➡ The text criticizes the government’s approach to handling economic issues, arguing that it lacks a clear plan and is causing harm through taxes, tariffs, and regulations. It suggests that the government’s actions are not benefiting small and medium-sized businesses or consumers, and criticizes the use of executive orders. The text also argues that the government should rely more on liberty and market solutions, rather than imposing austerity measures. It concludes by questioning the effectiveness of central planning, suggesting that ordinary people can often make better decisions.

➡ Venice, a city with a thousand-year history, is facing a man-made problem of sinking due to groundwater pumping in the 1960s and 70s. To combat this, the city installed barriers to be raised during high tides, but this solution has proven problematic as it closes off the city and disrupts natural tidal flushing. Now, there are plans to drill wells around the city and pump it up, but this could lead to unforeseen consequences. Meanwhile, debates about vaccines and herd immunity continue, with some arguing that natural immunity should be considered alongside vaccination in achieving herd immunity.

➡ The text questions the effectiveness of vaccines, suggesting that they are not properly tested and that their reported effectiveness may be exaggerated. It also criticizes the lack of transparency about potential side effects, such as links to autism. The text further discusses the controversy surrounding the origins of COVID-19 and the role of various individuals and organizations. It ends with a discussion on the potential dangers of driverless vehicles and the use of drones in warfare, particularly against civilian targets like churches.

➡ The conflict in Donbass, which started in 2014, has seen attacks on culturally and linguistically Russian areas, including the bombing of historic church buildings. In a separate incident, a humanitarian aid ship bound for Gaza was attacked by Israeli drones, disabling the vessel and preventing it from delivering food and medicine. This follows a similar incident in 2010 where an aid ship was attacked, resulting in multiple casualties. Meanwhile, the U.S. has been involved in over 1,000 bombings in Yemen in just six weeks.

➡ The U.S. has been bombing Yemen frequently, with claims that the attacks are linked to Iran. The Houthis, a group in Yemen, have been retaliating by shooting down U.S. drones and have offered to stop if the U.S. halts its attacks. However, the U.S. government, under Trump’s administration, seems uninterested in peace. Meanwhile, there are allegations of cover-ups regarding U.S. casualties in the Yemen war, and former National Security Advisor Michael Waltz was dismissed, partly due to his push for more military action against Iran.

➡ The article discusses concerns about Mike Waltz, a former national security advisor, potentially sharing US war plans and private messages with Israeli intelligence. It also mentions the possibility of sanctions against countries buying Iranian oil. The text further discusses the issue of due process for foreign citizens in the US, with the author suggesting that even with a large number of people, some form of review should be given. The author criticizes the Trump administration’s handling of these issues.

➡ The text discusses the debate over rights and privileges in the United States, particularly in relation to foreign citizens. It argues that while entry into the U.S. is a privilege that can be controlled by the government, all human beings, regardless of citizenship, should be treated with respect and dignity. The text also suggests that welfare is not a right and should not be used as a magnet to attract illegal immigration. Instead, it proposes financial disincentives to discourage illegal immigration and emphasizes the importance of upholding human rights.

➡ The article discusses the debate around welfare, immigration, and the power of the executive branch in the United States. It questions whether welfare is a right and if the president can refuse to spend money authorized by Congress. The article also touches on the issue of illegal immigrants receiving Social Security benefits and the need for the government to obey the law. Lastly, it mentions the possibility of using military force to control Greenland for international security.

➡ The article discusses the possibility of the US trying to take control of Canada and Greenland, which most Americans believe is a bad idea. It also mentions a controversial memorandum of understanding between the US and Panama, which was published in two different versions, one in Spanish and one in English, causing confusion and suspicion. The article ends by encouraging readers to prepare for potential changes and to defend their rights, particularly in areas like homeschooling and financial privacy.

➡ The article discusses the importance of freedom and choice in society, referencing Elon Musk’s concept of a ‘hive mind’ where collective decision-making is more effective than individual decisions. It criticizes the arrogance of elites, like Donald Trump, who believe they know better than the general public. The article also highlights the ongoing debate about the constitutionality of presidential powers, particularly in relation to tariffs and trade. It warns against the dangers of disregarding the rule of law and the Constitution, regardless of political affiliation.

➡ The article discusses the history and impact of tariffs in the United States, focusing on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 and its role in the Great Depression. It also mentions the Reciprocal Trade Act of 1934, which allowed the President to set tariff rates. The article criticizes the current administration’s use of tariffs, arguing that they are not based on actual tariff rates but on other metrics. It concludes by questioning the constitutionality of the President’s power to implement tariffs, suggesting that it may violate the separation of powers.

➡ The text discusses the perceived misuse of power by Congress and the federal government, creating agencies and regulations that may overstep constitutional boundaries. It criticizes the delegation of powers to these agencies, such as the Department of Energy and the EPA, and calls for radical change to uproot these issues. The text also discusses the potential unconstitutionality of tariffs imposed under emergency declarations, and the dangers of such actions. Lastly, it criticizes the current administration’s handling of various issues, including immigration and law enforcement.

➡ The speaker discusses a man who may be involved in human trafficking for cartels, and criticizes the media for not focusing on this issue. They also express concern about the lack of due process for non-citizens in the country. The speaker then discusses a case where a man was mistakenly deported and later brought back, criticizing the current administration’s attitude towards immigration and law enforcement. They also touch on the topic of rising prices and tariffs, attributing these issues to the current administration’s policies and expressing concern for the impact on small businesses.

➡ The article discusses the potential impact of tariffs on the cost of goods, suggesting that prices may increase. It criticizes the idea that consumers should be content with paying more and getting less, and highlights the potential for a decrease in average household income. The article also questions the effectiveness of the proposed plans to save the country, suggesting they may harm the Constitution and lead to a loss of rule of law. It ends by discussing the potential negative impact on small businesses and the economy.

➡ The text discusses the issue of cheap goods, both in terms of cost and quality, and the role of governments and corporations in this. It criticizes the idea of paying more for goods out of patriotism and argues for more freedom of choice and less regulation. It also criticizes the actions of Donald Trump and his impact on conservative populist movements in other countries. The text ends with a critique of democracy and the manipulation of it by political parties.

➡ The text discusses various political and economic issues globally, including concerns about individual rights in democracies, the influence of foreign powers on countries, and the impact of tariffs on tech companies and consumers. It also highlights the rise of autonomous vehicles, particularly self-driving trucks, and the potential dangers they pose. The author expresses skepticism about the future, citing the misuse of power and the disregard for individual rights as major concerns.

➡ The article discusses the concerns and potential dangers of autonomous vehicles, particularly self-driving trucks. It highlights a case where a self-driving car failed to prevent an accident due to the emergency brakes being disconnected. The article also raises concerns about the increasing reliance on artificial intelligence (AI) in various fields, including programming, and the potential risks if AI makes significant mistakes. It ends by discussing the controversy over electric and self-driving vehicles, arguing that they may be forced upon consumers without choice, and questioning their safety and efficiency.

In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. It’s the David Knight Show. As the clock strikes 13, it’s Monday, the 5th of May, year of our Lord 2025. Well, today we’re going to take a look at some interesting statements that came out of President Trump. Some of them, I think one of them was really startling when taken out of context. We’re going to put it in context. But there’s other issues besides whether or not the president has to follow the Constitution. There are other issues involved with this, and that is, does the, does the Bill of Rights apply to foreign citizens who are here, even if they came here illegally? We’re going to take a look at that.

We’ll be right back. Stay with. Well, you know, we hear so much about Make America Great Again. What was it about America that was great? I mean, obviously implicit in that is that America is not so great today. And I would agree with that. I would also agree that we were much more free, prosperous, even if we didn’t have the kind of disposable income that we are looking at. Of course, Trump was saying, well, okay, you’re not going to have 30 dolls. You’ll have two or three or whatever, and we’ll talk about that. I don’t agree with him on that.

But I also don’t think that America is great because we have all kinds of consumer goods. I mean, that’s part of it. It’s an outcome of freedom. And we don’t need to have a forced austerity, do we? And that seems to be what these people are talking about. You know, we’ve got an agenda here. You just need to get in line and follow our agenda. And it’s like, well, before I go marching off to your drumbeat, I need to be convinced that you’re taking us in the right direction. I’m not going to go marching off to war, economic or otherwise.

If I’m not convinced of the justice of what’s going on, and if I’m not convinced of your leadership, that’s a big issue. And of course, it’s not just the goals that they have. It’s a laudable goal for us to have industry that has just been eviscerated in the last 20, 30 years in America. And we know why. We know exactly why. But it is laudable to try to undo that, except understand that it was the government’s ideas that created that in the first place. And we need to also look at how their approaches are going to work or not.

And Apart from all of this, what form are we going to pay in taxes? And is this going to help us to achieve? I don’t know. What are we trying to achieve? Right, that’s the question. Is it going to help us to achieve it? But the big issue is the uncertainty. And so the question is, what are we trying to achieve? There’s an interesting survey that was put up on zerohedge. Now, what is the end goal of all this? We’re having a discussion over this weekend about education. And I recounted the story of one individual who accompanied his.

This is a personal story that he told. He accompanied his kid to, you know, Parents Day at the kindergarten, for example. And he’s there and the kindergarten teacher is so excited about this new program that they’ve got. We got him doing this and this and this. And the father raises his hand and he said, so what’s the purpose of this? What’s the purpose of it? Well, and they were just kind of caught flat footed. They didn’t really thought about the purpose of it. And so the question is, what are you trying to achieve here? And I think the statements that Trump made are raising some real key issues about what is it that we’re trying to achieve here? And so they asked Americans what they value.

And of course, health is the first thing. I mean, you can’t do anything if you don’t have health. If you’re sick, family members are sick. Second thing was family. And I think that’s very hopeful. I think that people have their priorities straight way down the line. Travis, pull up the chart there. Scroll down a little bit. Down the line. There we go. You make that smaller so people can see it or maybe they can. I just got this on the. Yeah, there we go. But, you know, health was, and it was, you know, it doesn’t add up to 100%.

They weren’t saying what was the most important thing, but just name some things that are important to you. Well, more people named health than anything else. 60%. Closely following that was family life at 58%. Making money was down at third place at 47%. And then you had things like personal growth, authenticity, career, tradition. I was surprised to see tradition was there. That was important to 27% of the people. And then down at the bottom of this, you know, this is eight different items that they had there at 26% was supporting good causes. Now that’s going to include, but it’s not going to be limited to, of course, political actions of people out there.

Right. All this political activity, people Pushing for the Democrat Party or pushing for the Republican Party. These are good political causes. And that type of thing, you know, would include some other things as well. You know, somebody might be involved in something that is some kind of a health push or something like that, some sort of society for people who are suffering from disease. You could put a lot of different things in there. But of course. And so that means that since you could put a lot of different things in there, that people who are focused on political action, it’s really pretty small.

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

And when we look at where we are with these tariffs, there was another chart that came up. This was actually one that was tweeted out by somebody in the Trump administration. And they’re a trade representative, US Trade representative put a chart up on X showing the steep decline in percentage of apparel sold in America that was manufactured in America. You know, look for the union label, you know, if you remember that commercial. Now scroll down and show that chart. It’s first of all, we know what has happened. And he just takes two endpoints. It would be interesting to see the intermediate data.

He shows One chart there, 1991, and another one in 2023. In 1991, 56% of American clothes are made in America. 56%. That’s down to 4%, 2023. And so the question is, what happened? Well, we do know what happened. What they’re not showing there as an intermediate point is we mentioned it many times on the show. Gerald Celenty has mentioned it many times on this show. George W. Bush, three months to the day after 9 11, December 11, 2001, brought China into the World Trade Organization and gave them most favored nation status. I was just talking over the weekend to a friend who used to work for the US Government and their trade, you know, the trade bureaucracy in Washington.

He was a lawyer, and he said that, you know, first of all, we didn’t put a whole lot of emphasis on trade and trying to make it fair. He said The Japanese had 20,000 people doing that in Japan. In the US we had 1,000. But he said, when you look at what happened with this, he said, before that happened before, you had the China getting into the World Trade Organization, getting Most Favored Nation status. He said you could still buy stuff from China, but they were treated like Cuba. And it was difficult. You had to go through a lot of red tape to buy stuff from China.

And so it was all this amazing reversal right there, three months after 9, 11. Nobody paid any attention to it because everybody was focused on that and the aftermath of it. And so again, we went from China and buying stuff from them. They were a pariah, like Cuba sanctioned and all the rest of the stuff. And then all of a sudden, you know, they’re one of us. And that is what’s happened, along with the fact that they gamed it. Perhaps the initial designation of them being like Cuba and hostile was absolutely true. It really was. And so I share the stated goals of where we want to go.

We understand what the issue is here. But now, again, the question is, what do we do about it? Is taxation the path to prosperity? How do we decide which industries? And of course, that’s not even a part of this. There’s not even some strategic proposal. This has just been a blanket shotgun to shoot this at everybody in the world all at once. Even the people that we have trade surpluses with. We are going to punish them. We’re going to punish everybody equally. It’s kind of stupid. Kind of looks like there’s no plan. It kind of looks like what Marco Rubio said.

You know, one thing I like about this administration is we don’t do studies. We could tell you’re winging it. You’re not studying anything. You’re not planning anything. There is no plan, folks. The plan is for you to trust them. Put your hope in government and trust the government. That is not a plan, folks. That’s a disaster. Never, never, never trust government, especially this one, especially one that is vacillating and uncertain about what it wants to do. That obviously shows that it has no plan. This is very destructive plays in the process of doing. The only hope that we have is that Trump will undo Trump, but in the meantime, he’s been so vacillating and so punitive in the tariffs that it has literally locked us down yet again.

That’s the key. America was not great because of taxes. America was not great because of tariffs. What made America great was freedom and having government that was small, distant, and out of our lives. That was what made government great. And the biggest problem that we have is not China. The biggest problem we have is Washington. And then we have big problems with the state governments as well, and local governments as well. Government at every level needs to get away from us. But especially, especially the federal government, they’re not your savior. They’re not going to save you.

With taxes and regulation. That’s what we’re talking about. With tariffs, it’s taxes and regulation. That is not what made America great. That’s what kept America from being great. That is the source of our problem. As Ronald Reagan said, government is not the solution, it’s the problem. And the specific problems of government are taxes and regulation. And what Trump is doing is adding taxes and regulation. He’s increasing the problem. And so these are the things that we don’t have. The freedom to compete, the freedom to create businesses that has been regulated to death. Now, when we look at what may happen with this, we don’t know what Trump is going to do from one hour to the next.

And they put that out in their little cabinet meeting as if that was a positive feature. It’s changing, said Rubio. You know, from day to day, from hour to hour, from minute to minute, it’s changing. It’s constantly changing because they don’t have a plan unless chaos is a plan, unless locking the country down is their plan. Other than that, they don’t have one. And so the question is going to be, is there going to be a legal pushback against this? We have California and 12 other states have sued the Trump administration over his unilateral dictates of taxes.

I think this is a very, very bad idea to let one individual who can’t make up his mind, who has blown around with every advisor that talks to him and then is blown around with every foreign country that they talk to or every industry that they talk to. And unfortunately, guess who they’re not talking to? Small and medium sized businesses and consumers, because small businesses are not essential. Trump told us that. Trump showed us that in 2020. And you should believe him when he said that. You should believe what he did. You know this interview that he has yesterday on one of the Sunday shows, Kristen Welker, he says, okay, well, you know, the good stuff is me.

The bad stuff in our economy is Biden. Now, ultimately, I’m responsible for all of it. He said, oh, really? Well, tell that to the MAGA people. Tell to the MAGA people, oh, no, Trump’s not responsible for anything bad that happens. He’s not at all. He doesn’t do anything bad. And if it’s bad, somebody else did it, or if it’s bad and Trump did it, it’s because somebody deceived him. That’s what we hear all the time. Well, as I said, the 13 states that are suing, and it’s kind of interesting because 12 of them are going have taken a challenge to a trade organization within the United States that’s supposed to oversee that.

California, however, went into the court system, to the ninth Court, ninth Circuit Court, which is, you know, very leftist. And so these, you know, there’s California and then there’s 12 states. And they have filed in different jurisdictions and may get very different results. On Wednesday, speaking from the White House, Trump suggested the families scale back on gifts this year. And we’ll talk about that. But, you know, when we look at this, this is one of the things that bothers me. Besides the fact that he rules by executive order, that is predicated on phony emergencies like the pandemic in 2020.

But he’s had one phony emergency after the other. You know, fentanyl and immigrants are coming in from Canada. So we got to do this or that or we’ve got a national emergency because we have foreign cars that are being imported. Like what? So he’s really taken this template. If I declare an emergency and I have the ability to decide if something’s an emergency or not, nobody has. And he does. You know, foolishly, in this system, the president has been given the ability to arbitrarily decide, declare an emergency. And once he does now, he can operate under martial law in that particular area.

That’s what we were seeing all through 2020. I called it medical martial law. And so now that is still what he’s doing. But Biden has done some of the same stuff as well, of course. Right. He didn’t have as many executive orders as Trump. But now that was a bug when it was done by Obama. It was bad when it was done by Biden. But it’s good now that Trump has done far more than either of them. That’s a good thing. Now that’s a sign of strength. We want a strong man there in the Oval Office.

Well, my concern with it, as I said before, both Biden and Trump have decided that they will coerce and force us into austerity for their particular agenda. Now, I disagreed with Biden’s agenda of climate changes. Absolute nonsense. I agree with the agenda that, hey, you know, we’ve, we’ve been eviscerated in terms of our industry. I don’t agree with Trump’s solution to that. I agree with the fact that it’s a problem. I don’t agree with the solution. But the bottom line is that both Trump and Biden, regardless of whether. And of course, look, if you take Biden’s climate change stuff as a problem, you could still make the same argument that his solutions weren’t going to solve anything.

What were they going to do? They were going to make money for his Green New Deal crony capitalists, and that’s what Trump’s stuff is going to do. It’s not going to solve the problem. It’s going to make money for his crony capitalist friends and for him. And that was what was happening with Biden and both of them, for whatever their end goal is, whether their end goal is good or whether it’s bad, both of them feel like they have the right to force us into austerity to achieve that goal. And they’re not any different from, from any of these foreign dictators that we see doing this all the time.

And so it’s not enough to agree with the goal, but we need to understand that if we want to achieve any of these goals, the way you do it is with liberty, not with austerity. We need the cumulative feedback of the American people to come back in and talk about whether or not this is, you know, if they make a case for it, if we agree with it. And that’s. You look at this arbitrary on again, off again, on again, off again tariff stuff. What’s wrong with that? Well, we want to have a large deliberative body that is going to take some of that volatility out of the system.

Right. You can have Congress, who’s going to levy taxes and levy tariffs, rather than one individual who’s just going to make it up on his own. Well, how about this? How about instead of Congress, how about if we have market solutions? What if people are. You have to convince people that there’s a problem. And maybe you’re wrong when you say there’s a problem, because all these people out there, I’ve said many times, the problem with central planning is not that you don’t have smart people doing the central planning. We’ve had very smart people doing central planning in every country, including America, who’ve gotten it completely wrong.

Why? Why is it that you can have millions, tens of millions, or hundreds of millions of ordinary people of average or even below average intelligence who can do a better job than one really smart person who is issuing orders from Washington. It’s because of the. You could talk about it as being a neural network, but they don’t have sufficient information Washington to make these decisions. They can’t see all the implications of it. And what you have is what Elon Musk has talked about as the hive mind, that the collective people out there, what we call the marketplace, are looking at all of this data and giving feedback.

You think about it as a big hive mind, a big neural network or whatever. We want to use computer analogies, but they can do a much better job of, A, grabbing the information and B, making the decision than any person can. No matter how smart they are, they’re operating blind compared to what the marketplace is doing. So if you want to fix the problems that we’ve got, what we don’t need is somebody on a throne in the Oval Office doing it. That’s beyond stupid. That’s the real issue. And so that’s why I say we need liberty, not austerity.

We need the freedom to be able to choose. Milton Friedman enshrined that in his economics lecture, his viewpoint. He called it free to choose. And he talked about how societies that were free, like Hong Kong was free at the time that he did it, I think it was in the 80s. And he talked about how free Hong Kong was because basically the British were not interested in governing them. And, you know, they were isolated from the Chinese who wanted to govern them to death. And so they had all kinds of freedom. And he was comparing that to, you know, these different countries and showing that the freer you are, the more you have choice, the better choices society makes.

And it’s not always going to be perfect, but it’ll be far better than any forced decision. And that’s what we’re talking about. Trump is now openly talking. This is the real issue. Everybody’s saying, well, he says he doesn’t have to follow the Constitution or anything. No, the real issue is that he has the arrogance of the elite. He thinks he knows better than you, and he thinks that the stuff in your life is not essential when he’s not going to pull back on anything. So let me play for you this austerity talk about how many dolls you may be able to get for your children this Christmas.

Much of it we don’t need. You know, somebody said, oh, the shelves are going to be open. Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, you know, and maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally. But we’re not talking about something that we have to go out of our way. They have ships that are loaded up, much of which, not all of it, but much of which we don’t need. And we have to make a fair deal. We’ve been. You were at your Cabinet meeting. You said, quote.

I’m going to quote what you said. Maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls. And maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally. Are you saying that your tariffs will cause some prices to go up? No, I think your tariffs are going to be great for us because it’s going to make us rich. But you said some dolls are going to cost more. Isn’t that an acknowledgement that some prices will go up? I don. A beautiful baby girl needs, that’s 11 years old, needs to have 30 dolls.

I think they can have three dolls or $4. Because what we were doing with China was just unbelievable. We had a trade deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars with China. When you say they could have three dolls instead of $30, are you saying you’re saying they don’t need to? Americans could see empty store shelves. No, no, I’m not saying that. I’m just saying they don’t need to have $30. They can have three. They don’t need to have 250pe. Yeah, you don’t need a lot of pencils either, right? 250 pencils, maybe. You know, if times get rough, you might need to have 250pencils that you sell on the street corner.

Right. This is the arrogance of billionaires, the arrogance of people like Michael Bloomberg, Donald Trump, by the way, both of them New York City Democrats. This is their arrogance. The smart ones of us will determine what you need. This is coming on the back. As I pointed out last week, I was absolutely disgusted with Breitbart for literally doing 71 pages of Melania Trump in her new outfit. And I mean, it was just one outfit. And it went picture after picture after picture after picture. She’s got a new trench coat, folks. She’s got some flats and all of them cost thousands of dollars.

But the key thing in her wardrobe, that they were showing three items and they do 71 pictures on Melania. And the expensive item, more so than her Burberry trench coat or her whatever, flats. I don’t know who even who it was that made it is her purse that cost $35,000. And I was talking about Christine Ohm. She’s got a $5,000 purse. Well, you know, Melania’s got a $35,000 purse. And, you know, how dare you go out there and harm our country? You know, I want to have more factories in this country. I can’t do it because you’re going out there buying cheap junk from the Chinese.

You ought to be paying $35. $35,000 for your purse. Like, 35 for us, I guess. I love being married to Karen. She shops for bargains. She’s. She’s really good. Yeah, the $35 would be more like it. Or. Anyway, the. But this is a kind of let them eat cake type of thing, right? Let them eat cake. Let them have two dolls, not 30 or whatever. Who are you? Right? That’s. Look, and don’t write me about this. I had listener years ago, maybe. I don’t know if he’s still a listener or not, but he got very upset.

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

An accurate summary, by the way. And I think the Let them eat cake was a summary of elitist attitudes. I don’t care about their austerity. Doesn’t bother me. I’m fine. I’m just fine. Well, there is a Toy store in St. Paul, Minnesota, that has joined a number of small American businesses who are suing the President over the tariff plan. And again, a groundswell of lawsuits led by 13 states that challenged his tariff programs. And, you know, California in one jurisdiction and 12 other states in another, his ambitious tariff program. You might have wondered, why is he allowed to do this? And as Cointelegraph was saying, well, he might not have the legal ability to do that.

That’s what these court cases are about. Does he really have the power to do this? The President’s power to unilaterally impose tariffs is not rooted in the Office’s constitutional Article 2 power. Instead, it is a delegation of authority by Congress. Now, here’s the thing, folks. This is what I’m saying. Forget about tariffs. We’re talking about tariffs here. But we’re not. We’re talking about something that’s far, far more important. That’s the Constitution and presidential powers, the separation of powers and all the rest of this stuff. That’s the issue before us. This is not a Trump versus Biden thing.

This is not a Trump versus Democrats thing. This is not a Trump vs. China thing. This isn’t about tariffs or free trade thing. The bigger issues here are really what do we do about the Constitution? And these issues are coming back over and over again. As I’ve said before, Trump wants to rule by fiat and he wants to be able to say that he can rule by fiat by declaring phony emergencies about everything. And he also wants to get the Constitution out of the way. And that’s whether we were talking about immigration issues or trade issues or any of these issues.

They all come back to the fact that Trump doesn’t want to be encumbered by the rule of law and the Constitution. Now ask yourself if you would like to have Obama or Biden or Bernie Sanders or occasional Cortex or any other Democrats that you can imagine, right? Would you like them to be unburdened by the law and the Constitution? Because if you remove that, for Trump to get through the things that you want, that’s where you’re going to be. And so this isn’t about tribalism or your favorite political figure or even any of these issues. And as I said before, I agree with him on the goals about immigration and on trade, but not with the way he’s doing this.

It is very dangerous, very destructive. And then we can add other things too, like his absolute contempt for free speech, not just what is happening in the universities on behalf of Israel. But don’t you dare criticize him or he will a sue you frivolously with basically something that would be shut down with a slap law and slap back him in the face. But he will also come after licenses of journalists, of networks, TV networks. And so we have to be careful about what he’s doing. There’s a right and wrong way to oppose these things. Article 1 of the US Constitution creates Congress and Section 8 delegates the authority to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, a series of colorfully named tariff programs that we’ve had in the past, like the tariffs of abomination of 1828 that nearly caused the Civil War and secession.

But the timing wasn’t right. We weren’t at a fourth turning. We are now. We are now. So that was a trade issue and South Carolina came Very, very close to seceding. In response to the tariff of Abominations, they had a nullification crisis by the time it wasn’t right for a civil war. So they agreed to a negotiated settlement. And that happened. Then, you know, another 30 years later, we had the Dingley Tariff act of 1897, culminating in the infamous Smoot Hawley Tariff of 1930. Now, I could insert here the Ben Stein thing, you know, electricity class on Smoot Hawley, you know, Bueller, Bueller.

What do you remember about that? But look, there’s been a lot of dispute as to whether Smoot Hawley was really the trigger for the Great Depression. It did come after the stock market crash and there were other things happening. I think the appropriate way to look at Smoot Hawley is the fact that it raised tariffs on over 20,000 items. It also did this to record levels on 20,000 items. And it did it when you had a economy, an economy that was getting much, much weaker. Right. And so on. The reasons that it was done, the economy was weakening.

So they thought, we’re going to strengthen it by putting tariffs on. And we’ll make. We’ll start trading with ourselves instead of with foreign countries. Sound familiar? Putting on record tariffs, broadly based. 20,000. Well, now this is on everything, Everything that comes into the country. Everything, not just 20,000. So this is bigger. This is bigger than Smoot Hawley. And if you want to add really record high tariffs to everything in the economy. Hmm. Well, I don’t know. It sounds very familiar to me. And so what was the result of the Smoot Hawley act, whether or not you want to blame the depression on it? Well, it reduced our exports, not just our imports.

It reduced our exports as well by doing that, by setting things off in a situation where all the different countries are suffering and they are largely because of net zero, largely because of preferential treatment given to China. And of course, they wasted a lot of that money with frivolous central planning and development of real estate and things like that. But China is in a difficult situation as well. Commercial real estate, domestic real estate. The Chinese have made a wreck of their system one way or the other. You can blame them, but the reality is that it’s very shaky for them as well.

And so when we saw what happened with this, everybody is reducing exports, everything starts shutting down. It exacerbated everything. That weakening economy was weakened further. So it wasn’t just imports that were reduced. It was exports that were reduced as well. It also increased prices, inflation went up, and it also disrupted Supply chains. And it was doing this to everybody in the world, really, to one degree or the other, which is what led to a war. And that’s why at the fourth turning, and that was our last fourth turning, we’re making all the same moves again, aren’t we? Isn’t that amazing? I find it very interesting that the mainstream media never stops talking about these generations.

Oh, we got millennials and we got the generation X and Y and Z and all the rest of this stuff, right? The boomers and this everything. All their talk is generational everything that their entire perspective of society is based on what Strauss and Howe did with generations. But they don’t do the book that immediately followed it, which was Forth Turning, it expanded on that generational cycle. Every four generations, you have a major turning where institutions are wiped away. It’s always accompanied by major financial concerns and usually by war. And so nobody is paying attention to the fourth turning, even though they live in this generational view of history, of cycles.

And when you look at the smooth Hawley Tariff act and you see what it did and how it exacerbated everything, didn’t do nothing, improved with made the Great Depression greater. Let’s make America Great Depression again. In the early 1930s, FDR pushed for legislation to grant his office the authority to negotiate tariffs. He argued that the tariffs had wrecked the economy and that he should have the power to reduce them. He was going in the opposite direction. And so they wound up with the Reciprocal Trade act of 1934. Gave the President the power to set tariff rates, provided it came as part of a reciprocal agreement with a counterpart.

This allowed the office to negotiate directly with other nations and promoted a period of liberalized trade. So this reciprocity thing, right, Reciprocal trade agreements. You know, Trump talked about that a lot, and he had that phony formula from Peter Navarro, the dumb sack of bricks that’s his advisor, another Democrat, who came up with this saying, and look, you could. Whatever you want to call that formula that he’s got, it was a lie to call it a tariff. It was not a tariff. It had nothing to do with tariff rates. It was a formula. It was based on deficits and based on how much they buy from us or whatever.

Right? That’s what it’s based on. It was not based on tariffs. They didn’t try to average the tariffs or do any kind of adjustments to actual tariffs. Right. They ignored the tariffs and went with this other metric and then called that a tariff. That’s stupid and it’s a lie. It’s a stupid lie from a dumb sack of bricks called Peter Navarro. So this Reciprocal Trade Agreement act, however, is not the law that Trump is relying on. And of course, you know, these tariffs are not reciprocal. They’re unilateral, and they’re based on a number that’s not even a tariff.

Congress continued to delegate authority to the President through the mid century. You had the Expansion act of 1962. You had the Trade act of 1974. Then you had the International Emergency Economic powers Act of 1977. IPA, I guess, IEEPA, if you want to try to pronounce, I don’t know. Anyway, that’s the one that he’s hanging his hat on. It doesn’t say anything about tariffs. It’s better known as the law that recent presidents have used to levy sanctions against enemies like Russia. But he’s used his power to respond to declared emergencies, to response to unusual and extraordinary threats.

The President’s also got the power to declare emergencies, but that comes from another act, the National Emergencies act. This is Reasonmagazine. Reason.com There are basically two legal arguments that you can make against Trump’s tariffs. Number one, that the IEEPA doesn’t authorize the President to implement his tariff program, and number two, that it is unconstitutional, even if it did, for IEEPA to delegate such broad authority to the President. And this is exactly what California and the other 12 states did in their lawsuits. They argued, number one, that the President’s actions are beyond his legal authority, and number two, that even if he was given legal authority by Congress, it would violate the separation of powers.

Reason said there’s few reasons why this might be true. Any action under this IEEPA must be tailored to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat. And, you know, when we look at things like he also references back this early 1960s act to say that he could put the car tariffs on. Well, that’s not an emergency. That’s nothing extraordinary. That is not unusual for people to buy foreign cars for the last 60 years. Over 60 years. And it is not unusual or extraordinary, even if it was a threat. So the nearly worldwide 10% tariff level is wholly unconnected to the stated basis of the emergency declaration.

They say that’s in their complaint. It alleges it applies rather without regard to any country’s trade practices or purported threat to domestic industries. Again, they leveled this 10% thing across the board. Even to countries that we had a trade surplus with, like the UK and Australia, that’s not a threat. If we got a surplus to them. If you’re saying that that’s the basis of the threat. Secondly, there’s a constitutional limit on Congress’s ability to delegate Article 1 powers to the President. It’s known as the non delegation doctrine. Well, I wish they would enforce this. The problem is that Congress has been delegating things to the executive branch, not necessarily to the president, but to the bureaucracy.

You know, when Nancy Pelosi said we’re going to pass Obamacare to find out what’s in it, that’s exactly what she was telling you. That’s the way they operate. They don’t put the details in, they just create these broadcasts, movements. They might create an agency or whatever and then, or it might be thrown over to an existing agency. And the devil is in the details that come out of the bureaucracy. And so we’ve also seen Congress delegate power that it doesn’t have. You know, this is a power that it does have, setting tariffs and taxes and excise rates.

But we’ve seen them delegate things that they don’t have under the Constitution as well. They really would rather have show hearings and collect money and run for office. And have show hearings and collect money and run for office. Rinse and repeat. So the, you know, when you look, a good example of this, okay, is regulations that have been used to tell us that we can’t have certain appliances, we can’t have cars and stuff like that. They, Congress created a power out of thin air that the federal government doesn’t have and that is to monitor and to regulate energy efficiency.

And they gave that power to the newly created Department of Energy right around the 70s or whatever. And then the same thing with the EPA, new department, newly been created. And say, we’re going to say that the federal government has the power to regulate emissions and we’ll give that power to the epa. That’s an example of Congress creating an unconstitutional bureaucracy in both of those cases to do something that they have no authority to do and then to create special new powers and hand them to those new unconstitutional bureaucracies that they create. That’s how deep we’re into this stuff.

And we’ve got to avoid the trap of making a second mistake rather than admitting the first one. So that’s why we need to have radical change. When we talk about radical change, what that means is you grab it by the roots. That’s the root word of radical Radix, you know, getting it at the root and pulling it out. And that’s the problem with Washington. It does need radical change. It needs to be uprooted. It needs these weeds that have been sown into our lives and every aspect of our lives. Every aspect. I mean, whether we’re talking about whether or not we travel, how we travel, the things that we have to go through when we travel, what about the education of our children, what about how we earn a living, how about what we’re allowed to keep? We have weeds that have been sown throughout every fabric of our society.

Those are the things that are our problems. More so than China. I’m not saying China is not a problem. I’m saying they’re small compared to Washington. Washington doesn’t want you to see them as a weed that is metastasized cancer that’s metastasizing throughout society. They want you to look at the Auslander, right, the foreigner. They’re the problem, not the Nazis in Washington. So the Supreme Court has not struck down an executive action on these grounds since 1935. But despite the constitutional uncertainty, the net of the arguments is broadly perceived as strong. This is why one prominent conservative lawyer so called told ABC News that the plaintiffs might win in a fight against Trump.

He or she said there is a strong argument that the tariffs imposed under ieepa, say, are not legal or constitutional. I mean, it sounds like it’s Speedy Gonzalez ORP Speedy Gonzalez. Under that particular statute, tariffs are not listed amongst the various actions that a president can take in response to a declaration of national emergency. So they’re saying you don’t have the legal authority. Be a bad idea if you did. And Congress can’t delegate this to for a separation of powers. But there’s some other factors in the President’s favor. However, the administration may be able to hear these claims in the U.S.

court of International Trade, which has exclusive jurisdiction over tariff disputes. Appeals from this court are heard in the Federal Circuit, which is generally seen as favorable for Trump. And the 12 state complaint was actually filed in this court from the beginning. However, as I said before, California filed its complaint, which is basically the same complaint, but they filed it in a different court, the ninth Circuit of Court, ninth Circuit court, which would be more friendly to, you know, from a political standpoint, more friendly to the Democrats than to Trump, vice versa, on the the trade court.

So if Trump succeeds in removing that action to the Court of International Trade, the Citizen, it will be an early victory for the administration. Trump argues that the courts have consistently held that the President’s emergency declarations are unreviewable and that therefore any challenge to the fact of an emergency itself, particularly the Claim that the emergency is not unusual or extraordinary enough in the plaintiff’s view is a non jurisdictional political question that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider. And so that’s the argument he’s making. Says if I call something an emergency, you can’t second guess it in the courts.

You can’t litigate this in the courts. That’s a very dangerous idea. That’s a very dangerous idea. And that regardless of what we’re talking about, anything, right? If you’re talking about lockdown and masks, that’s a very dangerous idea. If you’re talking about tariffs, that’s a very dangerous. It’s a very dangerous idea applied to anything. Anything. The potential for abuse. And we don’t even have to say it’s potential for abuse. It’s what was done to us five years ago that could people forget. The President’s track record in court has historically been poor. He has a win rate of 35% in the Supreme Court versus the average presidential win rate of 65%, though he loses about twice as often as the average president.

So we’re going to take a quick break. I want to read some of your comments here. And I need to take a break. And we’re talking a little bit more about, you know, hey, the stuff that they like to have, that’s important, what you want to have. You know, if it’s cheap clothes or dolls or something. That’s not important. That’s really not important. On Kick For Love of The road is gifted 25 subs. Thank you very much. That is a, that’s about, you know, $5 a subscription, I think, isn’ so that’s a substantial contribution. Thank you very much.

On Rumble, he kill us. Says Trump. Sounds like Bernie Sanders now. Yeah, yeah. A northeast liberal Democrat. On Rumble, honor seeker says Trump can get a Cessna and get rid of his gold plated toilets. That’s right. You know, think about how many dolls you could buy with Melania’s purse. On Rumble, Sam Miller123 says, who is he to tell us how many dolls our children can have? That’s exactly it. Let the meat cake right? He is such a liar and a dictator. Now he wants to be the Pope. I know, I know. Oh, he’s just kidding, right? Don’t you love it how when he puts himself out as the Messiah and his followers put him out as Messiah? Oh, he’s just joking.

When they build golden idol statues to him. Oh, it’s just a joke. And when he puts himself out as the Pope, that’s also Just a jo. And it’s just a joke right after this guy has died. And that’s important to some Catholics that are out there, and they’re very offended by that as well. On Rumble DG8, thank you for the tip. He says, david, the most dangerous thing about Trump is his media and his cult. They will cheerlead tyranny. Yeah. And his missteps. And they will call it winning. I thought the Obama cult was insane. This is another level.

Yeah. Rumble, stealth, patriot. Thank you for the tip very much. None of the criminals that facilitated the invasion of our country by Illeg are being prosecuted. Good point. They’re not doing anything about Majorca, he says, or Biden or Merrick Garland. Instead, you get violations of the Fourth Amendment against us. I think that tells you everything. Right. They like the problems. They like the problems. And so they’re not going to come after these people who criminally, you know, shut down investigations. You know, when we talk, the guy that does not have MS.13 on his knuckles, that guy, you know, the Photoshop terrorist, he was Photoshopped into being a terrorist, but he may be actually involved in a cartel.

If you look at the trafficking stuff, all of this stuff that the Trump administration put out there, they said begin with all this stuff. Well, it was sent there mistakenly. Okay, let’s just go with that statement, then bring him back, give him some due process, determine what’s going on with this guy. You said you made a mistake. And then what they do is they engage in character assassination. Well, his wife got a restraint order against him and this and that again. And then engage in lies about the tattoos on his knuckles and things like that, that knuckleheaded approach, rather than looking at quietly percolating in the background is this investigations done by the Tennessee Star, saying he was trafficking and caught with a Tennessee Highway Patrol trafficking people.

He may very well be a cartel member. Maybe not Ms. 13, but you know, he was trafficking people for the cartels. But they don’t talk about that. Instead, what they do is they engage in character assassination. They engage in fabrication of absurd lies, and then they come back and they say, we don’t have to give due process to people in this country if they’re not citizens. And we’ll talk about that coming up. That’s a very important question. And I’ll give you both sides of this. You know, this is something that’s now being debated. I remember, you know, when I first talked about this Garcia guy said, hey, look, they made a mistake, you made a mistake.

You bring him back. And if there’s other evidence that’s there, do something about it. Somebody sent me the actual report, the gang report that was there and that jurisdiction in, I think it was Maryland. I talked about that at the very beginning. And that whole procedure and that, you know, it was done in a couple of different jurisdictions by the police. That whole approach, that whole procedure, that organization was disbanded because they found that it was operating in a very unjust way. As a matter of fact, the cop who brought those charges against him and filed that report was himself kicked out of the police force and charged for criminal activity that he was involved in.

So that’s all of the evidence that they had, except for this trafficking thing. It’s phony, phony garbage. And they double down and say, we don’t have to correct that. But Trump did. His administration did. Back in 2018, this first Trump administration, they mistakenly deported somebody to a foreign country, and then they corrected that and brought him back. And so this is a different attitude. It’s a very dangerous attitude, a lawless attitude, an arrogant, elitist attitude. And I don’t like that. Yeah, it’s another level. And they’re not coming after the people who threw us under the bus with open borders.

Instead, what they’re doing is they’re trying to come after the Constitution instead of the criminals. On Rumble Stealth Patriot. Let’s see. That’s the one I just read on Rumble Audi Modern retro Radio. Good to see says Trump and Bernie have more in common than not. Yeah, I agree. Let’s take a quick break and we’ll come back because I want to talk a little bit about this comment about how Trump doesn’t care about rising prices because we got cheap gas. Okay, well, we’ll talk about that. We’ll be right back. You’re listening to the David Knight Show. Well, Trump said rising prices are peanuts compared to cheap gas.

Let’s not bring in some pet squirrels into this discussion here. In the interview on Meet the Press with Kristen Welker, she said, some prices are going up. Tires, strollers, some clothing in the wake of your tariffs. He said, excuse me, that’s peanuts compared to energy. Energy is 60% of the cost. Energy is the big thing. As I point out by Trump’s 100th day in office, the average price of gas had dipped around 50 cents per gallon from a year prior, according to data from the Triple A. He said, I think the good parts are the Trump economy and the bad parts of the Biden economy because he did a terrible job.

He did a Terrible job on everything. He said, well, there we go. Well, here’s the reality. It’s not the economy, stupid. It’s not other things like the inflation rate that can be manipulated. It really is the indecision that is creating a lockdown. Again, Trump will most likely be the second person who has locked down our economy twice. First one to do it. Now he wants to do it again, I guess. There was an interesting article in Wall Street Journal and it was with a guy, Ryan Peterson, and he talked about, if you recall, in 2021, there was a ship that got stuck in the Suez Canal.

It was stuck in the Suez Canal for six days and it was a major disruption of global trade. Just in that one canal stuck for six days. It cost $9.6 billion per day for those six days to the global economy and created all kinds of supply chain issues. That was the key thing. Because what Ryan Peterson does is he’s got a business, Flexport, it’s about shipping. And so in his business he has access to all the details about what is happening with the supply chain. And he actually wrote a book, it was a kid’s book about it, right? But he actually wrote the Ship and the Big Digger or something like that, and he wrote a book about how that works to kind of give a little bit of something you could use to educate your kids economically about things like that.

But he points out that everything’s being paralyzed by Trump’s uncertainty. Trump administration, he says, I’ve got 13,000 customers and he said they’re feeling helpless and they are feeling unheard because they don’t have lobbyists, right? The automobile industry has got lobbyists or other groups have got lobbyists and they’ll come in and they’ll talk to the Trump administration and they’ll get some concessions from Lutnik or whatever. But these are small and medium sized businesses who don’t have lobbyists. And so, you know, like Hillary Clinton said, she can’t be bothered by all these under capitalized people when she was going to impose the massive hardship of Hillary care on everybody.

Before Obamacare, she couldn’t be bothered with these people who didn’t have any money. If you don’t have any money, you can’t have access to me and you don’t have a say. You’re not a stakeholder, right? So these stakeholders with lobbyists who can get the ear and they can come in and they can talk personally to Trump’s advisors and everything, get them to switch, that’s part of what’s happening with the uncertainty. But these 13,000 customers of his small and medium sized businesses don’t have anybody that can buy their way into this corrupt system we call the US Federal government.

And so he points out, you know, we got, as I said the other day, you know, it’s like three months for the supply chain. People place orders, it’s made, it’s put on the ships and it comes here. And we’re starting to see everything slowing down. I talked about the number of ships that were coming to the western port, Louisiana. You’ve seen that just taking a nosedive and being cut in half and it’s going to continue. And he said a lot of people also, you know, we had, we haven’t seen any of this. As a matter of fact, we saw a slight uptick because a lot of people, when they saw these tariffs coming in, they placed advance orders just like Apple brought in several planeloads of iPhones from China.

I mean, they’re going to move their production to India, but that’s going to take a while. Right? What do they do in the meantime? Well, you know, let’s not have the 145% increase on these things. So they just shipped as many of them as they could on planes to get in under the deadline. And a lot of people are upping their purchases and storing stuff because they don’t know what’s going to happen with this. It may go up, it may not, but now everybody’s kind of freezing it. And so when we get out another couple of months, that’s when you’re going to see this.

And we may start to see it sooner in the transportation industry because these, these ships that are arriving are already cutting in half. But this is what he said, how he summed it up. Brian Peterson. This is an article on the Wall Street Journal where they interviewed him. He characterizes it as an asteroid level extinction event for small businesses, supply chain and things like that. You mean an asteroid level extinction business for the small businesses that Trump tried to kill once before saying they were non essential. Leave the Walmarts open, close the other stores over here, shut down those service businesses, which we’ve shut down all the other aspects pretty much because of regulation.

So the only thing left to most people is service businesses if they want to be an entrepreneur, if they want to create something. So shut that down. Shut down the restaurants. Five times the Trump team told Americans to accept being poor again. This is the kind of billionaire arrogance that we’ve seen from people like Michael Bloomberg. And I’ll play the clip for you, one more time. Much of it we don’t need. You know, somebody said, oh, the shelves are going to be open. Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, you know, and maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.

But we’re not talking about something that we have to go out of our way. They have ships that are loaded up with stuff, much of which, not all of it, but much of which we don’t need. And we have to make a fair deal. We. You were at your cabinet meeting. You said, quote. I’m going to quote what you said. Maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls. And maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally. Are you saying that your tariffs will cause some prices to go up? No, I think a tariff is going to be great for us because it’s going to make us rich.

But you said some dolls are going to make him rich. Isn’t that an acknowledgement that some prices will go up? I don’t think a beautiful baby girl needs. That’s 11 years old, needs to have $30. I think they can have three dolls or four dolls because what we were doing with China was just unbelievable. We had a trade deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars with China. When you say they could have three dolls instead of $30, are you saying. You’re saying they don’t need. Americans could see empty store shelves? No, I’m not saying that. I’m just saying they don’t need to have 30 dolls.

They can have three. They don’t need to have 250 pencils. They can have five. Yeah. Who again, who are you to decide? As I showed you know, the. That began with $2, then somehow the two of them switched it to $3. One. But one person put this up. Are we gonna have empty shelves here? As he said, this guy, Larry Pfeiffer put up on X, he says, well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30. And you see empty shelves with two dolls on it, one Donald Trump doll and the other one an Elon Musk dollar.

And the child is crying her eyes out. Or, you know, we might have this type of thing, right. Trump said American kids will be getting two dolls instead of 30 because with tariffs, the other 28 dolls will end up at Mar a Lago. And here are the adult dolls that, of course, he would surround himself with. And as he said, it’s going to be great. We’re going to make a lot of Money. One person says, yeah, having too many dolls is excessive. Take a look at Donald Trump and his gold covered house there. Yeah, that’s, that’s not excessive.

But, you know, hey, this 11 year old doesn’t need those kind of dolls. Did he ever tell that to Ivanka? No, no, no, you don’t need $30. I’ll get you one that cost $150,000. How about that? Is that okay? I’ll get you 30 that cost 150,000. Who cares? The potential in his trade war could reduce the average household’s income by nearly $3,800 this year, according to Yale Budget Labs estimates. So, you know, you don’t need that $3,800. Come on. Yeah, you didn’t need that. The average household’s income, that’s pretty big because, you know, the average household income, I don’t know what it is now with the inflation that we’ve had.

It was just a couple of years ago. It’s like, you know, mid-50s, $50,000 for a household. Are you going to take out 3,800 of that? Okay, well, you can take out like 6 or 7% tax on people, additional tax with this stuff. So Trump is saying the quiet part out loud, says reason that Americans should be forced to pay higher prices for basic goods and household items. So he said, here’s four other recent incidents in which national conservatives in Trump’s orbit admitted as much. Now, one of the things is he doesn’t talk about Benny Johnson, who wasn’t saying that, you know, hey, you’re buying junk and you shouldn’t be allowed to buy junk and help China.

So we’re going to stop you being able to get cheap stuff. And that’s what these other quotes are about. But, you know, Benny Johnson said, well, hey, you know, losing money costs you absolutely nothing, quote unquote. That’s what he said. Losing money cost you absolutely nothing. What is he talking about? And he’s not saying that. He’s not giving you paraphrasing Jesus in Sermon on the Mount, don’t give any thought for these things. God takes care of the ravens, he takes care of the flowers of the field, and he will take care of you. Follow him for not talking about that.

No, no, no. You want to be able to save the country. Am I allowed to question whether or not Trump’s plan is going to save the country? Well, no, no, don’t talk about that. He said losing your country is everything. Well, how does raising prices save our country? Exactly? You might want to explain that to us. And he wasn’t talking about losing our Constitution in order for economic benefits. You see, this is the fallacy of this exchange that people like Benny Johnson are putting out there, okay? Losing money costs you absolutely nothing. We’re talking about saving your country.

Well, I’m not sure that your plans are going to save the country, but I knew, though, do know that your plans are harming the Constitution and that’s how we lose our country, by destroying the Constitution, by destroying the rule of law. And I don’t really care about your grandiose plans because you don’t have any plans. You’re changing them every hour, you said. Right? So you don’t have a plan to save the country. You got a plan to destroy the Constitution and make yourself into some kind of a tin pot dictator. That’s what you got a plan for.

Oh, yeah, you lose your country for the promise of economic security. But let’s look at some of these comments that they put in Reason. Robert LIGHTSINGER, August of 2022. He was the first Trump administration’s U.S. trade representative. He dismissed free trade as being rooted in a philosophy of consumption that is too materialistic. Again, he’s not talking about, you know, put your faith in God. There are things that are more important than money. No, he’s saying that, you know, I’ve got a better economic plan to make you money, is what he’s saying. In the long term, he said the best way to fix consumerism is to raise prices.

See, that’s what he’s against. He’s not against materialism, he’s against consumerism, which to these guys is buying dolls instead of buying private yachts and private jet planes and Mar a Lagos. Is consumption really a problem in America, they ask. Well, that might be easy to say. As someone who spent his career bouncing back and forth between law, politics and finance, Lysinger just landed a plush new gig as a, quote, senior advisor for Citigroup. For many Americans, however, higher prices would mean a material reduction in living standards, a real reduction. Got a household income of $50,000 or so and you have $3,800 that it’s going to cost them.

When Lisinger criticizes consumerism and consumption, he’s really just saying that you should be happy with paying more and getting less. Right? Again, can’t get dolls for your kids, but he’ll be able to afford his toys, private jets, yachts. Dan Bishop, April 2024. A Republican congressman from North Carolina decried the, quote, cheap crap, unquote, that Americans were importing from China, he said you can go buy sneakers on Temu for $5 and a sweater for seven. Temu reportedly loses $30 per order in a deliberate strategy to flood the US market with cheap crap. Okay, so I guess we should go buy the $5,000 purse that Kristi Noem gets or the $35,000 purse that Melania Trump gets.

These are people trying to make an economic decision here. And I understand predatory pricing. And you know what, that also happens with domestic corporations against small businesses. I’ve talked about how Blockbuster did that. It’s not just an issue with China being able to do this because of deep pockets of national subsidy. Wall street in general does that. Wall street in general does that to small and medium sized businesses. Small and medium sized businesses have to compete in a competitive free market. But the big box retailers win because they don’t have to make a profit. They can operate at a loss until they drive their competition out of business because they’re getting the greater fool’s money on Wall Street.

So unless you’re going to talk about fixing the Wall street bank for these big box retailers, you’re still not talking about a competitive free marketplace. And what you’re going to wind up doing if you shut down the Chinese predators that are out there, you’re going to have the domestic Wall street predators who are going to be on your case shutting it down. That’s what we’ve seen. You know, it wasn’t the Chinese government that shut down all the hardware stores. It wasn’t the Chinese government that shut down all the stationary stores like Dunder Mifflin or whatever. Right, the office.

No, this was done by big box retailers. This is a strategy that was really pioneered by Mitt Romney and his organization. You know, let’s put these things together. We’ll, you know, have the big hardware stores, the big office supply stores, and on and on and on. And we will drive all these small retailers out of business. And they did. Then we go to J.D. vance. August of 2024, not long after being named Trump’s running mate, J.D. vance declared in a campaign speech that, quote, a million cheap knockoff toasters aren’t worth the price of a single American manufacturing job.

Affordable and abundant labor saving appliances says reason are part of why the 21st century America is the best place to live in the history of the human race. Kevin Cochran said a product being cheap in both senses, both low cost and low quality, is not in and of itself a problem. Sometimes buying something inexpensively and basic is a perfectly sensible option because you know, not all of us can afford a $35,000 purse like Melania. Again, when we look at this, I don’t like predatory collusion, but understand that it isn’t just happening with the Chinese government. It’s happening with all these big American corporations.

And they are working with the American government, the Washington government that you think is going to be your savior on this stuff. They’re working with them just like the Chinese companies are working with the Chinese government. So again, if we’re just trying to, we’re trying to live life between the rampaging, stomping hooves of these elephants that are around there, what Vance is really saying is that you should be poor. Ed Gresser, the former assistant US Trade Representative who is currently the Director of Trade and Global Markets for the Progressive Policy Institute, is coming from the left.

He said that fully American made toaster would cost at least $250, significantly more expensive than the thirty to fifty dollar toasters that are readily available in American stores today. If there are American stores left. Amazon, in Vance’s world, that trade off is worth it because of patriotism. Don’t talk to me about patriotism. You’re talking, when you’re talking about patriotism like that, what you’re talking about are crony American capitalists who in my opinion are no better than the crony Chinese capitalists working with their government. Scott Besant, March of this year just recently said that at the Economic Club of New York, Treasury Secretary Besant said that access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American dream.

Well, I agree. The essence of the American dream is liberty, the freedom to be able to choose to do things. And the appropriate response for these predatory practices by foreign and domestic enemies of the free market is to have less regulation, to have more freedom of choice. In other words, just like with speech, the answer to bad speech is not censorship, it’s more speech. And so the answer to these things that are harming us is to have more liberty, not austerity. And Bessen, of course is not talking about this from an anti materialist view. Again, he’s not saying, you know, there’s things that are more important than money, which I would agree with.

No, he’s not saying that. He’s got a certain way that, you know, he wants to, he loves money and he wants you to pay more is all he’s saying. So you buy the expensive stuff from his friends. As the saying goes, when somebody shows you who they are, believe them the first time. You know, when Trump said you’re non essential in 2020. You should have believed him then. I mean, I still got a lot of people, you know, friends, conservatives. Well, let’s give Trump a chance. No, believe him the first time. Pay attention to what he did and said the first time, because he’s doing it again and he’s going to keep doing it again and again.

We’re just trying to figure out how we’re going to not get stomped on by these rampaging elephants. Foreign and domestic governments, foreign and domestic predatory competitors. How are we going to navigate in that environment? The nationalist conservatives now running the Republican Party says reason have repeatedly said they believe Americans should have to pay higher prices for sneakers and household goods in order to achieve weird political goals like more toaster factories. Right. And who does that help? Does that help Howard Lutnick to have more toaster factories? Am I better off with domestic toaster factories than I am getting cheap toasters from China? Is it better off that the obscenely rich, predatory people that are going to be selling me toasters are Americans rather than Chinese? I don’t think so.

I don’t think so at all. And somehow you’re supposed to. This is another form of tribalism. Well, I don’t mind if I get ripped off and these people become trillionaires as long as they’re Americans. Right. I just don’t want those Chinese trillionaires doing that. Right. Well, Trump says his terrorists will mean that Americans won’t be able to afford as many toys for their kids, but he’ll be able to afford any toy he wants, no matter how expensive, including those 28 dolls. Wearing skirts at his mar a Lago thing. You’ll never hit what you aren’t aiming at, folks.

Trump is not aiming at your prosperity. He’s not aiming at an upwardly mobile society. Or he’d be getting rid of regulations left and right and he’d be changing the structure of government. He’s not doing that, you know, he’s not doing that for his. He’s changing the structure of government to make it more centrally controlled. He’s aiming for himself. He’s aiming for his family, he’s aiming for his friends to get obscenely rich. And, you know, he’s aiming for you to own nothing. We’ll be right back. Here’s a little song I wrote. You might want to hear it in your.

You’ll own nothing and be happy. Ain’t got no cash, ain’t got no car but 24 booster shots in your arm, oh, nothing. Be happy. You can’t even buy in the store because of your low social credit score. Oh, Nazi. Be happy. You would own nothing and be happy. Be happy and eat some bugs. They’re doing what in the place they named after me. Good thing I have the David Knight show to keep me informed on the plots of these trades. Making sense. Common again, this is the David Knight Show. Well, Michael Hartnett, who’s with bank of America, says that the market is now expecting a Trump pivot.

They think that Trump is going to lower tariffs, he’s going to lower rates, he’s going to lower taxes. In other words, Trump is going to reverse Trump. The first hundred days was so wonderful, wasn’t it? We were winning with everything, were we? You know, we just had. You look at the elections. Not only did Trump Get Mark Carney Mr. World Economic Forum, I mean, this guy is better connected than Klaus Schwab and just as dangerous as Klaus Schwab. He wanted him in. He didn’t want the Conservatives in. So he’s doing all this garbage. And he openly said that it wasn’t just that he foolishly made an offhand comment about Canada being the 51st state right before the election.

No, he was openly talking about it. Several comments. I don’t like Poliev. He doesn’t respect me. Mark Carney is very obsequious when he talks to me. Right. He didn’t say. I’m paraphrasing what he had to say. But I’m sure that Mark Carney is very obsequious to Trump. That’s the way these guys operate is flatter Trump. You get whatever you want, including, you know, some guy that is not just a puppet of the World Economic Forum, but one of the guys who’s pulling the strings of the World Economic Forum. You put him in power there in Canada.

That’s good. Then we had, over the weekend, you had the labor left in Australia rise to power again out of people’s absolute contempt for Donald Trump. He’s harming these different conservative populist movements that are out there, what people who support Trump also support. He’s harming those movements one by one in other countries. We see that in the uk, Nigel Fry’s Reform Party, which is again, a pushback. And I’m not, I’m not supporting any of these particular parties that are out there. I’m just saying that when you look at the Reform Party, or you look at Le Pen’s party and France, or you look at AfD in Germany, you know, these are parties that are for smaller government, stopping the open Borders and the swamping of their societies by, you know, a bunch of foreign young men who are coming in, the crime rates or rape rates are soaring and all the rest of the stuff.

So anybody that pushes back against that now, the AfD has been penalized over and over again, and they’ve just now, by their secret agency, have been declared a terrorist organization. Their spy agency has declared them to be terrorists. An absolute lie, but they’re doing that. They were the number two vote getter, but they would not include them in a coalition. We saw the same thing happening in France, where you had the Marine Le Pen’s party won the elections in the European Parliament. They had a triggered a domestic election in two phases. In the first phase, they were doing much better than Macron’s party and so forth.

So Macron and all the other parties got together in a conspiracy and said, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, we’ll decide which one of us is in the lead and the other parties will step down so that we keep whatever Marine Le Pen’s party was, we keep them from gaining power. Now, you know, you can, I’m sure we can find things we don’t like about Marine Le Pen’s party. But one thing I don’t like about is that kind of conspiracy. That’s not a democracy. And again, I’m not, as I said on Friday, I don’t care about democracy. I don’t like democracy, frankly.

And neither did the founders. They wanted to have a republic that respected individual rights. You know, we have, supposedly, with Israel being the only democracy in the Middle east, how does that democracy respect individual rights of free speech in America? No, they don’t. They’re using all of their massive clout with the politicians that they’ve paid off to try to eviscerate our First Amendment. Oh, great. That’s democracy for you right there, isn’t it? So Marine Le Pen, not only did they and each of these success, so they wound up coming in much further down, like third place in terms of seats that they won.

Except that in each of these elections, from the European election to the first round and the second round, their party went up in vote totals each time, even though ultimately they got pushed down to a distant third in terms of seats they should have won. But they played that conspiracy game and then that wasn’t enough for them. After the election, they brought criminal charges against her so that she can’t run in future elections. That’s what’s going on in Germany right now with afd. It’s a really dark future ahead because all of these democracies don’t care about individual rights.

They don’t care about anything other than the raw exercise of power. And so I don’t know what’s going to happen in the UK right now. People are pushing back against the radical green agenda of the Labour Party and their open borders and things like that, pushing over towards the Reform Party. But it could be that if the left, Keir Starmer, is capable of tying Nigel Farage to Trump, which wouldn’t be hard to do, that could kill his popularity there as well, just like it hurt the Conservatives in Canada and Australia as well. So again, Michael Hartnett, bank of America says now the stock market is picking up.

We’ve had nine days of consecutive gains since November 2004, the longest stretch since November 2004. People are betting on Trump to reverse Trump. And even as they’re betting on Trump to reverse Trump, we see that Trump says, we got too many foreign movies. And I’m going to put 100% tariff on foreign movies. You see, this is the kind of petulant, stupid dictator type of stuff that you would see coming out of North Korea or out of China or some other tin pot dictators. This is why he shouldn’t have this kind of power. He’s now going to add 100% tariffs.

I don’t even know how that works. I mean, you know, are they going to be able to itemize the tariff charges if you watch movies online or something? Oh, oh, this is a, this is a foreign film. So now you got to pay 100% tariff. And look, it’d be the easiest thing in the world to shield that from any kind of foreign ownership. I mean, I just guess you can’t go back and look at Fellini films or something even if you wanted to. I was not a big fan of foreign films either. But you know, it’s.

If you wanted to go back and watch that, I guess now you’re going to have to pay double the price because 100% tariff. So when we look at just a summary and what is happening here, it has been quite an amazing week. There has been a documentary, as Brian Schulhavi on HealthImpact.com points out, a new documentary on BBC called the Settlers. He said that he was actually shocked that the BBC would actually air something like this. I’m not. Because again, the UK has been taken over by Arabs. You know, just like Washington has been taken over by Zionists.

The UK has been taken over by Arabs, no question about it. So this BBC documentary called Jewish settlers. Many of them are American Jews blatantly disobey the law to forcibly take land away from Palestinians as the Israeli government allegedly looks the other way. We’ve seen this over and over again. Look at India for example, right? Indian, Hindus, and a lot of times this type of stuff is religiously, ethnically backed up, which is what we see in India with the Hindus looking the Hindu government under Modi the pal of Tulsi Gabbard and J.D. vance’s. You know, they’re big friends with Modi, they think he’s great, except that his government looks the other way as you got radical Hindus slaughter Christians and Sikhs in India, or you’ve got the Nigerian government that looks the other way as their Fulani Muslim tribesmen slaughter Christians by the hundreds there in Nigeria.

So this is the type of thing, if we don’t have the rule of law, this is the type of thing we can expect. So the other thing that we see here happening is kind of interesting as tech companies are afraid to talk too much about their price increases, even though they are having price increases. You saw Amazon’s CEO Jeff Bezos harangued by Caroline Levitt as she accused him of being a Chinese propagandist because he itemized the tariff that was surcharged on there by the Trump administration. How dare you? There’s even talk about that. Of course Temu and another one are going to be doing that in China.

And this was Amazon haul. It wasn’t even going to be Amazon, but he backed down when he got a call from Trump. And so Microsoft just announced that it jacked up prices on its game products. Its Xbox console went up by $100, 20% from $500 to $600. As I point out, it was an extraordinary move because five year old consoles like the current generation of Xboxes almost always see price cuts, not increases. Five years old and they went up by 20%. Well, we know it’s the tariff, right? Has to be, because it’s not because they came out with any new features.

It’s five years old, as ancient. To anyone even dimly aware of economic news, it was fairly obvious that Microsoft’s Xbox changes were a reaction to Trump’s administration’s tariffs on electronic manufactured overseas. But tech companies like Microsoft are going out of their way to avoid crossing the president by, for example, attributing their price increases to his tariffs, says healthimpact.com it’s easy to understand why Microsoft chose not to telegraph this, because look at what happened with Jeff Bezos. Again, you call him a Chinese propagandist. Well, if that isn’t projection on her part, she’s the propagandist and she calls other people propagandists.

And so as he said, most Americans still have no idea what’s coming in the very near future if Trump doesn’t reverse himself. Again, the market is looking at this hoping that Trump is going to reverse himself. If he doesn’t, it is going to be catastrophic. Not just for, it won’t be as catastrophic for consumers as it will be for the small businesses, but maybe Wall street is even pricing that in there. You know, hey, the big guys that we fund are going to do better because they’ll have more of a monopoly. Big tech is continuing also to inflate the AI bubble.

That’s another part of why the stock market is going up and continues to go up. It’s just a few stocks that are there, like Nvidia and some others that continue to go up. And it is a bubble. As HealthImpact.com says, until big tech stocks go through a major correction or blow up completely, the AI bubble will continue to inflate, driven by the fear of being left behind by the AI spending frenzy. Fomo, the fear of missing out. Fully automated self driving vehicles have already seen investments of probably over a trillion dollars in the past decade with no real return on profits.

And yet, and yet that may be about to change. I hope it isn’t, but we’re going to talk a little bit about that. Some self driving trucks are starting to hit the market. I should say the roads because they’re now in Texas especially starting to use these large semis without any human beings in them on the highways. There you go. We’ll be right back. You’re listening to the David Knight Show. Well, I’ve long talked about my disdain for driverless cars, but it is nothing compared to my disdain for driverless semi trucks. You take an 80,000 pound rig and you take the human driver out of it.

At the same time, we’ve got the Trump administration saying we’re going to stop non English speaking drivers here because A, they’re taking Americans jobs and B, it’s dangerous if you can’t read an emergency sign. And yet in Texas, Texas is pushing harder to, you know, for these autonomous semi trailers. They’re pushing harder for this than even California is. California is a close second. But you have a company called Aurora. Driverless trucks are officially running their first regular long haul routes making round trips between Dallas and Houston. It’s another Reason to stay off the interstate, Travis, when you’re going back and forth between here and Texas, get on the back roads there.

Anyway, on Thursday, autonomous trucking firm Aurora announced it launched commercial service in Texas under its first customers, Uber Freight. Uber Freight, another company. Now, of course, it was Travis Kalalnik of Uber who was one of the, you know, boasting about this, yeah, come work for Uber, it’s going to be a great job, a great career, blah, blah, blah, you know, and then saying, you know, what makes our rides expensive? It’s that other dude in the car, we’re going to get rid of him. And so this is Uber Freight. And so they were running these tests for a while with a human driver in there.

And again, when we look at that, we’ve seen how that worked out in Phoenix, Arizona, where you got the woman who is sitting there and she’s, you know, playing with her phone or whatever and boom, you know, runs over somebody who’s jaywalking on the road. A homeless person who was jaywalking and killed him. And everybody said, oh, you know, she didn’t see this coming. And of course she couldn’t see it because it was dark and you can’t see the headlights. It’s like, no, no, no, no, no, no. The driverless car should have, you know, the lights.

It doesn’t use the lights. Now Tesla does use, I think, visual stuff, but the other ones use lidar, so it doesn’t need the light. It should have seen her coming for quite some time and it should have put on the emergency brakes. Oh, well, the emergency brakes were disconnected because they were, you know, throwing the emergency brakes on too often. And that in and of itself was a danger. Yeah, it is. But all these things are indications of, you know, so the emergency brakes being put on inappropriately by the self driving software. They just took off the emergency brakes.

So that happened. And then of course, the person who’s supposed to be the human operating this, and that’s the fallacy of this, that they can’t turn over control to the humans. You put them to sleep and then all of a sudden there is an emergency that’s dumped into their lap by artificial intelligence. By the way, that’s a metaphor for what’s going to happen to our entire society. Everybody gets lulled into sleep and passivity. And we’ve got, I think Microsoft doing about a third of its code now with artificial intelligence. What happens when the AI makes some really, really big mistakes that compound in that software in the near future? And maybe it’s far enough down that you don’t have a whole lot of human programmers or any human programmers that are as good as they would be if they were doing the programming all the time.

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

As of Thursday, the company’s self driving tech had completed over 1200 miles without a human in the truck. Wow, 1200 miles, that’s nothing. But you know, hey, they’re good to go, no problem, let’s let them go. They did a whole 1200 miles of training there. That’s great. So they’ve had over a decade of hype. Tesla, gm, others have poured billions of dollars into the tech. And remember DARPA was the one that started all this stuff with their very first competition was driverless vehicles at darpa. So autonomous trucking or driving tends to use states like Texas and California as their testing ground for technology.

Yeah, they’re just going to let them do whatever they want. Consumers and transportation officials have raised alarm over the safety record of autonomous vehicles. So the ones that they’ve tried as taxis in various jurisdictions have had such, you know, been such a problem. Now let’s take it, scale it up. Let’s scale it up to a giant semi. Earlier this year, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration rejected a petition from autonomous driving companies Waymo and Aurora. The one that’s running this trucking company seeking to replace traditional warning devices used when a truck broke down with a cab mounted beacons.

So again, you know, you don’t need it. Same kind of stuff that you would have for the humans and the self driving vehicles. With Tesla that was kind of a whistle that was used to sell the electric cars, make it all look very futuristic. Right. Forget about how poorly it worked, as Steve Wozniak, the co founder of Apple Computers said. He said, I love my Tesla but don’t put on the self driving that’s trying to kill you. Well now we’ll be able to kill other people with a big semi stuff out there. But all of this is the excuse that was given to us was the climate MacGuffin.

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

You will have an electric vehicle and they’re not going to give you the choice as to whether or not you would like to drive or not either. Eric Peters and I have been talking about this for the longest time and as he pointed out, the only way these electric vehicles will be able to operate is if they ban human drivers. Because if you got human drivers there, they may not be able to react to the situation, but you don’t even need to have a human driver to mess them up. Remember the situations that we had in San Francisco, I think it was where they all went to one intersection and stopped.

They all went to the same intersection and stopped and blocked everything. They also block emergency vehicles and other things like that. It isn’t the humans that are the problem, it is the autonomous driving cars. But of course this is all in response and a solution to a climate MacGuffin, which is also not a problem. And I thought it was kind of interesting to see this article about Venice. Venice is sinking. He finally admitted the truth, that the city is sinking. It’s not that the ocean is rising. Although there is a good bit of panic and misinformation propaganda about climate change in this article.

The gist of it from CNN is how the city itself is sinking and they blame it on. They said, you know, for thousands of years, you know, this city has been there until about 50 years or so ago, 40, 50 years ago, they started doing something with the underground water and that caused the city to start sinking. But most of the time what they’re showing and this picture that is at the top of the article here is showing the sidewalks submerged with water and people wading through it and water up to their knees while the boats are there.

At the same time, it’s become kind of a poster child for this phony nonsense about the rising oceans. We have seen reports in the Pacific Ocean, you know, like the South Pacific and then, you know, a little bit north of it. Oh look. Well, the ocean has risen X amount at this island and it’s X + 3amount in this other island. It’s like, are you trying to tell me that the Pacific Ocean is higher in some places than it is in others? Or is it that your island, the two islands are sinking and at different rates? Because that is something that happens all the time.

All the time in the past century, Venice has subsided. That’s what they call it when a city sinks. They call it subsiding. Has subsided by about 25 centimeters or nearly 10 inches in the past century. Meanwhile, the average sea level in Venice has risen nearly a foot since 1900. Again, that’s not going to be the case. You’re not going to have Venice going up. Sea level rising in Venice. And only in Venice they just underestimated the amount they attributed this stuff to that was subsiding. The land sinking there. They attributed that to the rising ocean to some degree.

And they said it’s not just a regular flooding, but it’s a slump of this city into the watery depths. So they said, but now they’re looking at what could they do to raise the city. And so you have one engineer who’s looking at this and he said, well, the city sunk about a foot because we pumped water out of these other areas. So maybe what we could do is we could pump water underneath it and lift it back up again. Well, they don’t know if that’s going to work. They don’t know if it’ll be uniform or if it’s going to, because they’re talking about lifting it up by about a foot.

And so they don’t know if that’s going to work or not. They don’t know if it would crack everything up or if it’d be a waste of money. They’re not sure what it’s going to do to the rest of the other aspects of the city, of course. And pumping salt water in there, what is that going to do? So during the city’s thousand year history as a republic, they were constantly rerouting rivers and digging new canals and rechannelling the waters of the lagoon. And everything was fine until the 20th century. And then things started to go wrong.

During the 1960s and 70s, groundwater was pumped from the industrial area on the mainland that faces the lagoon. CNN says big mistake. It caused the entire area to sink. From 1950 to 1970, Venice’s precious city center subsided nearly five inches. Okay, so it is man made problem Isn’t it? But not because of climate change, not because of emissions, and it’s not causing the ocean to go up. It was something locally done that was stupid and ill advised and had a blowback effect. And so as they saw it sinking and continuing to sink and accelerating in its sinking, they decided that they would set up a system of barriers that they could raise whenever there’s going to be high tide.

And I remember in the past, I don’t remember if it was CNN or not, but I’ve put up the pictures before. They would show flooded Venice and say, this is it. You know, all the seas are mellow, the ice caps are melting, the seas are rising and blah, blah, blah. You know, it’s their poster child, as I said. And then a few months later, there were pictures of the canal and boats in the canal that are sitting high and dry. It’s like, what happened? Well, the tide went out and it’s now a drought. So they go from a situation where there’s floods and then there’s droughts, but then they always attribute it to climate change and rising seas, and yet it goes in both directions.

Now they’re talking about, since the city is dropping off, they’re talking about putting up these. These barriers that are going to be there. So the problem is when they raise the barriers, the lagoon is effectively closed off. And it keeps people from being able to get in or out of Venice, which is the second busiest port for Italy and the fifth busiest port in the Mediterranean. So if they raise these big barriers, they basically just close the city to tourism and to shipping. That shipping is more important, actually. And also it prevents the lagoon’s natural action of flushing itself out with the tides.

So now what do they do with this? And they said that they thought that they would only be raising these things like five times a year. So we could live with it, you know, just completely seal off the city five times a year. But in reality, in the five years since they put this up, they’ve had to do it on an average of 20 times a year. They’ve done it 100 times in five years. So this is starting to get unworkable. But again, it always goes back to these big government projects where they don’t really think about what they’re doing.

And so now they’re going to have another big government project. So if you’re still traveling, you know, in spite of all the TSA harassment and vaccine mandates and all the rest of stuff, you might want to get to Venice before they do this next phase they’re proposing drilling dozens of wells in a 10 kilometer diameter around the city of Venice and then trying to pump the city up, of course, raising it on a waterbed like cushion while the land surrounding it stays level. Sounds like a recipe for disaster or disaster movie. This guy says, well, it’s not like fracking, don’t worry, it’s not like fracking.

We’ll see what happens. Maybe it’s all going to crack up, maybe that’ll start to create earthquakes like the fracking has done in some places. But anyway, it’s them messing with it. So now they’re going to mess with it in a different way. We have this ridiculous article from the Guardian who seems to specialize in ridiculous articles pushing climate fear, pushing virus fear and everything. And so this headline, the world may be quote, post herd immunity unquote to measles says top US Scientists. Give me a break. They said the fear of the most contagious disease for humans is growing.

A leading immunologist warned of a post herd immunity world. Well, you know, here again we come back to this idea. Herd immunity was the person who came up with it, the concept came up with it before they were talking about it in conjunction with vaccines. They said, so if everybody gets these diseases that we think are contagious and they get over it, and now they seem to have immunity to it in the future. And if you have enough people who have immunity because they’ve gotten the disease and survived, now you’ve got a herd immunity. They explained that as the pattern that you see with the Farrer’s law, the bell shaped curve.

That was the curve that’s supposed to flatten, remember? Well, that kind of immunity and that model of what was happening. And again, I still have, I’m still skeptical about that whole model now since they’re not actually doing science. That may be a theory, but it remains, it may be a valid theory, but it remains an unproven theory scientifically. But nevertheless, the whole idea of herd immunity was not strictly about vaccines. They made it strictly about vaccines. They rewrote everything, said, well, now you can only get immunity if you’ve got a synthetic vaccine or something, not even the people who had a disease and survived it.

And I said, well, that really doesn’t make any sense when you look at their theory. Their theory says that the disease trains your immune system. Your immune system, you know, has fought this disease, beat it, and has now learned how to fight that disease if it sees it again. And supposedly that was the whole purpose of a vaccine, was to train your immune system with a simulated but not real disease so that it could fight it in the future. And now they’re telling us that somebody who’s had an actual disease that they’re vaccinating you for really hasn’t gone through that training.

That’s like saying that, you know, you can. Being a real fighter in a dog fight doesn’t train you. You got to go back and do it on a simulator, you know. No, actually that’s exactly the opposite. It. But that’s their theory and they’re not even consistent with that theory. And this is the same kind of stuff coming of this herd. Immunity. Your vaccine doesn’t protect you, it protects other people. Your mask doesn’t protect you. They’re right about that. But they tell you then that your mask protects other people. Well, if it doesn’t protect you, it’s not going to protect other people either.

And so they’re trying to still sell this. I guess there’s some people who will never be able to think through this and figure out what’s going on. Now, they said in Europe they’ve had 35,212 cases in 2024 of measles. 87% of them were reported in Romania. You notice that nobody died. They had 35,200 cases in Europe. Nobody died from measles. And this is what we all know, those of us who are around the middle of the 20th century, this is why they’re making jokes about it on the Brady Bunch. It was rarer than rare. It’s more rare than what Fauci calls rare for somebody to die.

35,000 cases and nobody dies. Now, remember, this is the same article. I’m going to tell you how the Guardian contradicts itself in its own article. They say just this week, Kennedy RFK Jr told a crowd that the MMR vaccine contains aborted fetus debris. They said the rubella vaccine, like many others, is produced using decades old sterile fetal cell lines derived from two elective terminations in the 1960s. So what? Somebody chose to kill a baby. It was elective. And then they chose to use the cell tissues. This is what a lot of people, I think, rightfully object to in terms of the morality of this.

It’s a form of cannibalism, really. Kennedy’s health department also stated this week that it would implement new safety surveillance systems and approval requirements for vaccines. Well, Guardian wants to push back against that. The Guardian sells you the two big MacGuffins of climate and the pharma. MacGuffin, pandemic MacGuffin. They’re real big about that. I guess that’s where they get their funding. Anyway, experts said that running certain trials, such as for a decades old vaccine like MMR would be unethical. Would it really? Would it be unethical? Well, he said it’s unethical because we know it to be safe.

So why would you run a trial on it? Except that we have a lot of people who think that it is not safe. And if it is not safe, how is it ethical to not test it since it was never tested before and since you’re playing statistical games to tell us this, the MMR vaccine they said is 97% effective. Have you done the test? Oh no, that’s right, you didn’t do the test. So how do you know that is 97% effective? They never test these. They never test, they never said it’d be unethical to let people be exposed to something as dangerous as measles.

You know, where 35,000 people can get it, not a single person dies. It’d be unethical to actually test that. It’d be unethical to give one control group the vaccine and the other control group doesn’t have the vaccine and then you expose them to the measles. Maybe it’s because they never isolated the virus. Maybe it’s because they couldn’t run that test because they didn’t isolate the virus. Maybe they’ve never even gone in and done a test to see if the people that have a particular disease that they say is caused by a virus, do they have some substance there that we can identify and call a virus that is present in the sick people, that is not in the well people? No, we didn’t do that.

So of course they’re not going to do any of this stuff. It’s all a big fraud. But again, look at how they lie. Here’s where they say measles kills one in a thousand children who become infected with the disease. Okay? So they just told us at the beginning of the article that the EU had over 35,000 cases of measles. And now they tell us that one out of a thousand die. So we should have had 35 deaths last year from measles. If that’s true, we had zero. And then they talk about the fact that there have been 2,300 cases in the U.S.

well, then we should have two to three deaths, shouldn’t we? In the U.S. and yet we haven’t had. They had the two deaths there in Texas. But those were debunked. Those are not due to measles. The one child had recovered and had a respiratory issue and it was malpractice and the father has gone public with that. Same with the other one. Measles vaccination is believed to save more than 93 million lives worldwide. Prove it. Prove it. And I would say this. And so what if you’re not going to allow people to have informed consent, you should tell them that it is also been linked in terms of its association with autism and other things along whether it’s MMR or whether it’s just the massive multiplication of mass vaccination kids and 76 of them.

Why don’t you tell people about that side of it and let them make the decision as to whether or not they’d like to take the risk of what you say is one in a thousand, but you haven’t shown that risk of death or whatever. But again, they want to say, well, a couple of going to be one death per thousand cases, except there were 35,000 cases in the EU last year and no deaths. So then they want to take their phony statistic and say that it has saved more than 93 million lives worldwide. Well, I’d never ever heard of anybody that it had that issue.

And then as we look at Rand Paul and others continuing to push this is Tulsi Gabbard, Rand Paul. Now you have RFK Jr. You got both the establishment media as well as the alternative media are all pushing this lab leak stuff and all pushing it towards Fauci. Rand Paul says Fauci thought he could sail off into the sunset and we’d forget about him. But that’s the furthest thing from the truth. He will be held accountable for his role in the pandemic and the COVID cover up. What about your role, Rand? You didn’t do anything to stop it.

Neither did Trump. Trump was paying people to do all this stuff. And so Tulsi Gabbard says soon the COVID origins are going to be exposed very soon, quote, unquote. Well, are you going to, since you were head of the intelligence, are you going to tell us the involvement of the CIA and DARPA in creating all this stuff? How about you tell us about the role of CIA and DARPA in creating the real bioweapon, the vaccine? Yeah, we saw a slight uptick in deaths, but we could also attribute that to the lack of treatment. We could attribute that to the kinds of treatment when people finally got it, you know, they push them off and say, don’t come back to your real sick.

Oh, now they’re really sick. Put them on a ventilator, kill them with that. Kill them with remdesivir, all that financially incentivized. And then when the vaccine rolls out, being pushed by Biden with threats and intimidation, then we see the gigantic spike. Gigantic spike. Folks, we all know that it was a vaccine. We all know that this is both an alibi as well as preparation for the next time they do it. We’re going to take a quick break and before we go, I’ll read some of the comments here. Rumble Sam Miller123 said, what about the possibility of being able to hack these driverless semis and vehicles, just another weapon against the people? Well, that’s already been done.

We look at Michael Hastings situation and I forget the guys, Richard something or the other, the guy who was, he was in the intelligence agencies and he was talking about how it was used in the past to assassinate people. And we had people at the defcon, the Black Hat conference and stuff in Vegas. I’ve talked many times to Goattree about how exposing the fact that you could hack into medical equipment to kill people and that type of thing and one of the guys who’s going to do a big expose of that at the Black Hat conference just suddenly died of a drug overdose.

And go Tree told me, he said he’s as sober as you are, he didn’t do drugs. He was going to reveal some stuff about that that they didn’t want revealed. And so we talked about how at those conferences they would hack ordinary cars. And Michael Hastings was in what was by far and away the most connected car at the time that he could drive, which was a Mercedes. He thought they were going to try to kill him. He was going out looking at his car all the time. Then you had that strange situation. Anyway, I won’t go into any more detail about that but on Kick a Syrian girl says, well there you go.

If they can’t keep us from driving by taking away our cars, they’ll make us afraid to drive because the huge self driving death machines, you know the image that comes to my mind is Brazil. Just like the way that film started out with an over the top no knock SWAT team raid grabbing the wrong person. And that was the central thing that kind of runs through it. The other part of it was this guy had a little, if you’ve ever seen it, the three wheeled. Maybe you can find it, Travis. The three wheeled Messerschmitt little weird German car post World War II.

And when he’s driving to work, he’s driving between these extraordinarily large semi trailers as he’s going to work. And I imagine that’s what it’s going to be like. But they’ll also not only be gigantic, but they’ll also be self driving. Keep us off of their interstate system. Of course, the interstate system was not really. Eisenhower designed it really for the military to use. You know, just kind of became a. An afterthought that is used by civilians to do that kind of stuff. But yeah. So anyway, on Rumble, Honor Seeker says, what happens if the lens on the board camera gets dirty or the windshield in front of it gets iced or it gets misted over? Well, again, some of them are using lidar, most of them use lidar, but the Tesla does use visual stuff that may be part of the problem with it.

Kick Solocat 1980 says, I guess an island slowly sinking is better than encapsulating. I remember that Hank Johnson, was that the person they believed that they could. He wasn’t joking as Google claims. No, he wasn’t. They were serious. You know, you get too many people on this island, it’s just going to capsize and flip over. Remember that. Well, maybe that’ll. What’s going to happen with Venice? They’re going to have to cut down the number of tourists. So it doesn’t just, it doesn’t just flip over, but it may be floating on a whole bunch of water one way or the other.

Well, we’re going to take a quick break and we’ll be right back. Liberty, it’s your move. And now the David Knight Show. Let’s talk a bit about war abroad. We have Ukrainian drones now targeting historic Orthodox churches in Russia. This is something that we have seen for some reason. Zelensky seems to absolutely hate Russian Orthodox churches. He has closed them down, he’s confiscated monasteries, he’s arrested monks, and now he is deliberately attacking these churches and Russia hitting them with missiles and drones. This is what we’re seeing more and more when we look at modern warfare. It’s turning more and more toward civilians, isn’t it? And so the attacks on religious sites have been going back all the way to 2014, the beginning of the conflict in the Donbass.

And if we understand who the aggressors are, goes back to the late 90s with the attacks on Yugoslavia. It made it very clear that they were not going to abide by their assurances against NATO expansion, but they were going to Expand and try to take out Putin. They made no bones about it. You know, within a few years, you had, you had Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Lindsey Graham said, next year we’re gonna go get Putin. You know, all the rest of this stuff, I mean, just openly saying it. And then when they had the coup in 2014 and you had areas that were culturally, linguistically Russian and had been Russian for centuries, Crimea had been a part of Russia as long as the United States has been a country.

And so when they said, well, we want to stay with Russia, they started bombing them. And of course, part of that was bombing civilian targets, bombing church buildings that were their famous historic monasteries shut down, seized by the Ukrainian authorities, monks expelled, churches raided by nationalistic militant groups. On the other side, Russian aerial raids have often devastated whole Ukrainian neighborhoods, including destruction of local churches. In a fresh incident, the Russian government and media sources say a Ukrainian drone was sent across the border and struck an iconic historic church in Belgorod region, setting the church on fire.

And not only that, but there was an even more well known church recently destroyed. This is the New Jerusalem Church and was the name of it, they said it was. You can see from the videos that it was clearly targeted in the attack. Ukrainian drones dropped explosives directly on. Wasn’t just like just dropping bombs and they’re hitting this or hitting that. No, they came in directly targeting that building. The Ukrainian armed forces reportedly attacked the temple at least twice, preventing local residents and firefighters from putting it out. And there’s the burning building that you can see there.

Yeah, a historic building. This is why I say these societies are just. It’s just the desire by Zelensky and others to just destroy everything. It truly is amazing. And at the same time, we see that Israel has now bombed a humanitarian aid flotilla that was going to take food and medicine to Gaza. This had happened once before, 15 years ago. When they did that, 2010, they killed 10 people, injured dozens more. This time, apparently there have not been any casualties, but they have disabled the ship that was going to carry food and medicine to the people that they are intent on starving in the Gaza Strip.

A ship carrying supplies bound for Gaza Strip was attacked by Israeli drones in international waters on Friday. Close to Malta, as a matter of fact, and it was just after midnight, Malta time. According to the activist group that organized the flotilla, the vessel reportedly took at least one direct hit on its hull, sustained damage from fire, forcing its crew to issue an urgent call for help. So, you know, repeatedly the Israelis, using American bombs, are bombing food supplies, bombing food ships, bombing Hospitals, all the rest of the stuff. Ukrainians bombing, doing the same thing and bombing church buildings, historic church buildings.

They said one of the vessels was attacked by an unidentified drone. The ship was called. Well, it’s part of a group called the Freedom Flotilla Coalition. The ship was called the Conscience. Came under direct attack in international water. Armed drones attacked the front of the unarmed civilian vessel, twice causing a fire and a substantial breach in the hull. The drone strike appears to have deliberately targeted the ship’s generator, leaving the crew without power and placing the vessel at a great risk of sinking. And it was en route to Malta, where it was scheduled to pick up other activists.

Now, here you go. Here’s where everybody will lose it. One of the activists that they’re going to pick up was going to be Greta Thunberg. Oh, okay. Well, good. I’m glad they shouldn’t, you know, that’s what I’m good. Glad they bombed. That thing had Greta Thunberg on it. Well, as much as I might applaud the bombing of Greta Thunberg, under ordinary circumstances, this was going to be food for starving children. And I don’t know. I mean, she’s got her own agenda where she would starve children by denying them dairy, meat and other things because of her climate obsessions.

But I don’t know, she’s. Whatever cause she’s in, maybe she’s trying to rehabilitate herself because as everybody sees, the massive, intentional, ongoing bombing of civilians and starvation, this policy of starvation, Israel is losing this propaganda war. It’s why they’re so desperate to shut down freedom of speech, because people see what they’re doing. And so I think Greta Thunberg might even look at this and say this is one way for her to rehabilitate her flagging image. The group said that it arranged the aid shipment under immediate blackout to avoid any potential sabotage. But nevertheless, it did happen in 2010.

The ship that was attacked then was. Was also going to give aid to Gaza. And it was organized by a Turkish organization. It was attacked by Israeli forces in international water. Nine people were killed in the assault, with another later dying from injuries, while dozens more were wounded. A UN report later found that all 10 activists had sustained gunshot wounds. Gunshot wounds. So this is, I guess, done by planes, or were they firing the guns from a drone? They added that the circumstances of the killing of at least 6 of the passengers was in a manner consistent with extralegal, arbitrary and summary execution.

The story from antiwar.com but many people have picked up on this information. Liberation picked up on it as well. The front of the vessel was targeted twice, resulting in a fire and a breach of the hull. Israel has been enforcing a total blockade against Gaza for two months in an attempt to starve the people there out so they can have the land. They’ve used US Supplied weaponry to bomb hospitals, water facilities, other essential civilian infrastructure. And a clear violation of international law and internal law. The Trump administration announced on March 1 that they would use emergency powers to rush the Jewish state another $4 billion in military assistance, not to rush food and water or medicine, but to rush more bombs there.

Two weeks later, Israel broke the ceasefire agreement that the Trump administration had negotiated and there was no pushback from Washington about that. And then they proceeded to conduct civilian massacres in Gaza. An American surgeon who’s just returned recounts what he witnessed. He said, I don’t think a horror movie could fictionalized how these scenes make them any more sick and twisted and disturbing than they are. And then in Yemen, we have the American government there. We’ve now gotten up to over 1,000 bombings there in just six weeks. In Yemen, as that is happening, a missile fired from Yemen struck an access road on the grounds of Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport on Sunday as heavy US Bombing campaign has failed to deter the Yemeni Houthis.

Israeli military tried multiple times to intercept the missile, but failed. A US Terminal high altitude area Defense, the Thaad system that is deployed to Israel also failed to intercept the Yemeni missile. Wasn’t that interesting? You know, these iron domes and the Thaad system and all the rest of this stuff. And Trump is talking about a golden defense system. Russia said, air defense system like that anti ballistic missile system. Russia said, well, you know, we’ve got this cruise missile that we’ve developed that has a, has nuclear power and it can stay airborne for days, weeks, months until we want it.

And so you know, it’s not, and your golden system is not going to be any defense against that and the missile systems and of course that’s not going to be around for a while either. The anti ballistic missile systems that are unable to stop the Yemeni missiles, which are not nearly as sophisticated as the hypersonic missiles from Russia. Again, Russia said, you know, here’s an example. We’re going to just bomb that city over there did it and you’re not going to be able to stop it. They’re not able to stop the Yemeni missiles. So why are they continuing to push on with this? Maybe they would realize that it’s not even in their tactical or geopolitical interest to push into a war that they can’t win, except that they are building their underground bunkers.

I guess that’s what they want to do. That’s their depopulation move. This missile left a crater next to the airport on the road. Six people were injured by the attack. None of them were seriously hurt. Israel launched a few rounds of airstrikes on Yemen last year, but hasn’t done so under the Trump administration. In March, the Israeli news site Yanet reported that the US has asked Israel not to respond to the Houthis attack, said the U.S. forces will handle the retaliation. Let us do the fighting for you. There we go. So again, we’ve had about a thousand strikes against Yemen in six weeks.

So how does that work out to be? That was about 166 a week, about 24 per day. Bombing Yemen 24 times a day. Who agreed to that? Where did we have the vote for that, that we would get involved in bombing Yemen 24 times a day? TRUMP On March 17, there’s a truth Social post. He said he would blame each Houthi attack on Iran. He said. And then Netanyahu said Trump is absolutely right. Attacks by the Houthis emanate from Iran. Well, these Houthis, Houthis, whatever. If they can shoot down Reaper drones, and they’ve shot down 17 or 18 of them already, and of course, you know, they’re unmanned, so we don’t have any casualties there, that’s good.

And the military industrial complex gets to replace them and make a lot of money, $30 million a piece, so that’s good for everybody except for the U.S. taxpayer. But you might want to ask, if they’re saying that this is being done by Iran, then where is the logic? Directly attacking Iran? Do you think Iran’s giving their best stuff to the Houthis? I don’t think so. It is a much, much, much bigger country than Iraq and much, much larger, and it is much more sophisticated technologically. But of course, Trump has also said. Trump is telling the truth.

Who knows? But he also said, hey, these the Houthis, maybe he called them Hooties. I like. I prefer calling them Hooties. But the Hooties just have the Blowfish missile. They can make their own missiles. It’s pretty amazing that they’re very effective. Yeah, because they’re shooting down these $30 million Reaper drones with their own missiles. But now he wants you to know to tell you that it’s coming from Iran. Since March 15, the US has launched over a thousand Strikes on Yemen, killing more than 200 civilians. Well, there we go. That’s what happens when you’re bombing them 24 times a day.

The Houthis, known for their resilience, have vowed that they will not stop their attacks on Israel or end the blockade on Israeli shipping unless there is a ceasefire in Gaza. By the way, when there was a ceasefire in Gaza, they stopped attacking the shipping until the ceasefire was broken. They’ve offered to stop attacking US Warships if the US Stops bombing Yemen. But the Trump administration has shown no interest in peace. Instead, what we want is war and more weapons. The Pentagon, by the way, the Intercept is saying that the Pentagon is covering up American casualties in the Yemen war.

According to a report by the Intercept published on Saturday, U.S. cENTCOM, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the White House have refused to disclose how many US Service members have been killed or wounded since the launch of Operation Rough Rider. That’s what they call this, coming after Yemen in March of 2025. And of course, you know, a lot of this was the signal gate stuff that’s going back and forth with Waltz and Hegseth and all the rest of them. I guess they came up with the idea of Rough Rider. So they’re, you know, plotting on how they’re going to break the ceasefire even before the Israelis do and start bombing civilians in Yemen.

And then they, you know, while they’re on signal chat, and then they go in and to a million dollar a plate fundraiser dinner at Mar a Lago. How decadent is this government? One recent incident underscored the risk. The F A18 Super Hornet fighter that fell off the USS Harry Truman aircraft carrier earlier this week, reportedly because it made a sharp turn. Like I was saying, you know, it wasn’t one of these deals like, did you guys lock that down? Did you shut it down? I didn’t. I didn’t like it. I thought you did it. You know, it wasn’t one of those things.

I mean, they were obviously making some really hard turns and probably broke off something that was there. One sailor was injured and the $60 million jet was lost. When the Intercept asks the Pentagon for casualty figures, officials deflected and directed the inquiry to centcom. And then CENTCOM referred the request to the White House. And none of them will talk. The White House won’t talk. Yeah. Can’t get Caroline Levitt to say anything. Well, of course, you know, there’s been no declaration of war and there’s been no information about the war, is there? Compare that to the cases of Measles, Right.

Think about that while they’re dropping bombs and everything. We’re not going to talk about it if anybody is killed, not going to mention it at all. But hey, somebody gets a relatively harmless, pretty much harmless childhood disease. And I will say it’s a harmless disease. Look, children can die from pneumonia and cold, right? And it’s not even to say that, you know, when they fundamentally die from that, they want to make it about measles. But, you know, you just look at it. We’re going to be inundated with every person who gets a couple of spots on their face, regardless of what happens.

But we’re not allowed to know what’s going on with the soldiers who are in an undeclared war, a war that was basically declared on a signal chat between a lot of spoiled brats on their way to million dollar plate fundraiser. Trump’s former national Security advisor, Michael Waltz, who was part of that signal gate, was dismissed over the weekend, part for including a journalist in a sensitive discussion about Yemens. But it wasn’t even about that. He had also been pushing for a lot more military action against Iran. As we reported in the past, Michael Waltz was one of the favorites of aipac.

They pushed him to get him into Congress and all the rest of this stuff. And there was suggestions at the very beginning of this that maybe the reason that this journalist, who is a leftist but a hardcore supporter of the Israeli government, maybe the reason that he got included on that was because maybe Michael Waltz was giving him information. Well, what triggered this firing was not signal gate. Even Zero Hedge says it was reportedly because he coordinated closely with Netanyahu. And so I guess he wins this week’s Jonathan Pollard Award for traitors, right? Throwing his own country under the bus.

Intense coordination with Netanyahu in terms of plotting how to get into war with Iran. So the Washington Post ran an article inside Waltz’s ouster before signal gate talks with Israel angered Trump. And so what they’re saying is that they got, you know, there was indications, pictures taken of things that he was doing. Also a discussion that he had with Netanyahu when Netanyahu came. And the narrative that is now being sold through leaks out of the White House is that Waltz wanted to do whatever Netanyahu wanted to do, but evidently Trump doesn’t. Is that right? Okay, so Trump is now still the peace president.

And if there is a war with Iran, which they’re pushing for, it won’t be because Trump is a shill, a puppet of Netanyahu. He was clashing with other top officials since early in the administration, including over whether to pursue military action against Iran, said senior officials on Friday as he was kicked out. They’re going to put him in the U.N. i guess that’s where they want to put the most hardcore Zionists, at least Stefanik there, but they pulled her out because it’s going to jeopardize their majority in Congress. So now we’ll take another hardcore Zionist and put him in the UN Waltz supposedly upset Trump after an Oval Office visit in early February by Netanyahu, where Waltz, the national security adviser, appeared to share the Israeli leader’s conviction that the time was ripe to strike.

Iran, said two of the people. Waltz wanted to take U.S. policy in a direction that Trump wasn’t comfortable with because the US hadn’t attempted a diplomatic solution yet. So now we’ve got, you know, these so called talks that are out there which is just a beard, so they can say, well we tried but it didn’t work, so now we’re going to have to kill them. It got back to Trump and the president wasn’t happy with it, said the people who are leaking on behalf of Trump. So Netanyahu’s office released a statement Saturday confirming that he did meet with Waltz ahead of the Oval Office visit, but denying that he had any intensive contact with him.

So again, I think this is just an opportunity for Trump to pretend that he’s not a puppet of Israel, when in fact he is. The view by some in the administration was that Waltz was trying to tip the scales in favor of military action and was operating hand in glove with the Israelis. But of course Trump wasn’t. I say we give them both a Jonathan Pollard to war for betraying America to Israel. You know, both of both Trump and Waltz should get that award. If Jim Baker was doing a side deal with the Saudis to subvert George H.W.

bush, you’d be fired, said a Trump advisor, referring to George H.W. bush’s Secretary of State. You can’t do that. You work for the president of your country, not a president of another country. On Wednesday, Waltz was photographed by Reuters reporter using an Israel made obscure and unofficial version of signal designed to archive messages. So again, he’s been caught multiple times with that stuff and this is an opportunity for them to try to inoculate Trump from being a Jonathan Pollard traitor. On the day he was fired as national security advisor, Mike Waltz used an Israeli app to archive signal messages that’s reported by Dropsite News.

They show the pictures that Reuters got Tech professionals have moved between companies like Telemessage and some of the leading Israeli spy firms. And then they give an example of eight different people who have done that. Waltz was known as an APAC favorite when Trump first hired him. And so Chris Minahan at Information Liberation says, I don’t know why, what he was expecting, right. He says it appears Waltz was not only handing out US War plans to Jeffrey Goldberg, but was also potentially handling all his private messages over to Israeli intelligence using their highly questionable software. That said, there’s no reason to expect that Rubio, another APAC favorite, is any better.

Same goes for Pete Hegseth, who dreams about Jews rebuilding their Third Temple in Jerusalem, as he’s said many times, and of course reported last week, last Thursday, message to Iran. Said Hagseth, you know very well what the US Military is capable of, and you were warned you will pay the consequence of the time and place of our choosing. What an arrogant, dangerous person. Pete Hegseth is not operating in our best interests by any stretch of the imagination. We’re being told, says Chris Minahan, to believe that Trump surrounded himself with Israel firsters who had explicitly pledged to restore the power of the Israeli lobby over Congress as well.

But somehow he doesn’t actually want to do Israel’s bidding. Despite taking all the steps necessary to launch another war for Israel, Trump is threatening to enact secondary sanctions against countries that even buy Iranian oil. Yeah, yeah, he says that we’re going to meet with them and then he puts on, says, if you even buy Iranian oil, then we’ll sanction you. And of course, sanctions are an act of war, as we’ve always said on kick, Minuteman militia said we have autonomous haul trucks at the mine. Well, you know, that’s. But you know, that’s very different than being on the highway with a lot of, a lot of ordinary cars and a lot of people who may not even know that thing is being autonomously done.

I mean, they’re going to be out there interacting and have to interact and react with people on the interstate. I have a big problem with that. On Rumble 1, Sarah B. Says, Not the first time that Israel attacked a freedom flotilla. That’s right, Kik, the real Octo spook says when criminals have taken hostages in a building structure area, isn’t it common practice to cut off water and food to them? No, not actually. And you know what? It’s not common practice. Just bringing in the SWAT team and the artillery and blowing the house to bits with the hostages in there.

That’s also not typically done, but that’s what Israel is doing. We’ll take a quick break and we’ll be right back. You’re listening to the David Knight Show. Yeah. You know, I think that if you had a police department that just destroyed everybody in the house or let’s say a bank, right, you had a bank situation. How’s that usually handled? Let’s make a deal. We want to keep the hostages safe and all the rest of this stuff. Instead, if they just open up and kill everybody inside, I think people would have a problem with that. And I think that what’s happening with Israel and what’s going on in Gaza is that people are seeing the pictures of the children with the sunken eyes that are being starved to death.

There’s no justification for that whatsoever. Even people who aren’t Christians have the discernment to see that that’s why Israel is becoming a pariah. So the let’s see, Marky Mark says, Dave, they were towing the F18, moving it around the hangar deck. It was near one of the elevators. When the ship healed over, physics took over and the plane got away along with the tug. Well, I guess, yeah, we’ll never, never know for sure. We’ll never know for sure because the Pentagon’s not going to tell us anything, will we? Of course, I guess that’s what they’re saying.

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

Your secretary of state says everyone who’s here, citizens and noncitizens, deserve due process. Do you agree? Mr. I don’t know. I’m not, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know. Well, the Fifth Amendment, I don’t know. It seems, it seems, it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials. We have thousands of people that are some murderers and Some drug dealers and some of the worst people on earth, some of the worst, most dangerous people on earth. And I was elected to get him the hell out of here.

And the courts are holding me from doing it. But even given those numbers that you’re talking about, don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as President? I don’t know. I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said. What you said is not what I heard the Supreme Court said. They have a different interpretation. Is anyone in your administration right now in contact with El Salvador about returning Abrego Garcia to your court? I don’t know. You’d have to ask the attorney general that question.

All right, so that’s the full context. And you can see that when they say Trump says, I don’t know, this is the headline npr, does the president need to uphold the Constitution? Trump says, I don’t know. Well, that’s not what you just heard there. The context of what he’s saying is that we got millions of people here, so we can’t do due process. And then he pivots to not just the millions of people who are here, but the people who are gang members and so forth. And you know, we can’t do due process with anybody that is here.

Which is what he’s saying now, you know, that is, I don’t really don’t know how you solve this problem. This was, I think that even if you got millions of people here, you should give them some kind of due process, some kind of review. And I think that that could be done. Especially when you look at how much money the government is spending on wars and on other non productive stuff. Maybe you could rapidly expand this and set up review boards and things like that to expedite this stuff. Yeah, it would take a very long time.

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

Trump said he doesn’t have to follow the Constitution or he doesn’t know if he has to follow the Constitution. No, the real issue is, do people who are foreign citizens get rights like due process and things like that? Are their human rights going to be respected when they’re in the United States? I think that’s the right way to phrase the question here, because as I said, you know, I saw this. One person responded when I talked about this Garcia thing, which I thought was the way the Trump people represented this thing when they said that he was mistakenly deported.

Well, if he was mistakenly deported, it’s real simple. You bring him back and you give him some due process. But then they doubled down. They did ad hominem attacks. They photoshopped a picture, put Ms. 13 on his knuckles, and Trump thought that was genuine and all the rest of the stuff. I think that he. There’s other evidence that he was involved in cartels, as I said, you know, the trafficking that was going on there in Tennessee got caught with eight other people in his car, none of whom had luggage or money and speak English and all the rest of this stuff.

And the car itself belonged to somebody who had been convicted with due process of trafficking. And yet the Tennessee Highway Patrol let him go because the FBI said, we’ve got jurisdiction here under. Under Biden. They said, we have jurisdiction here, and we want you to let him go. So Biden ought to be investigated. The people in the FBI who did that ought to be investigated, but that’s not happening. But again, the question is, you know, one of rights and of privileges. And so she pressed him on whether or not he needed to abide by the Constitution and the rights that it provides to people in the United States.

He said, I don’t know. I don’t know if foreign citizens have rights if they’re in the United States. And so that is the real issue. And there was an opinion piece on Politico said visa applicants don’t have First Amendment rights. Well, I think this is the issue. And when we look at it, regardless of whether you think that should be the case, and like I said, one person said, well, we’re going to talk about rights for noncitizens now. Well, then that’s going to be a hard pass. I’m not interested in listening to this program anymore. So let me just ask you this.

Do rights come from God or do they come from government? Of course, if a government tells you you can do something, that’s a privilege that’s been granted by government. Rights come from God. Why? Well, in the American System, the foundation of the American system, what it was based on was defined in the Declaration of Independence. It was a declaration about the fact that we were all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these, among these, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and so forth. But that’s not all of them.

Right. And so the whole context, again, they take Trump’s comments out of context. But let’s understand when we talk about rights, where the real context is. The real context is the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not grant anybody any rights. What it does is it recognizes our God given rights and it prohibits government from interfering with those God given rights. Who does God give the rights to? Human beings. Does that mean that you as a human being don’t have any rights if you’re not an American citizen? No. Now, what we’re talking about is government granted privileges.

Again, because the government is going to define who a citizen is. God defines who a person is. And we have seen this reflected in our law when we talk about fisa, for example, when from their inception, again, the CIA and the NSA and intelligence agencies were violating the Constitution and the requirement to get a search warrant if you’re going to spy on people, they were doing it from their inception. They were spying on Americans. And so that was the basis of the Church Committee hearings about the CIA and the nsa, hearings that were conducted in Congress at the time.

And out of that came the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act, which said that you will not listen to. You will not spy on Americans without getting a search warrant. You will also not spy. And that’s domestically and foreign. And you will not, you will not surveil foreign citizens in America. That’s the key. You’ll not surveil foreign citizens in America without a search warrant. But you can surveil foreign citizens in foreign areas without a search warrant, but not a foreign citizen in America. Why did they do it that way? Now you can disagree with them, but I think that was wise because I think that we want human beings who are within the jurisdiction of the American government to be treated as human beings.

You know, we talk about human rights and foreign countries and all the rest of this kind of stuff all the time. Right? Why is that important? Because if you have a government that decides that it doesn’t have to give human rights to a certain class of humans, then that. First they came for the op ed writers, right? As the op ed piece went by James Bovart, first they came for the Op ed writers and they came for everybody else. You don’t want to go down that path where the American government is free to violate human rights in America because human rights are defined by you being a human, not by your legal status by the US Government.

That’s my opinion. That’s reflected in the FISA legislation by the Congress 50 years ago. And the Supreme Court may have a different take on it. And if they do, I disagree with that take. And I do think that foreign citizens have human rights in America. And I don’t want to live in an America where they don’t have human rights because that’s going to be an America that takes away my human rights. And they’re pretty hard pressed to do that. Right now we’ve got a foreign government that wants to take away our human rights to free speech in America.

They want the American, the Israeli government wants and is paying the American government to take away our rights of free speech. You really want that. Now on the other hand, the question is, is entry into the United States, is that a privilege? Well, I think it is. I think it is. I think it is a privilege. And that can be controlled by the government. And I think that that is the real basis for this, I think, is the fact that when we look at the Bible, God has appointed nations, tongues and tribes. The nations are the borders, tongues are languages, tribes are the cultures and so forth.

But God has appointed that. God has appointed those places. God has appointed those times that certain countries will exist. America may not always exist. You know, institutions, countries come and go. God has appointed their places and times. He’s also appointed their boundaries. And part of their power is to decide who can be in their country and who may not be in their country. So I think it’s a perfectly legitimate thing to say that that is a privilege that is granted to come into the country. And so it also means that they can be removed. The question then is how? How are we going to throw out the basic rules that respect humanity, that respect human rights, that recognize the freedom and dignity of people who have been created in the image of God? Are we going to throw that away for the expediency of getting out the people that have been flooded into this country by Joe Biden? You know, there’s a lot of talk about people who have self deported and I think one of the things that they could do without doing due process, without going through a lengthy process and hearings of millions of people that have come into this country illegally.

One of the key things that you do is you get rid of the welfare magnet and you kill a couple of birds with one stone. Because, folks, welfare is not a right, even though the left says that it is, it is not a right. You do not have a right to be supported at the expense of somebody else. And that is a Christian principle as well. If they will not work, they will not eat. Get them working. You know, that’s one of the things that the pilgrims learned when they decided they were going to set up a system of communism.

Then they realized, hey, that doesn’t work. Let’s give everybody a plot of land and they will eat what they grow. And if they don’t grow anything, if they don’t work, they won’t eat. It’s just that simple. And so, yeah, I think that we have a system. You understand, that welfare is not guaranteed anybody. And that’s why I talked about getting rid of the welfare magnet. You know, immigration and crossings and everything have basically come to a stop because Trump is militarizing the border and militarizing our society. Now, that’s one way to do it. Do we want to live in that kind of country, or would it be better to have a situation where you say, well, guess what, if you come into this country, you are not going to get any welfare benefits.

You will never get any welfare benefits. As a matter of fact, when we identify you, we will financially penalize you, or other things like there’s things like that that they could do to financially disincentivize illegal immigration. And they could take that welfare magnet that is drawing people into this country under the wall, over the wall, through the wall, around the wall, and instead they could turn that magnet around and use the other pole and repulse them with economics. You don’t have to set up a dictatorship to do this. And you need to not get rid of human rights.

What you need to do is get rid of the idea that welfare is a right. And of course, this is all McLeod and Piven stuff. The Democrats economic study by a couple of people named Cloud and Piven saying that we had hoped that welfare would collapse our society and get everybody dependent on government. Unfortunately, that hasn’t happened to a significant degree with Americans. And so we need to accelerate this. So let’s offer welfare to everybody outside of the United States. And if we do that and draw these people in, then it’ll collapse the system here. So let’s understand what they’re trying to do, and let’s respond to that particular issue.

And let’s also get past the idea that Welfare is a right. It is not a right, but people in power will make two mistakes rather than admit to one. And that is what we’re seeing over and over again. So, you know, the question is also asked, this is American greatness article. We don’t need an executive order to bar illegals from Social Security. We need a government that obeys the law, and we need a government that recognizes that welfare is not a right. But I said, you know, what universe does it make it sense that the President of the United States has to sign an executive order to stop illegal aliens from receiving Social Security benefits? It’s a tragic indictment, excuse me, of how far this nation has strayed from the rule of law, from common sense, and from constitutional integrity.

Well, I completely agree with that. That’s the key issue, and that’s the way you get rid of people who are here now, if they are criminals, that’s a separate issue. What Trump is doing is he’s conflating a mass number of people, some of them who came here to work, some of them who came here for welfare, some of them who came here to engage in criminal cartel activity. Those are different types of things. And they’re not going to have the same solution, are they? Right. So somebody that’s here for welfare, somebody that’s here for criminal activity, you handle them differently.

And there are ways to handle that. So can the president refuse to spend money authorized by Congress? If Congress, of course, they haven’t done that really authorizes Social Security for illegals or many of these other issues, what really can be done? This is from reason. And they said, well, we look at the line item veto, for example, or long history of what they called impoundment. What do you do to cut spending through the executive branch? The same type of issue, in a sense, that, you know, Trump is. He’s looking at, well, we got these people, they’re here illegally.

Does that mean that I don’t have to follow the law to get rid of these people that are here illegally? Right. And then they also look at this and it’s like, well, okay, I was elected, for example, as reason says, well, if you got somebody who runs campaigns on spending less money, maybe even balancing the federal budget, and then you get in office and they try to carry this out, they’ve got a mandate, you know, from the people that voted for them. How do you. How do you do that? Well, the Constitution grants Congress the sole power of the purse, they said.

The executive branch is tasked with faithfully executing the laws that Congress passes. If Congress passes a law saying jump, it’s the president’s job to jump. Well, not exactly. I mean, there is the reason that we have checks and balances. Checks and balances, just another name for nullification from one branch of the government to another branch of the government, nullifying it because they think that that action that they’re doing is in violation of the Constitution. Just because it’s a law doesn’t mean it’s a constitutional law. But of course, now here’s the issue here. What they’re saying very simplistically, is that if Congress passes a law and allocates spending for a particular function, and again, a lot of this is going to be tied to entitlement programs, saying that if you meet these qualifications, then you automatically get the funding, that type of thing.

Well, not even that is true. As I pointed out, we talk about whether or not Trump has to spend the money that is in this budget. He clearly doesn’t. Because we have seen over and over again, just on one issue, trainees in the girls bathroom. Obama said, if you don’t put the trainees in the girls bathroom, I’ll take your money away. Trump comes in and says, if you put the trainees in the girls bathroom, I’ll put your money away. Do the opposite of that, then I’ll take your money away. And then you got Biden who comes in and says, you put the trainees in the girls bathroom or I’ll take your money away.

And then Trump comes back and he says, if you put the trainees, then I will take your money away. So they’re going back and forth, but all of them, Republicans and Democrats, just on that one issue, they’re showing that even though the schools meet the qualifications, so under the entitlement program, they meet the qualifications to get that money. That the president can say, but I’ll withhold that money if you don’t do what I want to do. This is the argument that I’ve had from, you know, for the last five years, the people trying to make excuses for what Trump did when he incentivized the lockdown and the mass killing of people, using hospitals, being paid by him, bribed by him to kill people with ventilators and remdesivir and maltreatment and all the rest of this stuff that was deliberately being done by him.

The governors were taking the money that he was funding that and telling them what he would like them to do. And of course, they had already prepared the legal authority in their states to do that based on the 20 year plan and practice going back to dark winter. But that’s the key. Presidents have always done that. So, and it’s strange to me that they’re not making that argument now. They’re going back in this Reason magazine article, they’re going back to the Impoundment act, they said. Trump views the Impoundment Control act as an unconstitutional limitation on executive power.

Where did that come from? That goes back to 1972. Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments. It was a series of updates and expenditures that became better known as the Clean Water Act. Nixon believed, though, that the $24 billion law was too expensive. This is the guy who created the epa, but now he says, okay, but that Clean Water act is too much money. I’m going to cut $9 billion out of it. And so he vetoed the bill. Congress then mustered the 2/3 majority to override the veto. Nixon then simply refused to spend a large chunk of the fund.

So he refused to spend 9 billion of the $24 billion. So, you know, depending on who you ask, did Congress have the right then to come back with this Impoundment act because he defied Congress, they said going back to the early 1800s, Jefferson decided not to spend $50,000 that had been appointed to build a fleet of new warships to fight on the Mississippi River. He said, that’s not necessary. And so he wasn’t going to spend the money. And then Congress just backed down and they didn’t take him to court or anything. But then when Nixon tried to do the same thing, that a group of cities, including New York and Nixon’s own EPA then got into a long battle with him.

And the Supreme Court in 1975 ruled that Nixon’s refusal to spend the funds had been illegal. So if they apply this, then you have to spend them. Like I said, we have now seen this on so many different issues, issue after issue after issue, where Trump says, well, if you are not, you know, doing what I tell you want to do, and he’s not the only one who does it, you know, if you are, if you got speech at your university that I don’t like, well, I’m going to cut your money, that type of thing. And so, you know, I think that is still up in the air.

It’ll be interesting to see what is happening. Trump, by the way, in this interview also said he doesn’t rule out using military force to control Greenland. Oh, yeah, he did rule it out for his World Economic Forum buddy, Mark Carney. However, now that Mark Carney is in Canada, I guess, doesn’t have to fear invasion by the United States. Again, this is the same NBC Meet the Press interview on Sunday. Asked about using force, he says, I don’t rule it out. I don’t say I’m going to do it, but I don’t rule out anything. No, not there.

We need Greenland very badly. Greenland is a very small amount of people which we’ll take care of. We’ll cherish them and all of that, you know, so sincere, isn’t it? Small number of people that we will cherish and subsidize and give massive amounts of money to. But we need that for international security. No, we don’t. No, we don’t. And again, what a lie that is. As I pointed out, they’ve had a military base there since the end of World War II. Since not the end of World War II. During World War II, they put a base there and they enlarged it to have an early warning NORAD system.

They enlarged it to 10,000 people on that base. They’ve now got 200. So obviously they don’t need it for national security. They still have the base, but they’ve reduced it from 10,000 to 200. How do you argue national security is needed for that? He was also asked about the idea of using military force against Canada. And because he keeps talking about IT being the 51st state, he says that’s highly unlikely. Why would you even entertain the idea for either one of these? He says, I don’t see it with Canada. I just don’t see it. I have to be honest with you.

He said he had spoken to the new prime minister from the World Economic Forum and central banks, the central banker of central banks, Mark Carney. He confirmed that they had not spoken since about making his country part of the United States. But, you know, he likes Mark Carney, and he said that many times before the election and after the election. He did say he didn’t like the conservative. 68% of Americans believe that Trump is serious about the US trying to take over Greenland. 53% think Trump is serious when he talks about the US trying to take control of Canada.

A survey commissioned by ABC News found that respondents didn’t think that either annexation would be a good idea. So the majority of people think he’s going to do something and they think it’s a bad idea. About 86% said they opposed the US trying to take control of Canada. 76% opposed trying to take control of Greenland, though there’s 10% of the people that don’t do it to Canada, but do it to Greenland. And again, you know, when you look at what is happening with this, it doesn’t make any economic sense. It doesn’t make any geopolitical sense either.

An interesting thing, you know, we’re talking about Greenland, Canada, Panama. I was talking to my friend who has long ties in Panama. He’s American, but his family was down there. They’ve had ties down there. And he said, interestingly enough, because he reads Spanish as well as English, and he gets the local Panamanian newspapers as well as an English newspaper that is there. And he said there was a memorandum of understanding between the US And Panama. When Pete Hegson, Seth Went down there and he said it was really crazy what was happening with that. He said there was this big display of military force, had all these ships there and all these planes there to intimidate the Panamanians.

And the Secretary of Defense is down there to talk about a memorandum of understanding. And he said in the memo that was published in Spanish, it talked about recognizing, yeah, we’re going to have a security partnership here, but it’s going to recognize the sovereignty of Panama. And he said the Panamanian Spanish newspaper said, yeah, but the English version of that memorandum of understanding did not have that phrase in there. Did not have that in there. They said, so what’s going on with this? They published one version in Spanish that’s amenable to the Panamanians and another version in English that is not.

But it was briefly shown and it wasn’t really published. So my friend contacted the American, the military and the State Department, went through this long chain of command trying to find where he could see the America, the English version of the MoU, the memo of understanding. And they gave him. They pushed him around from one place to the other, did this long, long chain. Bottom line is they’re not showing it to anybody. They’re not showing it to anyone. Although they did get a version of it, and the people there did get a version of it put out, but our government will not publish it, will not give it to anybody.

But the other people did get it there. Isn’t that so fitting that they would come up with two different versions? By the way, that I think heavily underscores the reason why we need to have one official language, the United States, and not two? Well, can you imagine what they would do with that kind of stuff? You know, putting one thing in one language like they did with Panama? You put it in one version, but not in the other version. On Rumble Mav 2022 government created a situation that sows seeds of division for people to be angry enough to allow rights to be trampled.

That’s exactly, exactly what is happening. And so when you look at this imperialism, it doesn’t make any economic sense, it doesn’t make any geopolitical sense. So much of what we’re looking at falls into that category. We didn’t even get a chance to get in. There’s a lot of things we didn’t get to today, we’ll get to them tomorrow. But I just want to say, you know, you start to prepare for this stuff. You know, start to prepare. I had a lot that I wanted to talk about in terms of the pushback against homeschooling. Understand about that, prepare about that.

One of the things that you can do to prepare about that is you start to see the pushback and legislation happening in multiple states. If you’re homeschooling, make sure that you are connected to the Homeschool Legal Defense Association. They help to establish our God given rights, help to establish that under law to homeschool our children. They can help you to defend that also. Go to DavidKnight Gold and start to defend your right to transactional privacy. Financial transactional privacy. That is key. David. David Knight Dot Gould. Take you to Tony Oliver and thank you for joining us today.

Have a good day. The common man. They created common core to dumb down our children. They created common paths to track and control us. Their commons process 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. The same 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 thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you. If you can’t support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. Thedavidknightshow.com.
[tr:tra].

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