralize it all and we try to federalize everything instead of these types of things being done by local law enforcement and local laws. You’re absolutely right. And honestly, and people think it’s radical when you say it, but we should be asking questions in this country on why today, why we even need an FBI, why we even need a Department of justice when it comes to criminal cases.

And I’d submit to, there’s a great argument that we don’t. And if we look at the history of the FBI and where it came about, you know, the FBI was really created to deal with a specific problem, which was interstate bank robberies. Right. You know, you, you know, Bonnie and Clyde would rob a bank in Kansas, and then they would flee to another state and they would get away with it. But now, you know, states can evolve and develop, and they can do interstate compacts with, when it comes to crime, they can extradite people and do those other things.

So in a modern era, especially with people moving the way they are and the agreements we have for other crimes between the states, I think there’s a lot we could look at, and we can see the danger of the growing federal government, centralized government, all of it. Every time we move things to DC, we lose freedom and the states lose accountability and responsibility every time that happens. So I agree, but simple things like jury nullification need to come back. We need to be pushing those things so that we can recover freedoms. And it is supposed to be a government, you know, with the consent of the governed, a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

That is, you know, those words are not idle words when we think about the intent and the meaning of that. And so, yes, we are a nation of laws, but we’re also a nation of political will. And the people need to understand, we need to have that. And it even goes into bigger concepts when we talk about things like Supreme Court rulings and orders. Our founders never intended those things to be the final edict that we all had to just stop what we were doing and follow. They intended that to be sort of an advisory opinion for a political leader.

And if a political leader said, you know, that’s very interesting court, but you don’t have a way to enforce that. And I disagree. And then the people could vote that leader, that political leader out of office in the next election if they chose not to go by it. But that’s the kind of role that they envisioned for the courts, not what we have now. And again, that’s another example when we talk about federal courts and the Supreme Court, of this federalization and centralization of power, which is really dangerous to our freedom. Yes, exactly. What does check and balance mean if you can’t do that? And that’s what you’re talking about was exactly done by Andrew Jackson, who said, well, the Supreme Court’s issued their opinion, let’s see him enforce it.

And he was wrong in terms of his policy, but he was right in terms of the way the constitution and the authority of all these different things happen. But, you know, when you talk about how we’ve centralized everything and the Dobbs decision, and the central point that you were making was that the face act may ultimately be overturned when people look at the fact that it was supposedly there to protect what the Supreme Court had decided was a constitutional right, and yet they didn’t have the authority to really do that. They didn’t have the authority to decide when life began.

And that’s what the document decision was about. I said before the Dobbs decision, and it really, really surprised me that it happened. I never thought it would happen, but I’d always said that the appropriate response to Roe v. Wade was for the Texas governor to say, well, you’ve made your decision. Let’s see you enforce it. We will decide what murder is here in Texas. And that’s essentially what the Dobbs decision said. It said, this is under the 10th Amendment. These things should be decided at the state level. And everybody understood that and started freaking because it said, wait a minute, that means that they could overturn their definition of marriage and they could overturn this and that and all the rest of these things that the Supreme Court has crossed over the line to do.

So this is a very important case, and this face act is not only a miscarriage, a political persecution, but it is also something that could have very far reaching constitutional implications for the Supreme Court and the judicial system. I think if this is, is overturned. Yeah, I couldn’t agree more. And again, with the Dobbs decision, you know, fundamentally, I believe that life begins at fertilization. And so the Dobbs decision was flawed because it didn’t go far enough right, that our fundamental obligation should be to protect life. However, what the Dobbs decision got right is a fundamental understanding of our constitutional republic and our federal system, where the states really do have the authority and over these things.

And really most of the authority was supposed to rest with the state. So in that respect, we’ve seen some very good jurisprudence from our Supreme Court pushing back on federal government power. We just need to see more. I agree. Yeah, I’m concerned, you know, I understand people’s concern about protecting life and I share that. I’m just concerned that if they were to, if they were to put in a federal law, which is what a lot of people are talking about, and already when you see Pence and other people talking about it, they’re typically are picking 15 weeks.

15 weeks is way beyond what they’ve done in Florida. Florida and other places is way beyond even what they did, what they have in France where they just relaxed it and they’ve extended it to twelve weeks. It used to be more stringent than that. And so who gets to set that level? Well, it’s going to wind up being set politically if we make it a political thing in Washington. And so it might be at 15 weeks with the Republicans. And when they put that in, I don’t think New York and California will enforce that and you can’t force them to do that.

But I think when they take it all the way up to 36 weeks or beyond, I think that most of the republican states, they’ll obey that, you know, and so it’s going to get the worst of both things, that we make it a federal law. I’ve seen that in the past. You know, the Republicans say, well, that’s a federal law, I got to obey it. The Democrats will say, no, we’re not. Take a look at marijuana legalization, for example. And so I’m concerned about that. Let’s talk a little bit about what is happening at the board border because that’s another constitutional issue.

I’ve talked about it. When it first started happening, I said that’s a very important constitutional issue and I’d like to get your take on that. But I said at the same time, people need to understand that there’s a lot of grandstanding that’s going on. I mean, we’re only talking about a two and a half mile area and that’s the only place where they’re really putting anything there. And so the border is still wide open everywhere else out of 2000 miles, you got two and a half miles that they’re really fighting over. But it’s got important constitutional issues on it, doesn’t it? It does.

You know, the practical impact of this is minimal. The border is wide open. The policy of our federal government, our Department of Homeland Security is to just invite as many people in as possible, regardless of who they are, where they’re from, or what controls we have over that. That’s obvious. What’s happening is just beyond absurd. But this issue is critical because it goes to a fundamental question of does the governor of Texas have the ability to take action to protect the border, the sovereignty of Texas, and ultimately to protect the property and lives of the citizens of Texas? Does the governor of Texas have the authority to do that? And I would say they have an obligation, both a legal and moral obligation to do that.

And so ultimately, you know, you have a lot of interesting issues that rise up from this. You have an older case that was, Scalia wrote a very famous defense to it. It was called the United States versus Arizona, where essentially the majority of the Supreme Court said, if it has to do with immigration, it’s the sole province of the federal government. That’s it. Right. And that’s a very overview, summary of it. And Scalia was talking very eloquently about the issue of state sovereignty, and he used language like, the constitution isn’t a suicide pact for the states.

They have the ability to protect their citizens, protect their sovereignty, to protect their borders. And that’s really the issue here. Does the state of Texas have the ability, does the governor have the ability to act in an emergency, in a declared emergency where it is a threat to the property and the lives of the people of Texas to do this? And the answer is, of course, a county sheriff would have that authority, both under a constitutional system, but also under God, God’s law, the doctrine of a lesser magistrate. It’s all there. But what’s particularly interesting, I think, and critical that we address is the federal government is not simply ignoring the law.

They’re choosing to circumvent federal law and the sovereignty of our nation to do what they’re doing. And so that’s the bigger issue here, is can states act? Do they have sovereignty? But also what happens if the federal government, the executive, is refusing to do their job and protect our nation and protect american citizens? What can a state do? And so we’ve had the Supreme Court make an initial decision, but in it, they said that Biden could undo any border barriers and he could open up the border if he wished. But that’s not a final decision. Where is it in that Supreme Court process? Right.

So all of this was, was essentially an emergency appeal by customs and border Patrol to, to seek permission to be allowed to cut the razor wire. Right. And Texas was trying to prevent them from doing that so that’s it. That’s the only thing the Supreme Court was looking at. And the argument presented by Department of Homeland Security, by the feds, if you will, was, well, they’re interfering with our ability to do our job because we need access to these areas so we can process these illegal immigrants. And so the Supreme Court said, Texas, you can’t interfere with them doing their job and so they can cut these down so they can do their job.

Of course, nothing about that emergency decision, and there wasn’t even really a written opinion. So we don’t really understand what all of the logic or rationale was. We just know what the vote was. But ultimately, you know, they don’t go into any of the other issues. They just said for now, on an emergency basis, Texas, they’re going to come in, they’re allowed to cut this stuff down so they can do their jobs. That’s interesting. Yeah, I guess first thing I covered it, I talked about Occam’s razor wire, common sense. It’s going to tell you that what they’re really about, and we all know why they want to get to those areas because they’re going to facilitate the immigration of people who, as I’ve said, said in the past.

I believe the real issue underlying all this, regardless of what kind of barriers or enforcement you’ve got at the border, the thing that is the real issue is the welfare magnet. And they’re pulling people in. Those welfare magnets have a really strong pull, even if they’re all the way up in New York City, if they start giving free benefits to everybody and make themselves a sanctuary city. These people who are at the border, when they ask them where they’re coming from, they’re coming from all over the world. But where they want to go to, about 95% of them want to go to New York City.

And so that welfare magnet is a big part of pulling people in. But from the legal standpoint, as you said, and I agree with you, I think they have the authority and they have the duty to protect lives and to protect the border from what everybody agrees is an invasion. And of course, there’s broad political support for this. So it’s become a real big political football. But I think there’s some very, very, very important legal issues, as you said, because, again, this goes back to the power of the local states. And I think this is an area that we see coming up time and again in many different areas because the federal government has become so politicized, so dysfunctional, so corrupt that people are increasingly looking to the state government to interpose itself.

I think that’s possibly one of the most important benefits of this grandstanding that’s happening at the border with the governors that are going there. I think that’s perhaps one of the most important things. What do you think about that? Yeah, that really is the point here. I think the practical implications of this that could benefit the country for a long time is that a governor is willing to stand up and say, no, states have sovereignty. This is dangerous and federal government, and I think this is important federal government, you are not doing your job. You are failing to follow the law.

You are failing to enforce the law. So someone has to, we as the lesser magistrates have to step up and do this. And I think it’s very powerful, even if it just seems like grandstanding, that other governors are willing to support Texas. They’re willing to sign on, they’re willing to endorse what they’re doing. And there are governors that are willing to send the national Guard to go and support Texas and what they’re doing independent of, you know, any sort of federal support to do that. I think the other interesting thing we will see legally in the future is, you know, Florida developed a state guard.

Right. And people talk about this. Oh, you know, what is DeSantis doing? He used his authority of governor to create a state guard that cannot be federalized. Right. It’s not. There is no, you know, I served in the, in the Pennsylvania National Guard when I was still in the reserve component. And in that you have a dual status, you are a member of the state militia and you also have federal recognition. So I had federal recognition as an officer. So normally when you’re in the national Guard, you have this dual status. Those state guard members, you know, we might think of them as like Texas Rangers in Texas, but in Florida they did that.

And they did that for specific reasons where they didn’t want to have to wait for or rely upon a federal government that might not help them when they need it because of political implications. Right. Because it’s a Republican american led state. And so I think that’s very important. So I think other states are going to be looking into similar things because they’re realizing practically they cannot rely on a federal government. And they, and they also can’t rely on them, not just because of incompetence, but because of everything is so political they may not come to their aid.

Yes. And if I remember correctly, the Florida Guard, part of the reason that he was doing that was to try to protect people from these Biden mandates for the, for the military, which is what the next thing we’re going to talk about here that you’ve been very heavily involved in, that was another aspect of it to even protect the guard from the federal government, from federal overreach. So I think that is a very, you know, again, that have state guards instead of something that is under the federal government. But this move away in many different ways from this overreaching federal authority that’s put its tentacles in every aspect of our lives.

Nobody says the joke anymore. But, you know, we used to always say when somebody would get over a rot about something, well, don’t make a federal case out of it, but everything is now federal case. And so I think this pendulum is starting to swing the other way. And I think one of the most important things about this, even though there’s a lot of political grandstanding that’s going on and a lot of political moves because Biden did not nationalize them because then he would be nationalizing them in order to open up the border. So I think that’s kind of held his hand on that.

That was a good political maneuver. But I think the best thing that could come out of this would be for conservatives have adopted this mindset that has been the mindset of liberals for a long time, that everything needs to be done by the federal government. And I think it would be a very healthy thing for people to start looking more to state and local government to intervene and to interpose against an increasingly authoritarian and intrusive federal government. I think that’s one of the most important things, don’t you? It absolutely is. And practically speaking, you know, we, we understand it.

It is in our DNA to think that way as a nation. Right. We, we don’t get a revolutionary war. We don’t split with England as the colonies without the idea and the concept of the doctrine of the lesser magistrate. In other words, local authorities who have the authority by the people that they govern to act and act responsibly, taking, taking these steps. But the other practical implication, not just that it’s in our DNA as a nation, we can actually have influence over what happens locally. I mean, how much, how much effort does it take? I mean, people can think about the county you live in.

Do you know who your elected district attorney is in your county? Do you know, do you know if they’re a Republican or a Democrat? Are they conservative? Are they a Soros funded DA? And what do you think it would take? Look at the number. I mean, in so many counties across the nation, it’s a few hundred votes, maybe a few thousand votes that would make the difference between, who’s your district attorney? Why does that matter? That’s one of your chief law enforcement people in your county that’s going to decide who’s bringing charges or not. That’s just one example.

Your county sheriff’s critically important when we talk about law enforcement and protecting the citizens of the county from federal overreach so you can have an impact. A few churches get together, they rally behind a good, solid candidate not violating, you know, 501 C three status, but actually encouraging people to understand the issues. All of a sudden you can swing an election at the county level and even at the state level when you, when you act together that way. So practically speaking, we can have so much more influence there than we ever can in the swamp that has become DC.

Oh, you’re so right. Even Elon Musk is, I’ve been saying this for the longest. People always, well, who do you like for president? I said, you know, who do you like for your local sheriff? Who do you like for your local town council? And you look at the fact that for a presidential election, you’re one of 300 million people voting, you may have a million times more effect in your local election than you do. Your vote is a million times better, more powerful than it is in a federal election for president or anything like that. And the closer you get to you, the more effect it has.

Even Elon Musk has pointed that out, and he pointed out the brilliance of Soros by focusing on local district attorneys. We should be that smart. We should learn from these guys. They know what they’re doing and they know how to manipulate and get control. And so I agree. I think it is the local issues, but it also then comes down to the individual. And that’s what we were showing at the beginning. The trailer for the new documentary that’s coming out, talking about this struggle that you’ve been involved in very heavily from the very beginning. You’re in the trailer there.

Seals beat Biden, that documentary. Tell us a little bit about that documentary, and then we’ll talk a little bit about what the current status is of these things. So tell us a little bit about the documentary. Davis yeah, absolutely. So seals beat Biden was a concept that was developed. It’s a relatively new news media outlet called the Republic Sentinel. And they came to me, they came to former Navy SeALs and others and said, hey, we want to tell this story. We want to tell the story of what happened. We want to do it well, we want to honor these people, but we also want to do it in a way that we can prevent things like this from happening and also shine a light on the implications of everything that happened with the COVID mandate on the rights of all american citizens.

So that was sort of what was behind the project. So the Republic Sentinel was fantastic. Fantastic. What’s out now currently is part one. It’s a three part series. I’m not exactly sure when the second part is going to be released. It should be released very soon, and then there’ll be a final third part that’s released as well. So you can follow what’s going on@sealsbeatbiden.com. dot it’s free. You just have to give them your email address in order to log in there, but you can set up an account and watch it free. It’s very, very well done.

And I think some of the most powerful aspects of it are just telling the stories of individuals like Asa Miller, one of the Navy SeaLs I represented in this, talks about what it was like for those guys to go through this talks about people being put in isolation, being essentially in solitary confinement, what it was like for him. And Ace is in a great position to tell that story because he was one of the Navy SEALs from the very, very beginning. That said, I dont believe this is right. I dont believe this is constitutional. We need to take a stand, not just for ourselves, but for everyone in the military that’s afraid to speak up because they’re not a Navy SeaL and for the american public.

And he was willing to be court martialed. He and I sat in a room together and I said, if you don’t follow this order, you understand what could happen. And he was ready and willing to be court martialed if that’s what it takes. So I’m so glad that he’s able to be in it and tell part of his story. And there’s other people that were critically involved in sort of rallying people to this cause and creating not just a rally point, but a way for people to get this information out there and have the courage to take a stand within the military.

So it went from isolated individual military members working on this on their own to at one point, and I think we’ve talked about this number before, but even the DoD admitted that there were two over 260,000 military members that were not compliant when the mandate came out. Wow. Right. Over 260,000. That’s over 13% of the total military force that were not compliant by the time the mandate came down, and that’s the DoD’s numbers. So how far we trust that? I’m not sure how before we go on that, but steals B. Biden is an effort to sort of tell the story of what happened.

And then as you get into episode three, I’m told the goal of that episode is really to talk about the future and how we take stands against things like this in the future and learn from what happened. That’s excellent. And it all begins with the individuals. And, you know, I’ve seen some articles. There was one I saw the other day, somebody said, you know, there are more people involved in all of this than you think. You know, just as they want to make everybody think, well, you’re the only one who had a family member die from this shot, or you’re the only one who got paralyzed from this shot.

No, it was happening to everybody. They did such a great job of trying to isolate and atomize and cover this up with everybody. You point out 13%, 260,000 people, even according to their numbers. And of course, you look at the things that they’re doing with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, how they rigged those numbers last week. It’s just amazing. But they always rig the numbers. They rigged the COVID numbers, they rigged the protest numbers and all the rest of this. But it really did come down to the strong, to the individual. When you make this stand, each and every one of us is going to have to make that stand as an individual and make that individual decision.

And I like the way the documentary trailer started with that vice admiral, I think it was, who said, most important fight he’s been in, and it is true, because this is a fight for our country or fight for our constitution and for everyone’s individual rights. And I like the way they came back to him and he said, you got to be willing to throw those stars on the table over the principle. And the sad thing about it that bothers me, Davis, is the fact that they have pushed so many good people like that out of the military.

I think that’s a big part of the agenda. What do you think? Yeah, you know, and I didn’t want to believe that, right? And very early on in this, people started talking about a purge or otherwise. But I was, you know, I was a Jag. I was a lawyer in the military. I was a lieutenant colonel. I submitted my religious accommodation request. I trusted the process. And then it was denied. And it was denied improperly. It was denied for the wrong reasons. And so I had great pause. But I’m like, okay, I’m going to appeal my own, you know, religious accommodation.

I’m going to help everyone else do it. And I quickly realized from the beginning they weren’t going to be granting these religious accommodation requests. The goal was 100% compliance no matter what. And then it doesn’t take very much imagination to start thinking about, okay, okay, if you have a significant portion, you know, 10, 13, 15, whatever the real number was, percent of the force that is objecting to not just to being vaccinated, but being, but objecting to the way this is being done and the way it’s being forced on the american public and on the military for their, their moral, ethical and religious reasons, then you have to realize, wow, who’s leaving the military? Then? It’s people that are willing to question orders.

It’s people that are willing to say, no, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution in the United States. I’m not going to turn my back on that. And people don’t fully understand. The documentary helped us tell this story, but I can just rattle off examples of how this policy was in direct violation of constitutional rights and in direct violation of federal law, and they knew that and they refused to stop. I mean, the best example, and it’s almost humorous, if it wasn’t so serious for so many people, but the Department of Defense inspector general, the inspector general’s office, supposed to be the watchdog for the Department of Defense, and they, they work for the man.

So you have to wonder how independent they really are. But even they did a cursory review of the religious accommodation process and they said, Department of Defense, you are not doing this correctly. It is impossible for you to be doing the individualized review that’s required by law. There are not enough hours in the day, days in the week, you know, weeks in a month in order to do this, because you’re spending, you know, they, they did a calculation. It’s like even if you were working ten hour days with no breaks, you’re spending minutes at most on each one of these individual accommodation requests.

That’s not what the law requires. The DoD, Ig, wrote a memo, sent it to Secretary Austin, the secretary of defense, and said, you need to see this because our initial analysis is you’re violating the constitutional rights and you may be violating federal law by the way you’re doing this. And it was ignored. Yeah, yeah. It was ignored by the secretary of defense. And no one even knew that that memo existed until it came out through a FOIA request almost two months later in other words, they were kicking people out, ending people’s careers, continuing to do this without even, like, a strategic pause to say, okay, hey, we need to look into this.

They simply didn’t care. And so that, you know, if there’s no other lesson that we can learn from the documentary, from what happened with the COVID mandate in the military, is that we had an executive branch and military leadership that were willing to ignore federal law and the constitutional rights of military members to accomplish a goal which was 100% compliance with an experimental vaccine. Yeah, yeah. And we had a lot of people who were scientists or people in the medical community, and they didn’t wake up until they’re working on it and said, yeah, we got this other thing over here.

Maybe this works, and maybe that works. And that happened in many different ways, many different places, and they were immediately shut down. We have one solution, and you’re going to do this, and it’s like, wait a minute, there’s something wrong here, right? And so you’re seeing that everywhere. But fundamentally, what happened to people in the military, it’s essentially the same thing that we see in private companies or we see in the hospitals, for example, the government bribes people with money, and then it says, and then you’re going to do this, or we’re going to take that money away.

And so it ultimately comes back to what that vice admiral said. You got to be willing to throw those stars on the table over your principal. And that was the same thing that happened to nurses and hospitals. You know, they. They hold your career, they hold your livelihood and your lifeline up to you, and you have to make that decision. Am I going to stand by the money and the career, or am I going to stand by my principle? And that’s why this is a story for everybody inside the military or outside the military. And a lot of people have gone through this fire.

And the good thing about this is they’ve come out on the other side. And I’ve talked to so many people who have absolutely no regrets about whether they lost their job. Many of them found something else to do. They’re happier about that. The people who have regrets are the ones who had their arm twisted and went along with the coercion. Those are the people I see over and over again who have regrets. Yeah, absolutely. And there’s just been tremendous community built out of what happened. And, you know, this idea you were talking about earlier of isolation, you know, during this whole military fight, there were so many times when someone would call me and they’d be like, I’m the only person on my entire installation.

My chain of command is telling me I’m the only one. I’m the last holdout. What do I do? I’m all alone here. And I’m like, nope, you’re not alone. I have talked to five other people that are your same installation that are being told the same thing by their command. They’re being lied to about that. But just even the idea, and that was part of the whole idea of what the Navy SeaLs like Asa Miller did and were willing to do, is they were willing to risk their careers in order to get the word out there, hey, you’re not alone.

You’re not alone. You’re not isolated. There is a whole community of people that are taking a stand. And the idea is courage is contagious. And one of the things I think is a difference. And maybe this is hyperbole, maybe it’s not. But people like Asa Miller being willing to take a stand and say no and not comply is a difference. Other people throughout society that took a stand, restaurant owners, gym owners, doctors, nurses, small businesses, they took these stands. And the fact that they were unwilling to comply, churches as well, is why we didn’t have concentration camps like they had in Australia, in the United States.

Right. Because there was not the political will to do that because there was enough people, even though it was a small percentage, saying no and not complying with this government overreach. And so the government didn’t have the political ability to carry out as much as they could or would have without that. That’s what we need to learn from this. We need to have communities of people willing to come together, willing to rally at the local level, using the doctrine of lesser magistrates to take these stands. And if nothing else, I think that’s a lot of what is hoped to be, you know, taught and talked about through the documentary.

Yes. They’re so focused on. On speech and controlling our communications with each other because they want to do that isolation thing. And, you know, when you look at the military, I think about it, how much they. They’ve got to be. It’s got to be an especially difficult thing for people in the military because they spend so much time trying to create this cohesiveness. You’re part of a unit. You know, you’re not just an individual out here. And that was part of what you and others were saying about this. You know, by isolating these people and making them the other, you’re really harming that kind of cohesiveness.

But, I mean, imagine the people who are being ostracized and isolated over all this stuff, they really feel that to a greater degree than somebody who is just working in a civilian job, because in a civilian job, you’re not trained to have that kind of a team unit idea. And now you are kind of leaving the team and betraying the team is the way they’re portraying it to people, wasn’t it? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, that was part of the pressure that was put on myself and so many military members. And when you get down to people like Navy SEALs, the team, the cohesiveness of that team, that small unit tactics, all of that comes together.

And it absolutely was. There was a lot of pressure put on individuals to say, well, everybody else is doing it. Just go along, go along, go along. And not everyone else was doing it, which was part of this. But the other thing is, again, you have to understand these individuals. So many were motivated by the fact that they believed this was wrong. And all, all they did was start asking questions. That’s all a lot of us did is just ask some questions. And you weren’t even allowed to ask questions. As soon as you started to ask questions, then you were faced with tremendous pressure.

And I’ve seen it over and over and over again where just the mere fact that you’re asking questions has been met with challenges from the military, isolation from the military. And it went past Covid. I’m still trying to fix people who lost their security clearance not because, you know, the mandate was repealed, so they were in good standing with the military again, but because they had written a detailed memo to their commander explaining why they felt it was unlawful to order military members to receive an experimental, you know, medical procedure, a medical product under federal law.

Why? They believe that then they were being challenged as being disloyal or exercising poor judgment, and they’re trying to revive their security clearances. So most of those cases so far, we’ve won and we’ve gotten the security clearance back, but that was sort of like the next level. And again, when you see things like that, you start to say, that really does feel like a purge. Then if you’re not just. If you’re not just saying, oh, you survived the COVID mandate, but now we’re coming after your security clearance because you dared say that you think this order might be unlawful.

You know, you’re not allowed to do that. That’s the exact opposite of the way our military was built and designed and just the DNA of our military. We used to have a military that really focused on the small unit, the platoon, the platoon sergeant, and individual freedom of action within your area of authority, even on the battlefield. We’ve won battles historically as a nation because it didn’t matter if a small unit was cut off from the chain of command or communication. They had the freedom, and they were expected to exercise good judgment and carry on the mission, even without a general officer telling them what to do.

Right. And that was the difference between the allied military on D Day and the german military. No one would wake up Hitler to release the tanks on D Day, or the Germans may have pushed us off the beaches. But again, there was this command structure where they had no freedom of action. That’s what we’ve moved to in our military. So on a very practical level, Covid exposed that punishing commanders and anyone who ask hard questions, that’s a dangerous thing. That’s something we need to be working hard on in our military as well. We need to go back to a concept that we want free thinkers who, within the structure of the law and the constitution, feel comfortable doing their job and doing it well.

That’s what’s made us have the best and most powerful military when we’ve been successful. Oh, yeah. And that’s what makes our economy work. Not having central planning, not having total centralized control. And yet that is the essence of what they want to do. Well, you’ve got a lot of different things that you do there. At your website is yonce law. That’s y o u n t s law. You’ve got a lot of military experience. You help people who are christians who are being persecuted. People can also follow you on x at Davis Yance. Y o u n t s again, and tell us a little bit about.

We’ve only got about a minute and a half. Give us a little bit of a commercial for what you do at Yacht’s law. Yeah. So we are focused primarily on representing military members. So we help military members with all kinds of things rising from the level of administrative actions to court martial cases we have pushed into since COVID a lot more religious freedom issues. So we’re able to do that and we use our experience. I’ve added another attorney to the firm, Caleb Byrd, who is a former senior army prosecutor who’s outstanding on these issues as well.

So that’s our goal, is really to support military members. We want to be in a position to encourage military members to do the right thing and to help them navigate the process. So that takes us all over the world, and we hope to be able to continue to do that as long as God allows it. And as you pointed out, I mean, there’s just no end to this. They’re so tenacious. I, yesterday I was talking about how Alvin Bragg, Manhattan Da he’s coming after people over Covid stuff still. And so the military is especially, you know, as you pointed out, taking security clearances of other people.

They are out to get their revenge against anybody that pushed back against their narrative for centralized control. And it just keeps going. So thank you so much for what you do. David shots, and you can also find him on Twitter or xavisjonst. Thank you so much for what you do, sir. Appreciate it. Thank you. God bless you. Thank you. Have a good day. The common man, they created common core, dumbed down our children. They created common past to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing. And the communist future. They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.

But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It’s time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you’ll find@thedavidknightshow.com. dot thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can’t support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. Thedavidknightshow.com now is andrew riddle. Riddle, I’m sorry. He is a CEO of liberation technology services, a company at the forefront of cloud, cloud hosting industry, and he’s involved in cybersecurity.

And he, he has contacted me. He wanted to talk about artificial intelligence and the threats to us, and they are tremendous threats to us. Thank you for joining us, Andrew. Well, thank you so much for having me. Really looking forward to the conversation. I am, too. And I’ve had people on many times to talk about artificial intelligence. I had a guy who was with a military industrial complex and they were talking about the different modeling things that they were doing. And it was very, very interesting. He even had concerns about, even though he felt that it was necessary in this arms race against China to have all this stuff.

He says, well, I don’t know how we actually, once we turn over control and it’s inevitable we’re going to turn control over in a war scenario. How do we stop it? How do we get control back? He says, we don’t know yet they’re talking about this stuff. And the question is, how do we get control back from these things? As we start here, let me get your reaction to what I played earlier today. I’m sure that you’ve maybe seen the announcement about copilot for Microsoft that they’re going to put artificial intelligence on your laptop. It’s going to constantly be taking screenshots of what you’re doing and making assessments about what you want.

You know, of course, to be your friend and your servant, and it will never violate your privacy. What do you think about that? Do you think anybody wants this? Do you think anybody believes those promises? Well, I think the scary fact of the matter is it’s already happening. Microsoft is just, you know, openly acknowledging the fact that they’re doing this. We see this with TikTok. We see this with Google. We see this with all these other companies that have integrated the AI and other data collection methods. TikTok, little known fact, they access every single app on your device.

They’re also looking at your banking apps, your financial apps, your health apps, and all these other things. But I think it is concerning whether they’re publicly acknowledging it like Microsoft or covertly doing it. I think that it is very concerning, because with that sheer amount of data, the question lies, what will they be able to do with that? It’s not just to make suggestions. Will they be able to then start subliminally targeting us with the obvious things like products and services? But will they be able to also start manipulating, manipulating our behaviors, our actions, throughout the day? Because they know how in a subconscious level, we react to certain triggers and environments.

Okay? They want everyone to perform action a. They know if they hit us with the right messaging or visuals or audio or audible methods, we’ll react. Yeah, they call it nudging. They know how to give you subtle pushes in different ways. They call it a nudge. And, you know, the whole artificial intelligence thing is based on scraping data from all over the Internet. So we know they’re doing that. We know that everything just put out there on social media is available to any government agency to scrape, or any company can scrape it there. So that part of it is not new.

I guess when I looked at the Microsoft copilot, I thought, oh, great, now I get my own personal little Stasi spy to keep a diagram about everything. Personally, before there was a large engagement from the human element of a platform, that would have to say, okay, well, this either violates terms of service or, hey, we want to push this narrative and things like that. But we’re essentially now handing all of the data and all of the control over to this AI. And as you were saying just before the break, it isn’t the Terminator AI we all think of, but it is possible.

You think chat GBT launched less than a year ago, and the developments that we’ve seen in the space since then are, you know, monumental. You know, what will this environment look like in 12, 24, 36 months? I think that’s where we need to proactively start thinking and start planning, because, yeah, we might not be able to put the genie back in the bottle once it’s activated, especially, especially if you give it a gun. Yeah. Which they’re doing. They’re telling them to fly planes and drop bombs, and here’s a gun. You know, and speaking of that, there was an excellent novel that was written about twelve or 13 years ago by Daniel Suarez called Kill Decision, and it was about using AI and drones and how disruptive and revolutionary that was going to be to the military industrial complex.

And my son just went back, who told me about that years ago, and we listened to it years ago, and he went back and listened to it again, said, you know, and that novel, what kicks it off is the AI’s ability to look at a picture and to make assessments about what is in that picture, just as we saw demonstrated last week. And, you know, the OpenAI, the chat four, oh, where you got, everybody’s focusing on the voice of Scarlett Johansson. But it really is concerning. Even though we know that it is a demo and there may be some rigged aspects of it, it truly was pretty amazing what that was able to do.

And as you point out, there have been massive leaps and what is the perceived capability of these systems. Yeah. And we’ve already seen that technology really get involved in this election already in New Hampshire, there was the Joe Biden deep fake where they were able to, one of the democratic challengers was able to persuade voters not to go out and vote or to alter their vote because they got a phone call from Joe Biden. That’s where it becomes so concerning, because there’s next to no oversight in this space aside from these technology companies saying, oh, we’ll do better, but there’s really no oversight in steps put in place ahead of the election to protect us against these types of threats.

It’s one of those things, as we’ve seen in 2022, in 2020, trying to fix something after the fact. The courts, the public opinions, they’re not going to deal with that. So there’s a chance that we could see a deepfake, give out false information, have an impact in the election, and everyone will just kind of throw their hands up and say, well, we’ll try not to let this happen again. But the outcome of the election. Election is still decided, and I think it’s important. You know, we’ve seen lies, manipulation, propaganda. It’s always been there as part of an election.

I think what is different about this? And I mentioned this from the very beginning with artificial intelligence. Even when we had the chat bots that were hallucinating with stuff immediately, even though they were coming up with these wild scenarios, people started backfilling and saying, well, maybe this thing is really aware, you know, and anthropomorphizing it and giving it credibility, instead of looking at this and saying, this is a bunch of crap. Because I started my first thing when I interacted with it, I started talking to it about climate change or about the Pfizer shot or something like that.

Of course, it just shut me down. So I was like, okay, I get this. It’s just another control mechanism. But most people, I think the real danger is the confidence that people put in this. I was trained as an engineer. We were always told from the very beginning, garbage in, garbage out. Don’t trust this just because you got a computer print out. Don’t trust it just because it’s a model from somebody, because you can make the computer say anything that you want. It’s not necessarily right. And people shut down that critical thought. And I think that’s one of the most deceptive and dangerous things about artificial intelligence.

I think that’s why it’s important to talk about it. The David Knight show is a critical thinking super spreader. If you’ve been exposed to logic by listening to the David Knight show, please do your part and try not to spread it. Financial support or simply telling others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread. Father, people have to trust me. I mean, trust the science. Wear your mask, take your vaccine. Don’t ask questions. Using free speech to free minds. It’s the David Knight show.
[tr:tra].

See more of The David Knight Show on their Public Channel and the MPN The David Knight Show channel.