Thu 4July24 The David Knight Show UNABRIDGED | The David Knight Show
Summary
Transcript
Using free speech to free minds. You’re listening to the David Knight show as the clock strikes 13 on this very special July 4, 2024. Welcome to the David Knight program. I’m Gardner Goldsmith, filling in for David got a very special program all lined up for you today. Very, very special program lined up for you, discussing some of the history of the American Revolution, some of the great risks that the revolutionaries took, and welcoming a man who carries on that tradition. At 10:00 a.m. we’ll be joined by Toby Leary of Cape gunworks, talking about Supreme Court cases pertaining to the right to keep and bear arms.
And then at 11:00 a.m. we’ll be chatting with Jacob Hornberger, founder of the Future of Freedom foundation, as Jacob discusses what the United States government does to people who would rather not use their fiat currency. It’s all here on the David Knight show. And welcome, everyone, to the David Knight show. I’m Gardner Goldsmith, and great thanks and great honor I hope to do, to give and do for David Knight on today’s program, Independence Day 2024. Thanks for joining me, everyone, and please spread the word about the show. Hit the thumbs up and spread the links to your friends if you’re watching live.
Thank you for doing so. Join us in the chats. We’ll see you inside the rumble and the rock pin chats. And don’t forget, you can still contribute to the program while I host the David Knight show on Rockfin and Rumble. That would be fantastic, and I would love to get your comments wherever you are watching, even if you’re not in the United States on this big day in american history, Independence Day. And I hope you are going to be celebrating, remembering some of the sacrifices and the amazing efforts of the people of that era, and perhaps thinking about the efforts of your parents or what you strive to do to help your family and get closer to God and, of course, backing freedom.
So today we’re going to be looking back a little bit in history and looking back at what some of the founders did. And we’ll also be discussing some of the breaking stories, including some coverage of Supreme Court cases that I think you might find interesting and some lower court cases. Plus, we’ll be asking about ethics, ethics, morality, economics, philosophy and religion. Not to pile too much on there, but if we look at the ability of an individual to control his or her own decisions, and we think about the state and what it does to people, we can see that the state starts from a premise saying you’re not going to be able to do everything you want to do, and in fact, you’re going to have to pay for the state to protect you, which is a bit of circular logic, a bit of a tautology.
I come at a lot of political stories with that approach. And then I mix in history, I mix in economics, realizing that economics is actually a reflection of your own free will as well. The very value of a product can only be shown. Even a resource can only something in nature can only be turned into a resource if human beings find a value in it. So it all comes down to ethics and morality. And on a day like today, I think there are a few better days to really investigate those themes of morality and ethics and human interaction and how politics and government always ends up confusing the problem, imposing itself, taking away our sovereignty that God gave us to make our own decisions, threatening us and coercing us.
That is the only way that government can work. It’s not a voluntary system. So let’s look into some of the ways that the founders fought against this, and then we’ll talk about how today we have our own fights. It is the David Knight show, and I hope very much that you will spread the word about the show, because, of course, David and his family are terrific, and I want to thank them so much for everything they’ve done for me. Let’s look at what’s on tap today for the David Knight show, July 4, 2024, as I hop over from MRC TV.
Or maybe you’ve watched my streaming show Monday through Friday. It’s called Liberty Conspiracy. It’s liberty conspiracy on Rumble, on Rockfin, on YouTube as well. Actually, they still haven’t booted us away. And on my ex, you can find it every night, Monday through Friday at 06:00 p.m. on Goldsmith on X. That is how you can find me. And I try to make the show a good news resource. And I utilize X as the way that you can find all those stories listed in that day’s, that day’s discussion. So hopefully it’s pretty good. So we’ll get into this, everyone.
Let’s find out what’s app on tap today. It’s going to be a very, very big show. Not tonight. You can watch my show tonight. We’re going to be looking at the news flash. I often do this on my show. We go into a newsflash. And last night, I got to touch on some of this topic, and I’d like to expand on this. I couldn’t believe what I saw yesterday. Trump fighting big pharma. Yeah, I’ll leave a big question mark on that. It’s the mega disbelief edition of that. We’ll talk about the desperate democrats riding what some people, and I think they have a pretty good point, think looks like their planned wave of breaking with Biden.
That wave is breaking on the shores. And Biden will be left alone with, of course, Lady Macbeth, Jill and I. Trump becoming that anti pharma night, not David Knight, unfortunately. But Trump is taking a new tack because he’s now the Paladin against big pharma. Seriously. You’ll see. Then we’ll talk a lot about federal courts and federal courts blocking Biden’s liquid natural gas exports sales block. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. This battle has been going on that we have to rely on a court to stop the federal government from doing something that it shouldn’t be doing in the first place.
Right. It’s ridiculous. Thank goodness they have put a stop on the block. So Biden wanted a block. And now the courts have blocked Biden’s block of people simply trying to sell things to other people, something called liquid natural gas. The ramifications of that for the oil and energy companies are pretty sizable. But the morality of it is pretty simple. Who are they to say what can be sold or not sold? It’s ridiculous. We’re going to get into homeschooling in Alaska. That’s a big story. And I didn’t get to discuss it last night on liberty conspiracy because I think this homeschooling story provides a lot of information for people who look at homeschooling as the alternative, which is very positive, but then mix in a major problem, which is getting state funding for it, a big, big problem.
There’s an ethical challenge there. Then our guest Toby Leary will join us at 10:00 and we’ll also try to talk about if we can fit it in, the man who might bring peace between Russia and Ukraine. We’ll see. Victor Orban wants to broker a Ukraine Russia peace truce. And we’ll talk to Jacob Hornberger at 11:00 a.m. the founder of the Future Freedom foundation, who has written a massive two part essay. We’ll say journalistic exploration into what the federal government has done to a personal friend of mine, Ian Freeman, fellow radio host, nationally syndicated, with his business partner Mark edge on Free Talk Live.
And they were absolutely wonderful to me every time I’ve seen them and worked with them. Good friends. Ian is spending the next seven and a half, seven and a half years in federal prison because he didn’t want to use the federal government’s money. He was dealing in bitcoin. So let’s get it together and say hi to folks inside the chats. I see Steve Swan up there in Maine still. Steve is saying happy Independence Day and I can’t believe is inside X. Thank you very much, everybody, and spread the word. We’ve got a lot of people watching on X, and I greatly, greatly appreciate it.
I also want to thank everybody over at Rumble. Let’s see what’s happening at Rumble. It’s a busy time at Rumble, and content has already contributed to the program, saying thanks for doing a live show. Guard hey, thank you for being here. You know, I know a lot of people have so many things going on, so it really is. It’s very heartening to think that we have a good group here and it’s expanding, especially for David Nightshaw. And what with the work he does is just amazing, isn’t it? It is incredible. So we’re going to be combining my liberty conspiracy attitude and a few other things.
I want to say hi also to Richa M. And Ron. Ron is in there. Dark horses. Dark, dark horses is also in there. And just let me know, you guys, if you hear anything happening strange with the sound or anything. Of course, we want to make sure the tech is all set for the David Knight show. And I also want to thank Tony Arderbern of Wise Wolf Gold and Silver exchange. Of course, you can get there through Davidknight gold. And it’s not just to promote the connection and Tony’s business, but also Tony himself is such a great guy.
And you can check out his paratrooper podcast and so on. And he’s always on America unplugged, on Rockfin on Saturdays at noon. So I hope you’ll check that out, because he’s just amazing. Now, on my show, I often do things called the news Flash, and I combine all sorts of funky music and things like that. And at first it was just the music pieces I would play the p funk all stars, and then a little scene from an independent film I was in where I was all in white face paint, and I played a so called master of disguise, and there are references to flashes and flashlights and the news flash and things like that.
The Flash Gordon theme is in there. And then I started to, on my editing system, I started to put little scenes from the day’s news that were ridiculous. Might get one miffed or laughing or something like that. So let’s go with that right now on the show to start things off. And this Independence Day, 2024. And check in with the P Funk all Stars and an amazing set of clips in the newsflash. But comparing that guy’s mental state, I’ve said it for years now he’s cogent, but I under sold him when I said he was cogent.
He’s far beyond cogent. And speaking about stakes, you just came out of a fundraiser. We know that many in your party have expressed concerns about President Biden’s health. Just this morning, Congressman Doggett said that he’s calling on President Biden to withdraw from the race. Given that there’s show, there’s too much at stake to risk a Trump victory. What’s your response to this? Look, Joe Biden is our nominee. We beat Trump once, and we’re going to beat him again, period. Are you ready to lead the country? If necessary. I am proud to be Joe Biden’s running mate.
Thank you. I can imagine what can be and be unburdened by what has been, you know? Yes. Oh, hello. Hello. Where Mary’s parents? Oh, well, come on in, fellas. Hold it. In a second. Mary’s parents burned to death last year. Wait a minute. I know you guys. You’re from the newsflash. This version of Biden, intellectually, analytically, is the best Biden ever. In recent decades, there has been an unexplained and alarming growth in the prevalence of chronic illnesses and health problems, especially in children. We’ve seen a stunning rise in autism, autoimmune disorders, obesity, infertility, serious allergies, and respiratory challenges.
It’s time to ask what is going on your from the news flash, is it the food that they eat? The environment that we live in, the overprescription of certain medications, the toxins and chemicals that are present in our homes every year, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars to treat these chronic problems rather than looking at what is causing them in the first place. Too often, our public health establishment is too close to big pharmaceutical. Make a lot of money. Big pharma, savior of the election. I’m reacting the same way I did last night when I saw that he’s actually the Paladin against big pharma.
Now Donald Trump is the savior of us against big pharmaceutical. Can you believe it? Oh, man. Talk about offensive. Talk about telling people that they have no short term or long term memory. Just incredible. The conceit and arrogance of that is just incredible. And then that’s, that’s counterbalanced by, of course, the long term way that the pop media was trying to hide obvious problems for Joe Biden. I mean, for goodness sake, when, when he ran for office in 2019, they said that he was doing it from the basement. And the excuse was that he couldn’t go out because of the pandemic.
Right? And then, of all things, you’ve got this crass answer from Kamala Harris, this packaged with a bow answer where she says, he’s our nominee. Absolutely no care whatsoever. And, you know, for clearly an evil man almost his entire life, Joe Biden. But he’s a man that you would hope that as a doddering person who’s having problems with his cognition and maybe people who care for him might actually speak up, but he’s surrounded by jackals. They don’t care. They’re going to leave him. They do not care. It’s such a shakespearean situation, and I don’t even think it’s appropriate to bring up the fiction of it because this is, these are real people, and they have been wiping out thousands of people with drone bombs and sending weapons over that Nikki Haley signs over to Israel, all sorts of things like that.
They have been involved in the destruction of more families around the world than probably any other people on the face of the planet Earth in the past 30 years. Right? That’s these people. And yet you look at a guy like Joe Biden, and you would think that even for a bad person like him, the people around him would at least have the modicum of care to not talk about, well, yes, he’s our nominee, and it’s all focused on the election. Like, oh, wow. And that’s the way they’re looking at it. Unbelievable. I’d love to get your opinions on this as well.
And I got to say, Donald Trump coming out with that statement, let’s take a little further look at that before we start celebrating Independence Day. And perhaps, hopefully, we’ll be able to take the positive side and think about the goodness of those people from back then by thinking about them separately. But obviously, juxtaposition between characters like Donald Trump and characters like, oh, I don’t know, Nathan Hale are quite different, aren’t they? Because, of course, Donald Trump, as the Rolling Stones might have said, donald Trump is coming to your emotional rescue. I will be your knight in shining armor.
Coming to your emotional rescue. You will be mine. You will be mine. So let’s take an opportunity to look a little further at some of that information from both the Biden health care problems and the Donald Trump health care problems. And for that, let’s go a little away from rock and roll into something that I know a lot of the girls I knew loved Mary Poppins and they loved sound of music. So let’s take a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down? The medicine go down? Medicine go down? Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down in a most delightful way.
All right, thank you very much, Julie Andrews. What a wonderful voice. Oh, my goodness. Terrific. So we’ll take a spoonful of sugar and look at both of these stories as, first we talk about the just jaw dropping arrogance of Donald Trump. And as you can see, it’s the are you serious? Category. So let’s check out some of these cuts from Donald. The toxins and chemicals that are present in our homes every year. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars to treat these chronic problems rather than looking at what is causing them in the first place. Too often, our public health establishment is too close to big pharma.
We make a lot of money. Big pharma. Oh, and there’s more. There’s more big corporations and other special interests and does not want to ask the tough questions about what is happening to our children’s health. If Big F. Just pause that. There isn’t this man very well known for loving Diet Coke and McDonald’s. I, you know, maybe this panel will be sponsored by McDonald’s. Maybe that’s it. Maybe they’ll be, he’ll have happy meals and there’ll be some integrity at the bottom of the meals, defrauds american patients and taxpayers or puts profits above people. They must be investigated and held accountable.
And it gets worse. It gets worse when I’m back in the white house. I will establish a special presidential commission of independent minds who are not bought and paid for by Big pharma. And I will charge. I couldn’t believe it. I couldn’t believe it when I heard that. Oh, man. Just, they’re not bought and paid for by big pharma. So I have to ask, and I asked this on liberty conspiracy last night. I have to ask, does that mean that perhaps. Oh, I don’t know, say, oh, Alex Azar will be on the panel. Is that right? Hey, Donald, you’re going to welcome the former head of Eli Lilly from a pharmaceutical corporation that you brought in to head up the unconstitutional department of Health and Human Services.
You’re going to have some DoD guys on there because, of course, they helped develop the operation. Warp speed jabs. What are you going to do? You’re going to get miss smalls on there. After she answered, Robert Roos questions from the EU and said we had to operate at the speed of science. We didn’t know if anything would work at Pfizer. We just gave it to the EU, and they spent billions on it. Oh, Mandy. Don’t forget, everybody, this is Donald Trump, who, yes, not only did he bring Alex Azar over to head up HHS, Alex Azar had headed up Eli Lilly, a pharmaceutical manufacturing company.
But in addition to that, Alex Azar not only was the president of Eli Lilly USA, LLC, the largest division of the Eli Lilly company, he also served on the board of directors for something called Biotechnology Innovation Organization. The bio, the bio, yeah, I know you’re going to be shocked. It’s a pharmaceutical lobbying organization in DC. So it would be one thing. It would be one thing if Donald Trump were actually to come out. And it’s the same thing with the people hiding Biden’s mental problems in the pop media, these Joe Scarboroughs of the world, right? It would be one thing if they came out, and even if, even to meet them halfway, if they came out, you know, they’d be deceiving people.
But if they just came out and said, look, I made a mistake, I’m sorry. Whatever the justification, right now with Joe Scarborough, I don’t think they have any excuse. The whole time they’ve been telling us, just three weeks ago, Joe Scarborough was telling us that was the best Biden ever. Right? And everybody knew that was a lie. But, I mean, it was obvious. So he would not have an easy out. Donald Trump, as some people have said, well, you know, he should come out and say that he was rooked by the pharmaceutical companies. He didn’t understand, you know, that these, these jabs could be dangerous.
It’s not an excuse. First of all, as a person who swears an oath to become the president of the United States, he’s not supposed to be handing out the pharmaceuticals. They’re not supposed to have a national institutes of health or a CDC or anything like that. The only, as I mentioned, the only way that the us government could get involved with trying to develop some sort of vaccine, and this actually subtly is the way that they did it. As Sasha Latapova has noted, it was done through the DoD. Right. And they did it under the guise of national defense.
But if you actually look at the founders in the founding era, there’s not supposed to be a standing army. It’s supposed to be the militia. There’s not supposed to be the central government constantly churning out all these different developments and the warfare machine and connecting with these giant military industrial complex manufacturers and things like that. It’s supposed to be that the US army is just really, the militia isn’t even supposed to have that title. The militia is supposed to get together and then they form the corps. If there’s a declaration of war, then the militia can be called up and the president can lead the troops.
That’s the way it’s supposed to work. If there isn’t a nation state threat, the United States technically has no enemies. The government has no enemies. They have no adversaries. And in addition to that, if they have a person that they’re trying to get, or a group of people trying, they’re trying to get who are not associated with the nation state, if they’re not uniformed, they can’t declare war against the nation state. That’s not right. They have to operate by Congress, issuing letters of Mark and reprisal. So the entire system of the United States developing, even if they were trying to develop vaccines to block, block, block some sort of foreign developed virus, you know, some biological warfare thing, they would have to amend the constitution to do that.
And again, I’m a voluntarist, right? So I recognize that the constitution and all political impositions, they have no authority over me. And if you never sign any of the documents, if you never actually explicitly gave your consent, they have no authority over you. It’s just that you’re here and it’s imposed on you. That’s the way all political systems work. And if you don’t like it, you’re going to have to run away. How is that any different than a mafia? It’s not. They just take on the legal mantle. As, as Frederick Pastier said in the 18 hundreds.
The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live off of everyone else and they try to call it legitimate. And of course, he calls taxation legalized plunder. I don’t think one can argue with that. He is cogent. He is on the ball. So that’s the Donald Trump story. He’s going to form the great emotional rescue. Now let’s go to the story about Joe Biden, because, yes, not only is Kamala Harris actually not even showing any wit of care about him, even as she holds her cards close to her chest, saying, well, he’s our nominee, he won.
They’re just focused on winning. Let’s go to CB’s and Major Garrett. Wasn’t he on Fox News? Major pain? I don’t know, because, yes, some politicians, like Representative Lloyd Doggett of Texas are calling for Joe Biden to step down now, why they didn’t call for Joe Biden to step down earlier because, you know, he’s supplying weapons unconstitutionally and all those congresspeople who are voting for it to be sent around the world, he is, of course, blocking liquid natural gas exports or attempting to do so. He had his jab mandates carrying on from Donald Trump’s initial March 13, 2020 emergency, medical emergency.
None of that is constitutional. Why representative so called, there’s no such thing as representation in this governmental system we have. It’s mathematically impossible. And it sure is arrogant to say that you represent someone. It’s also temporally impossible. But why he hasn’t called for Joe Biden to be impeached or removed from office prior to this, I don’t know. Maybe he doesn’t have a problem with the United States becoming the number one warmonger around the planet. I’m not sure. Maybe he doesn’t mind the jab mandates. Maybe he thinks, well, it’s bad, but we can’t really remove somebody from office.
Maybe he was involved. Maybe he’s culpable in a lot of these unconstitutional programs that the United States government has. Who knows? Let’s find out from Major Garrett about all those caring, wonderful Democrats, President Biden’s reelection campaign and his health. After the debate, did the president get examined by a doctor or did he get a neurological scan? A neurological scan. Even Democrats are now airing their concerns. One democratic House like lawmaker reached out to CB’s news to say, quote, a large group with a broad swath of the caucus are deeply concerned about the president’s ability to win this race, unquote, that in addition to a Texas congressman now calling for the president to get out of the race, CB’s news spoke exclusively to Vice President Kamala Harris about those calls as she was leaving a fundraiser.
She did not answer directly, but said this instead. Joe Biden is our nominee. We beat Trump once and we’re going to beat him again. The vice president went on to say she is proud to be President Biden’s running mate. Meanwhile, the Biden Harris team is also trying to play a bit of offense. Speaker one and again, all it comes down to, and it’s one of the things that I should say, is I know that for a lot of people who at least I assume, I can’t say that I know, just to be fair, I assume that for a lot of people who back their candidates, there are substantive policy and moral and ethical reasons that they back these people.
Some people say, well, it’s the best of two bad choices, that sort of thing. But some people do back these people, maybe they don’t have all the information that another person might have to say, I’m not going to touch that person with a ten foot pole. So it’s not necessarily the horse race aspect of it, but it tends to devolve into that, into this sort of mindless mantra of, we’re going to win, we’re going to do this. And it’s, you know, our club versus your club. It’s a basketball game, who’s going to hit the three pointer? Right? And it just reduces everything to this non thinking and highly immoral system whereby it’s all about winning the race.
Millions of dollars spent almost every year on various political races for those reasons. And yes, there are cadres of people who have substantive reasons to support someone or not support another person. But when you see the actual people involved who work with each other, supposedly on a daily basis or every other day, they’re in contact, they personally know each other and they’re part of this system. And they don’t acknowledge, well, you know, more important than running a good political race and beating Donald Trump is this man’s welfare. And besides that, not only that, if they’re, if they’re saying, well, you know, I’m proud to be Donald Trump, Joe Biden’s running mate.
Are you going to answer any questions as to whether or not, or I’m proud to be his press secretary. Pride is a problem. Are you going to answer any questions regarding whether or not that man is near the nuclear button? The guys, if he, if he can’t handle himself, then why in the world are you not only going to say, we’re going to run the guy again? Why are you going to wait to remove him from office? He’s putting everybody at risk, for goodness sake. It is just bizarre. Absolutely crazy. Hey, I want to take an opportunity to welcome everyone watching in Rockvin.
I see so many people are there, rational lampooner is there, occult priestess is there, and solo cat, 1980 is also there. By the way, we’re broadcasting from Mother Russia, so I hope you enjoy all the russian propaganda here. This is actually the town of Mason, New Hampshire, where the original Uncle Sam grew up. He was born in 1766, and there is a marker, as my voice cracks, about 400 yards off in that direction, that is in front of his house. And perhaps later in the program, before we close off, I’ll show you that little touch of history as a little added something to provide you with some more Independence Day spirit because.
Yep, he was the real Uncle Sam. I want to take one more opportunity to talk about the Joe Biden thing to close this off, because it really is, it’s quite stunning. Here we go. This is from the Boston based radio show the Grace Gurley show. And her host. She’s the host. Her boss is Howie Carr, very well known news reporter, columnist, radio host for many years in the Boston area. And her producer Taylor Cormier was filling in for her yesterday. And he played some of this, what was it? Somebody called, called Corinne Jean Pierre last night.
Kareem. And she’s like five foot tall. That was classic. So here is a little bit more of this. Here we go. Let’s KJP talking about Biden’s cold. Here it is. How is it that the president was still tired twelve days after returning from Europe, had a cold, but then went to the waffle house and then the following day staged such a huge comeback that he gave those North Carolina remarks like, help us understand. Have you had a cold before? Of course. Okay, so you probably. Well, come on. Come on, Jackie, let’s be very jet lag yesterday.
Hold on a second. There’s a cold. There’s a jet lag. You combine that, he continues to work on the people, practically a new Covid bottle around the clock. Clock. Things happen. Things happen. And the cold thing is something that you all pointed out. I love that. That was just great. Things happened. Things happened. You know, again, this is the guy who could be launching nuclear codes now, again, maybe this speaks to the fact that it doesn’t really matter who’s in there. And the military industrial complex, as I mentioned to Tony and the guys on America unplugged on Saturday was like, I don’t think it takes homesian didactics to figure out that perhaps the military industrial complex perpetuates itself.
And they’ve got a pretty strong hold on what’s going on in the White House, but KJP has some questions that really need answering, and they’re just afraid to do this because they’re more concerned about the election and nothing. The man and not us. Not us at all in any way whatsoever. So I thought I would bring that up for you. And I want to show you another amazing way that this clouds some of them actually substantive points and issues that are out there. I mentioned this LNG block. Block, okay. If you were to try to find this LNG block story of Joe Biden and the Department of Energy and also the EPA trying to stop more liquid natural gas depots.
I reported on this a while back from my Sunday news assembly at my substack and talked to the people at MRCTV about this as well. So we’ve got this story, which is a major story about energy, about the energy companies. It has a lot of, a lot of impact, you might say. It has a lot of ramifications, brings about many ramifications for future potential investments in the United States for LNG versus other places. If you’ve got a block of a government entity saying, no, you can’t have more depots for LNG, but you’ve got, say, China, that will allow it.
Well, why not do it in China, right? There are all sorts of reasons that somebody should be paying attention to this LNG story. And we’ll get into the specifics of the courts and where things stand from the courts in a second. But let me show you the way the pop media is handling this story. Okay? It’s not about that. It’s about a gaffe filled tweet from Biden about the court decision, and they don’t even really go into the actual substance. So again, it’s the superficiality of these people trying to basically cover up this, this problem of Joe Biden and people focusing on Joe Biden’s mental problems not being so bad.
But this is Fox, so they’re giving it a little bit more attention. Deleted Biden X post featuring glaring gaff goes viral not the best timing, someone says. So we see here President Biden’s official White House X account, clearly not handled by him, appeared to feature a gaffe of its own Tuesday afternoon in a now deleted post. Now, of course, if someone were to look at Donald Trump and if there were a left wing, if this were the view, you know, all five viewers of the view now, they would obviously be really focusing on this if it were Donald Trump saying, look at Donald Trump doesn’t even know what he’s doing.
He’s got mental problems. 25th Amendment procedures should taken against him. Well, the POTUS X account was trying to comment on a Louisiana federal judge issuing a preliminary injunction in the White House’s ban on new liquefied natural gas exports. The lawsuit was previously filed by a group of 16 republican states opposing Biden’s effort to limit energy projects. When remarking on the ruling, however, Joe Biden’s account mistakenly referred to it as a Supreme Court ruling rather than a federal court ruling. And you see the tweet is about the ruling. They don’t like it. They want to continue to be able to stop future depots for liquefied natural gas because they say, of course, quote, yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling on our pause on liquefied natural gas exports.
It’s their pause. They got their paws on a number of things, and I would love not seeing more images of Joe Biden with his paws on young ladies. That would be nice. The sniffer. The liquefied natural gas exports is incredibly disappointing, they say. Well, not to people who have common sense. I’ll continue doing everything I can to protect our environment and our communities while ensuring America’s energy security. And of course, they said that this was harming their interest in stopping. You got it, my friends. The Macguffin of climate change change. Yes. Yes, that’s it. So I would just like to know, not only are they predicating their climate change canardous on.
Let’s see, they’ve got temperature readers outside of air conditioning vents, temperature readers on tarmacs, unconstitutional agencies taking the temperature in the first place, temperatures on the ground that don’t conform to what thermometers might have said over 150 years ago. Temperatures on the ground that don’t conform to satellite temperatures that are taken. They’ve got admissions by NOAA that they’re going to move temperature readers in the ocean from lower depths to more shallow waters. Because, of course, as he told NPR, this representative from NOAA, we’re not getting the results we want. Implying what? It’s not warm enough? They’re not adjusting for the removal of the siberian temperatures that were removed when the Soviet Union collapsed, and they didn’t adjust for that, which would have been a bulk of relatively cooler temperatures.
They’re not adjusting for any of those things. They’ve got climate gate one and two. They’ve got Michael Mann, who won’t open up his data to actual scrutiny. And yes, he did lose a lawsuit that he brought against a climatologist named Ball in Canada. Not the, not the Mark Stein one, where Mark Stein made mistakes inside the court just a few months ago, but a guy named Ball who since passed away, he was bringing a defamation suit against the man. I guess he must have thought Mister Ball or professor Ball or doctor Ball would have backed off and paid him off, but he didn’t.
He fought all the way to the court, went to court in Toronto a number of years ago. The court found in favor of Mister Ball because Michael Mann, the hockey stick graph creator, would not provide his data. Amazing, isn’t it? So they’re, they’re utterly vacuous and even if you look at Michael Mann’s graph, the infamous hockey stick graph, as I’ve mentioned before, my show, maybe on David’s show as well, he starts the graph after the medieval warming period, so it gives you the visual impression that temperatures were always really cool until suddenly concurrent, and he claims, probably caused by the internal combustion engine.
All of a sudden, temperatures start shooting up because there’s more carbon dioxide in the air. Right. Of course, if you actually look at the graph, the same graph that Al Gore used in his film, an inconvenient truth, and he put into a student book on a two page spread, and I put a magnifying glass on it when I saw it. Instead of carbon dioxide being the first graph that rises and you see temperatures increasing a few years after that, it’s temperatures that rise first and an 800 year differential between the temperatures rising and the carbon dioxide rising in the atmosphere, as measured in isotopes through ice core samples.
So that is it in a nutshell. You’ve got Biden now operating in an unconstitutional manner, in an immoral manner. When was the last time you wanted to engage in an exchange and some bully came up and said, no, you can’t buy that? Or you were trying to sell something? And the bully said, no, you can’t sell that. That’s what the government does all the time. It’s insane. In the meantime, as us companies are being blocked, blocked, blocked. Now we’ve got a judge that is saying, I’m going to block the block. Again with this uncertainty. Who’s going to invest in any of that stuff? If they had a hard and fast line, oh, I don’t know, say, covered by the us constitution that says you can’t do this stuff.
I don’t know, maybe people actually abided by that stuff. Maybe if they have some heart, they would actually not do these things, even as they block energy from coming in from Russia. And of course, I think very clearly were involved in blowing up pipelines that could have brought natural gas to Europe. Now the Russians are selling their energy to India. India gets to raise the price, and they’ve been making an extra 20% to 30% off of the new resale. You got it. To Europe and other places in the world that are blocking the original russian exports.
All right, that works great. Spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down, huh? That’s fantastic. Now, if you actually look at the real story, this one comes to us from the Washington Post. Surprisingly, you’ll find the heart of the matter. Federal court blocks Biden’s pause from a few days ago on these natural gas depots, and you can, you’ll see that the information is pretty solid. A decision issued late Monday, US District Judge James D. Keyne junior ruled in favor of Louisiana and 15 other republican led states that had challenged the move. The judge who was appointed by Donald Trump got to get that in there.
Of course, they very rarely mentioned judges who were appointed by a liberal president, wrote that the pause is completely without reason or logic and is perhaps the epiphany. Idiocracy. Nice. And of course, as you see on this screen here, let me enlarge it for you. I mean, the team here will do it. The ruling represents the latest example of how the judiciary is increasingly constraining President Biden’s climate goals at the behest. Get this. This is the way the post puts it of conservative and corporate challengers. I don’t know whether they’ve looked into how much organizations like Exxon and BP have invested in climate and carbon capture and stuff like that, but they’ve got the margins.
They’re well stoked for all of that. They’re going to be making plenty of money off of the climate canard, that’s for darn sure. Now, I want to turn to something that I promised a little bit earlier in my show on Liberty conspiracy and that I mentioned for you. We’re going to talk about education, but we’re going to be discussing education not in the idea of what is being taught, the arguments about what is good or bad inside schools, but functionally and ethically. I want to talk about public education and the various variants of public education. So first, I’m going to turn to those great punk rockers, my friends, black flag, with, of course, Henry Rollins.
And the theme for people who want stuff from the government. You got it, my friends. It is. Gimme, gimme, gimme, gimme, gimme. Oh, that would have been perfect. We got to skip our commercial and get over to black flag once more. There we go. All right, here we go. That’s good. Give me, gimme, gimme. I need some more. Gimme, gimme, gimme. Go. Fuck more. What do I. Definitely seems to be a theme in the United States, and yet this is Independence day. So how does that all square? Well, just to give you a couple bits of information for just a couple minutes, just to let you know about this.
First off, there’s this student loan. Borrowers on Biden’s new repayment plan get a win after a federal court rules that cheaper monthly payments can go into effect. Yes, indeed. So they’re not supposed to be handing out student loans at all. Two federal judges blocked cheaper monthly payments and student debt cancellation through the save plan. Well, the 10th Circuit granted Biden’s request to stay, one of the rulings allowing new provisions like lower bills to be implemented that you can now pay. The education department has directed servicers to move forward with borrowers lower payments. And of course, the colleges will still get the money, but you’ll subsidize it.
And I also want to bring up another story from Alaska, because what’s very interesting is an Alaska court has ruled that their homeschooling program cannot continue. The homeschooling program in Alaska cannot continue. Why? Because it’s not that they don’t want people to engage in homeschooling. It’s that the homeschoolers are getting tax money to support their schools. And in some cases it’s going to religious teaching. Inside the Alaska Constitution, there is a block of prohibition against state money going to religious teaching, interestingly enough, which is quite different than, say, the state of new Hampshire or Maine or other states.
On Thursday, the Alaska Supreme Court will hear a case centering on how families in the state spend what are known as student allotments. A lower court, a ruling in the superior court in April. Throughout a state law governing homeschool allotments, Judge Adolf Zieman ruled that the law, which allowed families to spend allotments on private or religious education, was unconstitutional. The Alaska constitution says that no money from public funds may directly benefit a religious or private education institution. Institution. And there are nearly 23,000 correspondent school students in the state, and they are eligible for roughly $4,000 a year in state education money.
Now this is a major problem. Just like Frederick Bostier says, the state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live off everyone else. But these people are, roughly speaking, are probably taxpayers who probably pay more than $4,000 aggregate for all the various taxes that are imposed on them. Now Alaska is lucky because they’ve got the oil there, so they don’t have a lot of taxes. But you can probably assume that maybe $4,000 worth of taxes, property taxes, that sort of thing, going to the localities, who knows, right? It might vary from locality to locality, but people are paying their taxes and they might say, I want my money back.
Just like people who are demanding Social Security, I want my money back. Right. You took it from me in the first place. I have a moral prerogative to get that back. And now you’re attaching strings to that. Well, later in the program, around 1030, I’m going to go into some of the coverage that I offered on my program the other night about what’s called unconstitutional conditions on the federal level, and we’ll look at things like asking for corporate status and whether or not, if you are a person who’s engaged in business, if you ask for corporate status, the federal government can demand that you must comply with certain government dictates.
The Supreme Court has found on the federal level in one way in the Grove City Hillsdale College situation where they didn’t want to conform to Title ix. And the Fed said, if you take federal money, you must conform to title ix and have equal sports teams for men and women. And they said, we can’t afford that. Nobody comes to the women’s women’s teams. So they said, you’ve got to do it. So they said, we’re not going to take federal money anymore. Then the fed said, if you have students who take federal money indirectly, it’s going to go to you.
Analogous to this, if you are get, if you are family and you’re getting $4,000 and it’s going to a religious school, that’s unconstitutional according to Alaska’s constitution. Right now, a lot of people argue over the content of the public school or the content of what these parents might be doing in their homes with the $4,000 that they get or some of these, some of these correspondence schools. That’s again the problem, because, as Basia said, where everyone tries to live off everyone else. That’s what’s called the tragedy of the commonsense, and it happens in every instance where the state gets involved.
That’s the both moral and consequentialist approach to looking at the way government takes people’s money and then makes everyone get involved thinking justifiably. So my money’s been taken. I have a say. I have a justifiable claim to say I don’t want that money used on LGBTQ education or opening up the girls bathrooms to guys pretending to be girls. I think that’s risky. I don’t like this book being taught in school. I don’t like that book being, I don’t like climate change theories being taught in schools without any support or evolutionary theory. I would like Christianity taught, recognizing that there has to be a creator, that if you’ve got physics, you don’t get physics from physics, you have to get it from something meta physical.
Right? I was just basic logic because Socrates and Aristotle figured that out thousands of years ago. So it doesn’t take much, but the larger systemic point comes down to the outcome of it or the way that it is managed. It always causes argumentation based on tragedy of the commons, and then you’ve got special interests that will get involved and they’ll try to push their agenda, like the teachers unions. That’s called rent seeking, where you try to gain at someone else’s expense through the use of public policy and, of course, block out your competition. Block, block, block.
Or raise your prices by putting, say, a tariff on a foreign good so that now you can charge more for the american buyer. All those sorts of things. So those sorts of things come into play. But the morality of it is always the same. It’s always the immorality of the government getting involved with something they shouldn’t be involved with or any, any sort of government entity. So let’s go back in time, everybody, to this celebration on Independence Day and talk a little bit about what people long ago sacrificed. And for that, I want to go to the inimitable and legendary presentation put together by Paul Harvey.
Happy Independence Day, everybody. You may not be able to quote one line from the Declaration of Independence at this moment. Henceforth, you’ll always be able to quote at least one line. It’s in the last paragraph where you will recall, when I remind you, it says, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. In the Pennsylvania state House that’s now called Independence hall in Philadelphia, the best men from each of the colonies sat down together. This was a very fortunate hour in our nation’s history, one of those rare occasions in the lives of men when we had greatness to spare.
These were men of means, well educated. 24 were lawyers and jurists. Nine were farmers, owners of large plantations. On June 11, a committee sat down to draw up a declaration of independence. We were going to tell the british fatherland no more. Ruled by redcoats. Below the dam of ruthless foreign rule, the stream of freedom was running shallow and muddy, and we were going to light a fuse to dynamite that dam. This pact, as Burke later put it, was a partnership between the living and the dead and the yet unborn. There was no bigotry. There was no demagoguery in this group.
All had shared hardship. Jefferson finished a draft of the document in 17 days. Congress adopted it in July. And so much is familiar history. But now King George third had denounced all rebels in America as traitors. Punishment for treason was hanging. The names now so familiar to you from the several signatures on that declaration of independence. The names were kept secret for six months, for each knew the full meaning of that magnificent last paragraph in which his signature pledged his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor. 56 men placed their names beneath that pledge. 56 men knew when they signed that they were risking everything.
They knew if they won this fight, the best they could expect would be years of hardship in a struggling nation. And if they lost, they’d face a hangman’s rope. But they signed the pledge. And here is the documented fate of that gallant 56. Carter Braxton of Virginia. Trader saw his ships swept from the seas to pay his debt. He lost his home and all of his properties and died in rags. Thomas Lynch Junior, who signed that pledge, was a third generation rice grower, aristocrat, large plantation owner. After he signed, his health failed his wife, and he set out for France to regain his failing health.
Their ship never got to France, was never heard from again. Thomas McKean of Delaware was so harassed by the enemy that he was forced to move his family. Five times in five months, he served in Congress without pay, his family in poverty and in hiding. Vandals looted the properties of Ellery and Clymer and hall and Gwinnett and Walton and Hayward and Rutledge and Middleton. Thomas Nelson Junior of Virginia raised $2 million on his own signature to provision our allies, the french fleet. After the war, he personally paid back the loans, wiped out his entire estate, and he was never reimbursed by his government.
In the final battle for Yorktown, he, Nelson, urged General Washington to fire on his. Nelson’s own home, which was occupied by Cornwallis. It was destroyed. Thomas Nelson junior had pledged his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor. The Hessians seized the home of Francis Hopkinson of New Jersey. Francis Lewis had his home and everything destroyed. His wife imprisoned. He died within a few months. Richard Stockton, who signed that declaration, was captured, mistreated, his health broken to the extent that he died at 51, his estate was killed. Thomas Hayward junior was captured. When charged, Charleston fell. John Hart was driven from his wife bedside while she was dying.
Their 13 children fled in all directions for their lives. His fields and grist mill were laid waste. For more than a year, he lived in forests and caves and returned home after the war to find his wife dead, his children gone, his properties gone, and he died a few weeks later of exhaustion and a broken heart. Lewis Morris saw his land destroyed, his family scattered. Philip Livingston died within a few months from the hardships of the war. John Hancock history remembers best due to a quirk of fate rather than anything, he stood for that great, sweeping signature, attesting to his vanity, ours over the others.
One of the wealthiest men in New England. Yet he stood outside Boston one terrible night of the war, and he said, burn Boston, though it makes John Hancock a beggar if the public good requires it. So he, too, lived up to the pledge of the 56 law, survived. Five were captured by the British and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes from Rhode island to Charleston sacked, looted, occupied by the enemy, or burned. Two lost their sons in the army. One had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 died in the war from its hardships or from its more merciful bullet.
I don’t know what impression you had had of the men who met that summer in Philadelphia, but I think it’s important that we remember this about them. They were not poor men. They were not wild eyed pirates. These were men of means. They were rich men, most of them, and had enjoyed much ease and luxury in their personal living. Not hungry men, certainly not terrorists, not irresponsible malcontents, not fanatical incendiaries. These men were prosperous men, wealthy landowners. They were substantially secure in their prosperity. They had everything to lose, but they considered liberty, and this is as much as I shall say of it.
They had learned that liberty is so much more important than security that they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, and they fulfilled their pledge. They paid the price, and freedom was born. We hold these truths to be so vivid that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of habit. Very good stuff from Paul Harvey. I will say one thing, however. Just a bit of. A bit of historical notation there. I will say this. They show Robert Morris, and Robert Morris was quite the financier, really helped a lot of the navy and so on.
Robert Morris also was kind of sketchy. And Robert Morris was heavily connected with Alexander Hamilton and the push for the central bank. And we have to remember there were multiple presidents before the president of the United States and George Washington, and that was under the articles of Confederation. And it was Alexander Hamilton’s machinations and his big money grabs that saw a lot of his friends buy up the war bonds that a lot of the farmers had purchased to support the war effort. And they weren’t getting paid back. They were becoming worthless because the states weren’t paying their war debts.
They were issuing fiat currency, but demanding for their taxation silver and gold, interestingly enough, but they were paying out for the state debts. Paper money, fiat currency, created by fiat, and it was becoming inflated. And so a lot of these farmers didn’t think they were going to get paid back for their war bonds. Hamilton wanted a central taxing authority, so he wanted to usurp the articles of confederation. He had a lot of friends inside banking, and they had some money, and he tried to convince them, and he did. They went and purchased these war bonds on pennies on the dollar from these poor farmers.
And then, of course, you got the constitution passed originally, was only supposed to be a revision to the articles of Confederation. And if you amend it, it was supposed to take 100% of all the 13 states at the time, and they were considered individual entities. Individual entities. And in fact, later in the program, we’ll give you a little something from the 10th Amendment center to remind us of that. Of course, they put the constitution in instead, and they got their central bank. Well, they got their central treasury and taxing authority, and then later, in the early 19 hundreds, they got the central bank and passed it off to that.
So there’s a lot to think about when we think about United States history. And even back then, a guy like Robert Morris, he did support the revolution. You got to give him that. But wasn’t exactly the best when it came to his own integrity. And he actually got the commission to have the first bank of the United States during the articles of Confederation period. And then after that, it wasn’t a bank. It was the bank of North America during the revolution. And then a friend of his was appointed in the first bank in the United States under the Constitution.
It was a good buddy of his former business partner, who was very close with Robert Morris and Alexander Hamilton. So you can see it wasn’t exactly all clean and rosy and so on. But want to take an opportunity now to turn to some of that great music that you probably heard. You probably heard the Patriot music. And it’s very, of course, very common to people who listen to David Knight’s show because he does his own version that he’s reworked. And it’s wonderful music. You heard that in there. So I want to turn to some of David’s music as we get ready to introduce our guest coming to us from Hyannis, Massachusetts.
He is, of course, the man who’s known for rapid fire radio and for two eight Tuesdays on the Grace Curley show and the man who is co owner of Cape Gun Works. In a moment, we’ll be speaking with Toby Leary on the David Knight show. You’re listening to the David Knight show. All right, so let’s welcome that man himself. He is Toby Leary coming to us on a great independence day. I salute you, Toby. Thanks for waiting that five minutes. I really appreciate it. And happy 4 July Independence day to you, my friend. How are you? I’m doing great.
Guard, I hope you can hear me okay. And I am not coming to you from Hyannis at the moment, although that is where I spend a lot of time at my gun shop. But I know you do. You’ve done some vacationing up in Maine. Are you still in New England? Yay. I’m up in Maine, where the way life should be. And it’s very nice. Well, one of our dedicated viewers, Steve, is up there, probably not too far from you. So thanks for taking the time. I know you’re with family and it’s a beautiful, beautiful day. So thanks for hanging out, bringing some of the warmth and sunshine to the David Knight audience as well.
Toby, first I want to tell people, first, Cape gun works. And they can go to capegunworks.com and check out apegunworks on x because you’re talking about firearms. You’re talking about the right to keep and bear arms. And you keep up so well on the court challenges and the legal challenges in various states, especially Massachusetts, to the right to keep and bear arms. I shouldn’t even say challenges, attacks on. And it’s remarkable. I was commenting to my sister Toby. I said, I don’t know how he does it. He has to know all this stuff about the guns.
And he covers accoutrements and whether or not you could bring something in, what the current statutes are, whether, you know, what’s it like coming into Massachusetts. If you’ve got this or got that, then you’re looking at what the legislature of Massachusetts is doing, what they’re doing in Colorado and all these different things, flying to Colorado to try to fight for freedom. And you’re looking at Supreme Court cases. And you had great coverage on two, a Tuesday with Taylor filling in for Grace Curly on her show on Tuesday, talking about Rahimi, but also talking about another case.
And this is title 18 US code. The Rahimi thing is title 18 US codes, g eight. And then there’s something called g one, which has to do with a guy named range. And it’s not a violent, felonious offense, but it’s the right to keep and bear arms. And with the Rahimi case, maybe we can start with that. I’d love to get your reactions to this because this is a man who was given a so called protective order. And regardless of what people think about the circumstances of why he was given this restraining order, the restraining order did not afford him due process.
He was not tried. He was not convicted. He was not in jail. And you and I have spoken. If somebody is out of jail, then the government must deem that person safe enough to be free. So in jail, they can restrain your right to keep them bear arms. But if they release you, obviously, if they think you’re not safe enough to keep them bear arms, they shouldn’t be releasing you. So, you know, I understand that someone will say, well, you know, there are functional problems, and the courts can’t handle all those things. Well, as a voluntary asianarchist, I say, well, that’s a problem for you guys who support the state.
That’s not my problem. But I do think it’s interesting because this Rahimi case just blew me away. And the dissents were excellent. The dissent was excellent on this, but again, it is remarkable. So if you’d like to comment on the Rahimi case, some of the circumstances on it, and the fact that this man was punished without trial, and he hadn’t even been found guilty of a crime. It has this image. Yeah, but, you know, he looks like he’s violent, but he wasn’t convicted of anything. Well, it’s a. It’s an interesting case because. And the reason Merrick Garland wanted this case brought, Sergi Aurora wanted to be granted cert by the supreme Court, is because the guy was of odious character.
He was a bad guy, all right? He’s a guy that you and I wouldn’t want to. As a neighbor, as somebody in our neighbor, you know, he was. So this is exactly why Merrick Garland sought Sergei Aurora for that case. Specifically. He didn’t want the Brian range case because that wasn’t a bad guy challenging whether or not he could be disarmed. He wanted the range case. And so the range case was interesting because he was convicted, and he willfully entered into a. An agreement with the government to disarm himself pending the outcome of his trial. So he willfully entered into that agreement with.
And said, yeah, I can’t have guns. Right. I agree. I won’t have guns. Then he was found to have guns, and then he went on to commit five different independent shootings and threatened not only his girlfriend, but a girl online with a firearm. So you mean the Rahimi case? Yes. The Rahimi, yes. Sorry, I. Raheemi was bad, dude. Okay. And so this is why Merrick Garland wanted this case brought. And the way that the case was challenged was interesting because he didn’t challenge it as applied to him. He challenged it on its face. So basically saying that 922 g, whatever it is, one or eight, I get him confused is I was going back and forth.
This one is eight. Yeah, yeah. Okay. So ghdem and he was basically saying that the law itself is unconstitutional on its face, which means there’s no application that the government could ever apply this law and have it be upheld or be constitutional, which is an extremely high barrier to get to in a defense case like that or a challenge case. It was probably going to fail from the start. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court conviction and said that, yeah, you know what? Since Bruin, this is facially unconstitutional. And so they up, they actually upheld him.
Now, that doesn’t mean this guy was going to be out on the street tomorrow. He was going to jail for a long time anyway. They were challenging this, which was very interesting to us because there’s a lot of application of this law that can affect good people based on what somebody else says about them. So that’s why it was so critical that the Supreme Court got this right. I don’t think they did get it right. And like you mentioned, Clarence Thomas’s dissent was phenomenal. Like he basically said, look, we just, we just had Bruin in June of 22 that gave clear marching orders for all Second Amendment cases.
You look at the text of the Second amendment, if there’s no provision in there for the government to restrict it, then you have to go to the history and tradition of a law that’s analogous with the modern day law. And if there isn’t one, it’s unconstitutional. So I think Brian Ranger, I think Zakir lawyers actually did him justice in that way, which would have benefited a lot of people who aren’t bad people. But the Supreme Court upheld the government’s position, but narrowed it to after a finding of fact by a court. So that’s okay, right? Yeah, it was some big, big nuggets that came out of this decision.
Guard. And then we’ll move on to Brian range. The nugget was Justice Ketanji Brown. Jackson said, hey, look, the Bruin standard that I just talked about is the way all second amendment cases will be looked at going forward. It’s the law of the land, which is huge because you have one of the three liberal justices acknowledging the Bruin methodology is the only way to look at second amendment cases. And because of the scope of this one, again, they threaded the needle and were able to kind of avoid that strict scrutiny of it. And I would. I would even argue that Rohini wasn’t technically a second amendment case.
It was more of a due process type of case. That’s the way that I saw it, too. Yeah. Yeah. And so now fast forward to the Brian Range case, which is being sought cert. And it was GvR’danhe on, I think, Tuesday by the Supreme Court. And this is a guy who. It’s a very similar prohibition on ownership, except it is instead a nonviolent person. So this guy had some sort of, like, he lied on a application for child support or something like that. And, you know, a long time ago, which they convicted him of and made him a prohibited person, which is ironic because, you know, there’s so many people out there that don’t get charged for perjury in this day and age, but here he is, a prohibited person.
And this one really hits home for people in Massachusetts because there’s any type of felony, or in some cases, a missed a felony, as we like to call them in mass, Massachusetts, which is a misdemeanor that’s punishable in state prison by two and a half years, which is technically the definition of a felony. So again, they have it. They just vote in whatever they want in the language they want. But if you have one of those, either a state felony conviction, even if you’re nonviolent, or a misdemeanor that carries a two and a half year sentence, you’re a federally prohibited person for life, which is unbelievable, because in the case of a mister felony, as we say, like a first offense operating while intoxicated or oui, that you’ll probably get your driver’s license back within two or three weeks, in some cases even ten days.
But yet now you can never buy a firearm, even if you move out of state. It was amazing. You mentioned to Taylor, you said so in one instance, in the driving instance, you’re getting back the very thing that they don’t want you to use. Supposedly you’re getting it back. And in the other case, the gun is a totally hypocritical standard. No standard, nothing to do with it. Right. And they knew this when they passed this law. This is a backdoor gun ban, that it’s proof that the government hates you. If you decide to keep a gun for personal protection, defense of your family, they will do whatever it takes to disarm you.
This is a very sneaky way that government does this, and what they do is they pass these type of laws knowing full well guard the first offender of an OUI is never going to do two and a half years in jail. And that’s their point is, oh, we just want to throw the book at them. There’s no one getting the book thrown at them for. Unless maybe, you know, there was a fatality or something like that, which is a totally separate instance. You got all kinds of other things you can charge them with. And that was Clarence Thomas’s point in the dissent in Rahimi was, look, nobody wants armed thugs on the street, but charge him with what he is guilty of or what you allege he’s guilty of.
Exactly. In this case, it was armed assault with intent, which carries a 20 year prison term in Texas. So, yeah, you know, it’s not like there’s no provision. That’s one thing that the perennial gun banners would love to have you believe is they’re like, there’s nothing we can do. Yeah, right. Like even all this ghost gun stuff, they’re like, we gotta, you know, we got to give law enforcement the tools to crack down on these people who are manufacturing guns and selling them. There’s no provision in the law. Yeah, there is. It’s called felon in possession of a gun.
But you don’t charge them with that anymore. You never do. Right? Yeah, yeah. And of course, the sentiment behind it is it’s all being done to try to come up with more ways to disarm people. And the more they try to disarm law abiding people who might get fallen, fall through the cracks there, the more dangerous society becomes. I’ve got a great piece from John Lott. Just a little while ago, he released another new one, and I’ll just show it to you here. We’ll talk about this maybe on the Liberty conspiracy show tonight. I won’t go too far into it right now.
But he says Biden gun regulations don’t affect mass shootings. And that’s just one example. On mass shootings, you look at violent crime. Look at Australia when they tried their first gun buyback program. Violent crime rose for years after that, went up 30% within the first couple of years. Same thing over in England after they had that shooting a number of years ago. And they said, you can only have a firearm on a gun shooting place, and it can only be 22 gauge, that sort of thing. Violent crime increased and they, you know, the more guns are in the hands of individuals, the safer those individuals are going to be.
And of course, the cops can’t be everywhere, right? When seconds count, cops are just minutes away. And one of the things I want to ask you about, Toby, on the Rahimi case that I found quite interesting is, you know, ringing that bell again about Clarence Thomas’s dissent was just terrific. But inside the elite, inside the majority opinion, I can’t remember whose concurrence it was. It might have been. I can’t remember. But someone was talking for their analogs under the second level of Bruin, they were referring to british attempts, the british government taking people’s guns. And this just reminded me of, you know, former justices referring to, you know, un policies or former, you know, nation, other nation states that have statutes like, look, you’re supposed to go, and I understand the US comes from a british common law tradition, but the first, the Second Amendment is very clear.
The right shall not be infringed. That’s it. And again, you and I have spoken about how sometimes the second level of Bruin could actually bring in. I think that’s sort of an open door that allows them to say, well, even though the first level of Bruin, which is the strict wording of the Second Amendment, shall not be infringed, you’re supposed to read that. And the second level of Bruin could open some doors here and there. You know, and this is one of the things. Now they’re referring to british examples of gun seizure and saying, well, that comes from America’s historical tradition, so we’re going to bring those in and put them in the, in the, in this majority opinion.
It was. I couldn’t believe it. I was stunned by that. Yeah. Yeah. So, you know, the typical dissenter of a gun case is going to do all kinds of, you know, mental gymnastics to just their disarmament, because ultimately they want to see people disarmed. You mean a typical supporter of the gun. Gun seizure. Gun control, yeah, exactly. And so the interesting thing about a lot of court cases, cite, when it comes to the second amendment, cite the british common law prior to us gaining our independence. But one thing they gloss over guard is if you read the text of the second amendment, it’s acknowledging a right.
It’s not granting a right, it’s the acknowledgment of a pre existing right. So the right to keep and bear arms is. That’s exactly what it is. It’s a right. And so it’s a sovereign right. If you go back to the, to the declaration, it says, we hold these truths to be self evident. So these are things that were axiomatic. They were obvious to the people who existed at the time and the day, and they just, all they did was acknowledge these rights. But what, they took it one step further, they said, and that these rights are unalienable or unalienable.
You can’t attach conditions. You can’t put barriers in front of them. You can’t put certain fees or licenses or permits in front of them. These are, otherwise, they’re not rights. And what, what else does it say? It says that they are endowed by our creator. They’re not granted by man. And so nowadays, we have these legislators who hold up their hand. Some of them even put their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold their oath against, to defend and protect the constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. But then they turn around and walk right back into those chambers and introduce law that is contrary to the very document that they just swore to uphold.
It is a absolute searing of their conscience. And I say it is a, it is a, it is basically a resignation of their position. We should color of law. Color of law. As I think you said, color of law yourself, right? Yeah. And, you know, to take it one step further, guard in the Federalist 49, James Madison, the author of the Constitution, wrote that there is something called constitutional limitations. So he is basically saying there are limits. We just saw a big case last Monday where the Supreme Court ruled that Trump or the president is immune under his official capacity, which, by the way, the one screaming the loudest about that is Congress.
And guess who’s immune when they create bad or unconstitutional law from being sued? Exactly. They’re the ones going to scream the loudest about this. But it takes it further in federalist 49 and says that the most important branch of government is the legislature. Why? Because they come from the people. They’re the blood of the people. They’re the relatives, the friends, the neighbors, the farmers, the store owners. They are the people that go and represent the people. And they are the guardians or the gatekeeper of our rights. They are the first line of defense against any infringement from tyranny or any infringement on our rights.
And somewhere along the line, that script has been flipped. They have gone from gatekeeper to oathbreaker. They have gone from gatekeeper to thinking they are the grantor, which is totally wrong. And by the way, this just proves that because they have the power of where they are and they can’t be sued because of that immunity that I just talked about, they think that they have the authority. They don’t because of the constitutional limitations of their power. They lack the authority, but because they have power to do it, they do it, and no one holds them accountable.
And, you know, we should be holding them accountable every, every two years when they have to re run for reelection and say, you violated your oath to protect and defend, and you’re the gatekeeper of my rights. But yet here you are, because you possess the power, which I say is the absolute definition of abusive power. And the hypocrisy stuns me. As I might have mentioned to you, Toby, if you or I were to walk into Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi’s office and put our feet up on the desk and say, I’m the senator, I’m the congresswoman right now, or a man or whatever I identify in this way.
Right. They would arrest us and say no then if we were to ask those people, well, why can you say no? And they’d say, well, the constitution provides this seat and I want it through an election. So they pay attention to the constitution, of course, when it serves their purposes, they hold it up like some shibboleth and then they use it like toilet paper. They don’t care. They don’t care at all. And then they write statutes that will stand for years as different attorneys pick these things up. And if someone opposes these things, well, then you’ve stood against democracy.
Well, democracy was supposed to be stood against. To leave it in a clunky way, because as people like Ben Franklin said, it’s two wolves and a sheep arguing over dinner. There were supposed to be barriers against these people infringing on our natural rights, just like there are supposed to be barriers on us on an interpersonal level, infringing on each other’s natural rights. It’s stunning to think that when they get in the aggregate, they somehow have some magic power. Like Rousseau might have said, they have the general will and they can crush anybody they want. It’s crazy.
Well, I think, you know, Toby. Oh, I just wanted to mention, you say it so well, and I, I don’t want to let too much time go by before I mention how people, again, how people can find you on Twitter slash x. It’s at capegunworks. And I want to show just real quick, if you don’t mind if I just indulge me, or just want to show your, your Twitter slash x feed at Kate gunworks. And then they can click through to the website, capegunworks.com. and actually, you can see the link tree there and you can see all the, all the sites.
Cape Gun works is great and I highly recommend just going over to Cape gunworks and we want to talk about rapid fire radio, but please don’t. Please continue with your thoughts there and we’ll talk about rapid fire anytime. Yeah, thanks. Thanks for that mentioned guard. And if anyone would, I would appreciate anyone who likes and subscribes because it’s any gun content is extremely difficult to grow on social media because of the algorithms and the sensors, basically, that would like to keep this type of content down. But government was handed a massive, massive blow to their authority or their the status quo last week with a bunch of decisions that came down by the Supreme Court.
I think they got it 100% right. It was like Mozart playing music in my ears. But first off was the loper bright case, which ended Chevron deference, which was a 40 year mistake. And for those of you who don’t know what the heck that’s talking about, there was this case, landmark ruling back in the eighties, 1984, where they ruled in favor of the government and basically said that, hey, the three letter agencies that has been tasked with enforcing the law, so if it’s a gun thing, it would be the ATF, it’s an environmental thing, it would be the EPA, so on and so forth.
Then they are the expert, right? They know more than the courts do. So they have, you have to defer to their judgment on the ambiguity that is the natural result of Congress making laws. So always in the history of our country, any ambiguity was resolved in the court system because they are the co equal branch of government, right? You got the legislature that makes the law, you got the executive branch that enforces the law, and you got the judiciary that would interpret the law. That’s how it’s been. Well, in 1984, the Supreme Court lost its mind and said, no, we’re going to defer back to the executive agency.
And you give someone an inch, what happens? They take it a mile. So instead of them using what the Supreme Court ruling said, reasonableness, to say like, okay, the technology’s changed, or some things have changed, so we got to tweak this a little bit here. And that’s how you should interpret it. No, they took it to be like, we are God. And that’s where, like, the bump stock ban came from. That’s where the frame and receiver rule came from. That’s where the arm brace came from. That’s where this whole concept of, in the business of firearms dealing, when you go to a, you know, gun show on the weekend and you buy, sell, is the bulk of your salary coming from selling guns.
We want that information. And of course, of course, not only is this, are these infringements of the Second Amendment, they’re infringements of the Fourth Amendment because they can’t demand that unless they get a warrant from a judge, but they do it anyway. Yeah. And so loper wright finally set that right. They righted the ship. And you’re going to see the media is going to lose their minds once they realize the full collective implications of that, which I think is going to be an awesome thing to witness. So basically, here’s how it actually, the nuts and bolts of it guard.
If there was overstep by one of these three letter agencies and it got challenged in court and it went to court, the court had must to defer to the three letter agency’s interpretation. Even if the court would have ruled in favor of the plaintiff or the, excuse me, the defendant, if they would have ruled in favor of the, of the people, they couldn’t. They had to rule for the government. And in the 40 year history, there was never a case where this, there was a challenge brought, where the courts ruled in favor of the people. They ruled in favor of the government 100% of the time.
And that, I think, is a flaw in and of itself. But they couldn’t. They literally tied the hands of the courts so that that went away. Then we have this jersey case where I think is huge because it was another Supreme Court decision that really affects us in Massachusetts, because basically it was whenever you ran afoul of these three letter agencies like this, they could impose a fine on you. They would just issue a fine, levy it. There were no court proceedings. Well, the Supreme Court overturned that and said no more fines until a court rules that they should be fined, which is huge because Maura Healey in Massachusetts had this edict that she did in 7th, 2016, where she enforced the assault weapons ban in a new way.
She became all three branches of government with this one edict that basically she interpreted existing law a new way. So there she was, the judiciary, she’s already the executive branch as attorney general, and then she became the legislature by creating new law that has the weight of felony behind it. And so as a result of that, she also said that anyone who violates her interpretation of this will be levied with a $10,000 fine. And I already know people who’ve had that effect. Them have been given this $10,000 fine. So no court has adjudicated that this fine should be assessed.
She will just put it on. And technically, it’s to fund the prosecution against you. Think about that. What other situation do you, as a, as a private citizen, have to pay the government to fund their prosecution against you? There’s, that violates so many constitutional precedent. You’d go into the night counting. And then lastly, there’s this corner post decision, which is really huge because there used to be a six year, basically a six year statue of limitations whenever this three letter agency would make it a new ruling or a new interpretation of, of the congressional law that there has to enforce.
And, you know, if, if you weren’t in business where it affected you, but yet six years went by, you had no way of writing that wrong. So once you join, you know, enter into a business or your family is affected or something like that, you couldn’t even fight them because the statute of limitations has expired. Now the Supreme Court has said that statue of limitations doesn’t even start until the moment you are injured, which is huge. So all, you know, this has been decades and decades and decades of unconstitutional injury by the government on people, whether it be their business or personally, that all is going to go away.
And I think it’s going to create this little golden age where people are going to have their rights stored in the courts. I know it’s going to take a while for the lower courts and the inferior courts to get up to speed on all this, but the truth of the matter is we are seeing a restoration of our rights slowly but surely. And I’m extremely optimistic about that. And I think that the future is going to be much better than it has been in the past 2030, 40 years. So I’m looking forward to what’s to come.
And you cut, I agree with you 100%. It’s sort of like having a wild, hungry animal out there that’s been killing your chickens, and now there are some restraints that, that are going to be put back up there. And so it still might happen, but, and there could be some, some opportunities for the chickens to escape. It’s, it’s amazing to see, especially as you mentioned with the corner post decision, because that’s, that’s a big one. If people can get the legal means to do it, they might start blocking these things. And I love the idea, you know, as, as, as opposed to the existence of these so called regulatory agencies are, that will tell fishermen, hey, you have to house a fishing counter on your boat, which I think is, in a way, it’s almost like having a quarter of troops on your boat.
And of course, it’s a breach of the Fourth Amendment as well to find out how many fish you’re catching and all that. But then added to that, you’re going to have to pay their salary of $700 to $800 a day. You know, it’s just ridiculous. And for the, for the loper bright folks, I mean, that was the family fishery. They were, they were going to be driven out of business. And so it’s good to see that we’ve got some sense of justice coming, coming from some of the people on the court here. And I, you know, obviously, I would wish that they would go deeper and say, look, these regulatory agencies, they’re unconstitutional in the first place.
But it does pull back things. There are going to be fewer injuries against people and, in fact, maybe some opportunities for people to go back now and again. I don’t know if, I don’t know if this will work ex post facto or not. But, yeah, it’d be interesting to see if people can bring up that I’ve been injured by something that was imposed on me in 2018 or something like that, you know, so that’ll be very interesting to find out. Toby, thanks. This has been just remarkable. It’s just awesome. And I know you’re, you know, probably with your family, you with the, with the Corleone family up there.
And actually, the Corleone family is more suited to being in the halls of Congress, aren’t they? But, yeah, definitely mention rapid fire radio, if you can, for people in the days. They can listen and stream you. Of course, they can always find the shows after the fact because, you know, I’m often in there watching with harps from Australia on the weekends. But they can find the shows. They’re over on YouTube as well afterwards. Yeah. So all of our shows are archived wherever you get podcasts or you can go to our YouTube or rumble channel. You can go to X and see past episodes.
But it’s at Rapid Fire radio is the handle and apegunworks as well. We do more on, at Cape gunworks than at Rapid fire radio, but both work. And you can go to Rapidfireradio us and get signed up to be alerted whenever we go live. We go live every Wednesday from four to 06:00 p.m. we didn’t have a show yesterday because I’m on vacation, but from four to 06:00 p.m. every Wednesday. We also do a new show on Sunday from noon to one eastern that’s on WXTK. I’m on a local radio show called Rapid Fire as well, so you can listen there and you can listen on the Ieart radio app if you want.
I stream it as well. So, you know, again, if you sign up to wherever we you consume social media from, you’ll find us. And then last but not least, you mentioned two a Tuesday on the Grace Curley show. Every Tuesday at 220, we talk about all second Amendment related things, take calls. And I have a good time with her on that. Every Tuesday from 220 to 245. So those are the three ways to listen. It is awesome. And I’ll say we’ve got a lot of viewers over on X right now. Rockfin Rumble and Eco Taxi commented a little bit about David Knight and very apt song called Stupid man talking about some of the politicians and so on.
And thank you for the contribution on. I’ll go into more detail in a little bit, but if anybody has any final comments or anything like that about Toby, don’t forget to capegunworks on X. And we’ve got a couple final things for folks over on Rumble as well. Want to thank everyone watching over on Rumble. And someone says, why would someone even bother having a gun shop in Massachusetts? Well, I’m glad he asked that question. Here’s my philosophy on that. I’ll be real quick. I know you got a lot to talk about today. No problem. And thank you for taking the time.
It’s great problem. I feel it’s important to stay and fight where the fight is. It’s easy to move to Tennessee or move to Alabama or Arkansas or Kentucky or Florida. You know, you name it, that’s the easy way, right? I can do that. I could do that. Although I have deep roots in Massachusetts, my family’s all there. I’ve lived my entire life there. And I have a love hate relationship with my state. I love it, but hate it at the same time. However, I do believe it’s important for future generations to stay and fight where the fight is.
Think about, here we are celebrating Independence Day, right? If the patriots at Concord in Lexington, when the King George III’s Redcoats were coming to disarm them, said, hey, guys, let’s just shoot up to New Hampshire, then we don’t have to worry about this nonsense, you know, we can keep our guns up there and we’d be in freedom like, you know, that’ll buy us some time. We wouldn’t have the greatest country in the history of mankind. And the second part of that is eventually, if Massachusetts, California, Maryland, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, if those all fall, do you think they’re going to be happy to have those eight or nine states as gun free zones.
Heck, no. They’re going to come to New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont. They’re going to come to Texas and Florida, and they’re going to just do the same thing they’re doing here. Challenge it, lock it up in the courts, make bad law, make people have to be on the wrong side of the bad law. And because that’s all gun control does, is it jams up good people. It doesn’t jam up the hardened career criminal. Why? Because they don’t even care about those people. They let them out on their own personal recognizance. They let him out on low bail, no bail.
You know, we have a guy in. In Massachusetts that had 30 prior convictions of a felon in possession of a gun who was released after three and a half years. He was supposed to be doing 45 years by mandatory minimums. Three and a half years. He gets out, he kills police officer Sean Gannon. So all I’m saying is. But yet me, they would throw the book at me. You know, we talked about that on the. On the Grace Curley show yesterday about a guy named Mejia down in Florida. He was a police dispatcher for his entire career.
Gets out, he already paid a $200 tax for a suppressor he had a license to carry down there, never had any run ins with the law, and he ends up putting a stock on his pistol, which is an illegal NFA item. He made an illegal SBIR without paying the government another $200 tax. And there was an undercover sting by the FBI’s anti terrorism task force. And guess what? An illegal alien became a confidential informant who was trying to stay in this country illegally, and proffered this information back to the FBI and told them about his illegal sbir.
They never left his house. Use it in his backyard range for his own enjoyment. And they threw the book at him. Guard. He’s doing 21 months in federal penitentiary. That’s the type of. That’s the type of thing that these gun control laws actually affect good people like that. They don’t affect the hardened career criminal. And so that’s why I choose to stay and fight in Massachusetts, because we’re going to win. It’s going to take time. It’s going to take money. Someday I’m going to write a book, send lawyers, guns and money, and it’ll be very appropriate for what’s going on in this day and age around the second amendment.
I think Warren Zevon would be happy about that. I don’t know. I don’t want to assume too much. But I’d be very happy. I probably would owe some royalties if I did. That’s awesome, Toby. Thank you. You know, it’s funny, I’m just thinking now when I do the David Knight show, and sometimes when I’m doing my own show, you’re just so engaged and entertained. It’s like time stands still in a conversation. And thank you so much. It’s just great to talk to you. And thanks for being here on this independence day from Mason, the home of Uncle Sam.
I don’t want to make it sound like it’s too pat or anything that I’m saying, but it’s great to talk to you, man. It’s really, really good. And I hope people, obviously, we’ll go to Cape gun works and follow you at Cape Gunworks on X and stuff like that, because it’s just remarkable. And you’re such a. You got such heart, man. I really, really appreciate it. It’s great. Thank you. Thank you. My pleasure. Anytime. Thanks for having me. Oh, you betcha. Say hi to the moose up there. Okay, buddy? I’m going to try take. Okay. And your family, too.
Take care. Thanks, Toby. Great stuff. Great stuff from Toby Leary of Cape Gun works again, follow Cape Gun works on X. That’s at Cape gunworks. And you can check them out all the time with new information. It is just amazing. And of course, he has his excellent show, rapid fire, and you can find the details about that. So take a little break and hear some more music from David Knight. I’m Gardner Goldsmith, filling in for David. And if you’re just joining us and you’re wondering, hey, what happened to David’s hair? We’ll be back after we hear this wonderful composition from David.
Sadeena. Sadeena, you’re listening to the David Knight show, okay. And I have to say, I don’t know what it is about seeing those scenes from the film Shenandoah with Jimmy Stewart, Patrick Wayne and Doug McClure. But, you know, I know it’s one of David’s favorite movies. It’s one of my favorite movies. It’s such a wonderful, wonderful movie. Beautifully acted. And there’s something about seeing those shots. And of course, the music that David has reworked from Shenandoah, that always gets me thinking. You know, I worked in television at the outer limits and Star Trek Voyager, and as a kid, I.
Television was such a different thing. Movies were so different than from theater. And it really, watching the scenes of Jimmy Stewart riding on the horse and the way they set things up with the different guys moving the soldiers and so on, in addition to the plots, really makes you think about the just amazing, should I say quantum leap, even though. Quantum Leap, it’s really just a tiny leap, but Quantum Leap really is tiny. But we’ll say Quantum Leap, to use the euphemism from theater, where you’re locked onto a stage and you can try to do certain things on the stage with the lights and pulleys and curtains and paintings and different effects and smoke and things like that within, you know, up to the 1910s, 1915 or so, with music that’s put in and then movies, and then all of a sudden everything changes.
You’re actually able to put on your theater outside and the whole, as Shakespeare say, the whole world’s a stage. Amazing. What an amazing change that is. And now, of course, they can do things with computer graphics and so on. I see that Harps is put in a, has put in a comment over on x coming in from Australia. G’day, mate. How are you? I’m not going to be having any of the vegemite, my friend, but I will tell Toby that you were watching. I’m sorry, I didn’t get to catch your, your comment here. He says a judge’s job is to follow the law.
Rule on your interpretation of so called law, not to interpret the law. Well, yeah, it’s, that’s one of the things to rule on cases. And of course, in Marbury versus Madison, Justice Marshall opened it up to say, well, we’re going to become de facto jury nullification in some cases, or we’re going to support unconstitutional laws. They have an oath to say this statute is unconstitutional. And of course, a lot of people are unaware, harps, as you probably know, a lot of people are unaware that when the Supreme Court strikes down a statute because they’ll say it’s unconstitutional or something like that, it doesn’t mean that the statute no longer exists.
It just means that unless the Supreme Court changes, any other cases that people on the state or local side try to prosecute would end up on appeal, going all the way back up to those very same people in the Supreme Court who already ruled on a case that was analogous to x case that they’re ruling on today. So Y and Z, that might come in the future. If they’re very similar, why would anybody bother prosecuting those people? It’s just a waste of money because they’re going to get off in the end on appeal. So that’s just the way that it works.
It’s not that the statute is negated. Obviously, as you know, it’s not that the statute is pulled off the books by the Supreme Court. It just means that unless there’s a change, as we saw with Roe versus Wade and Rob, some sort of decision will stand. So on appeal, people who are convicted of something on the state level or local level, they’ll end up getting off because of that precedent. And of course, with stare decisis, the local courts usually give deference to those superior courts. So very interesting stuff. And it’s amazing, again, just, I’m just always blown away when I hear Toby talk because he has such an ability to be conversant about these things.
It’s incredible. I wish I could have gotten him into some of my classes when I was teaching, and now I’ll be going back to teaching soon when I get a little better. But physically, I’ve been a little sick recently. If you’re nothing for me, it’s just, anyway. But I’m really psyched. At 11:00 we’re going to have Jacob Hornberger talking about this very same color of law approach and going after innocent people, that being Ian Freeman, radio host, syndicated radio host, bitcoin salesman, entrepreneur and friend of mine, and we’ll talk about that. But before we go, I want to give you a quick preview for the next nine minutes or so up until 11:00 to give you some information on a number of these, these courts, court decisions that have been remanded back down to the lower courts and open up this question.
You know, we often talk about Marsh v. Alabama on my show and David’s show. So I want to give you this. This is a bit of my show from the other night talking about court cases, one of them being sentence back to lower court about social media moderation and the state of Florida attempting to decide what can or can’t go out on social media. Supreme Court sends social media moderation cases back to lower courts. Now if you saw David Knight show today, he hit on this and he hit on some of the really key facets of this.
And I, I do want to make sure that I add this other facet, that when you take the side of the, you know, when you, when you look at the corporate element of this, then you have to, I think, wrap it up with the final thought. You’ve seen me do this before, but I got to do it again because I think it’s, I think it’s fairly important to do so. If we look at what is going on with social media and so called regulation, if we look at what the First Amendment actually says and what the state constitution says.
So here’s Amy Howe with the big thing from the Supreme Court that happened yesterday and didn’t get to cover this yesterday. So I want to give it to you. Want to give it to you now. So here it is. The Supreme Court on Monday sent a pair of challenges to laws in Texas and Florida back to the lower courts. They would have regulated, they would regulate how large social media companies control content posted on their sites. They sent them back to the lower courts for another look. In a decision by Justice Elena Kagan, the court explained that both lower courts had focused too narrowly on how the laws applied to the challengers themselves, to large social media companies.
Those were the challengers, including Facebook and YouTube, even though the cases challenged the constitutionality of the laws more broadly. Okay, so how do they challenge it more broadly? They challenged it based on First Amendment grounds. And these are state statutes here. So we’re not talking necessarily section 230 coming into play yet. We’re talking about the states and wanting to tell these media corporations what they can or can’t place. Now, it, section 230 actually does come into play down the line, if you think about it, because the section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications act, which shouldn’t have been written, because Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or anything like that, FCC shouldn’t exist.
Right. But there is one facet that they can do, and I brought this up. The constitution allows the federal government to create the. The courts in the space between the Supreme Court of the US and the supreme courts of the states. So all of the circuit courts, all the federal district courts are creations by Congress, and they can prevent certain cases from getting into the courts. Right? So the first protection that section 230 provides of this 1996 Telecommunications act is it says, you, social media groups, any online thing that is allowing people to post up, as long as you curate in good faith.
That’s their, that’s. And it’s up to the government to decide that. The feds will decide it. You will be protected from defamation suits by people who are claiming that you are responsible for something that someone else posted that might have defamed somebody. So they give them that legal indemnification, preventing those cases from getting into the cross state lawsuit system of the federal courts. Okay, so that’s one thing. The other thing is they also claim the power to prevent the states from charging those social media organizations with providing, say, child porn or something like that. That is not constitutional.
So the first part of it, the protection against individuals bringing suit into these circuit courts and district courts, the federal courts that the federal government creates, they do have that power. But what they have to do is pass a separate statute, much like the legal trade and arms statute that would allow for many years ago the lawful Trade and lawful Commerce and Arms act that stops lawsuits against gun manufacturers from people who are basically trying to bankrupt the gun manufacturers by claiming that someone who used a gun which operated properly, but they might have used it in a violent way, somehow the gun manufacturers are liable for that, as if the gun didn’t operate the way it’s supposed to operate.
Right? Like a baseball bat. If somebody clubs somebody overhead, they could use the same logic to go after them. Right? A knife, same sort of thing. Right. So they passed that statute that says, no, we’re not going to allow those types of spurious lawsuits into the federal court system. So a person suing from one state against some company that’s based in another state, they’re not going to be able to sue that online company. But the other part of it that section 230 prevents, as long as the feds say you’re operating the way the feds like you to in your online platform, you’re curating the way they approve, they will prevent the states from going after your online platform if you allow people to post stuff that the states claim is indecent or connected to a crime.
Okay, but the key here, if you want to functionally look at studying the way the constitutional federalist system is supposed to work, the key is that you don’t look at the US First Amendment here, because the First Amendment of the United States actually only stipulates Congress. States can have their own statutes regarding speech. They can have codes regarding whether or not you’re going to be out late at night or that sort of thing, they can establish funds for religious entities and religious schools and things like that. We talked about this last week, right? You probably heard me mention this before.
This was a state purview. So the next step in this, this machine is that you’ve got to look at what the state constitutions say. And in Texas and in Florida, that Florida, they do have, if you look up the state constitutions, they do have protections for free speech. So the government of Florida and the government of Texas, they’re not supposed to step on freedom of speech. So that becomes rather complicated, doesn’t it? Right? Because if these, if the state of Texas or the state of Florida are passing laws that are saying social media companies have to censor certain things or they’re saying you censored something, and we want you to open up that speech platform and allow that speech on there.
Well, you’ve got a major problem because morally, both allowing people to speak the way they want to and allowing people to censor speech over anything that is their property in, say, their house or anything like that, that should be up to the property owner. And if you’ve started a social media company, it should be up to you. If you want to post something, you should be able to say it. And if you want to stop someone from posting something, you should be able to stop it. Right. But then people start to say, well, look what Facebook did to Jay Barakaria, look what Twitter did to even Gardner Goldsmith.
Right. Could be doing it now, did to maybe Don Jeffries. Right. So that’s oftentimes a federal side of things, but inside some of these states, it’s a similar issue. Were the states involved with trying to influence things, or could they get involved either positively to try to get a message out saying, you must put this message out, or negatively to saying, you can’t allow something that is not considered connected to a crime or indecent? But we’re going to tell you it’s a very involved subject here. So I’ll just pause it there, everybody, because that leads us towards a subject that David Knight has brought up many, many times.
And I brought it up on liberty conspiracy in the evenings, which is the so called idea of the public square and the 1946 Supreme Court decision with a very liberal court called the Marsh v. Alabama case, and that was shipbuilding company in Alabama, which had its own campus and places for the guys to sleep, a post office, a little store. And I said, you know, I worked at a farm stand where the jamaican guys in the summertime would come up, and we had cabins for them. They would stay there. So the owners of the property should have the ability to keep people off the property so that their employees are doing okay.
And a woman came, and she was proselytizing her religion in the 1940s, and the company called the police in Alabama, tried to get her removed because she wouldn’t leave. And she brought the case all the way to the Supreme Court against Alabama. And they found that the business’s property, since it was open to people, was de facto or their de jure public property. And that led to the public accommodations portion of the 1964 Civil Rights act and a lot of other things like the Americans with Disabilities act, where they turned private property into de jure or de facto public property.
But public property is that which employs tax money, forcibly taking everybody’s money. And then, of course, everybody argues, what’s the COVID policy going to be for that school? Or what’s the policy going to be about? LGBTQ stuff. Right? So these platforms, as David has said, social media platforms, are seen as the public square. Now, I personally, my opinion is that if you invest your time and interest into something, then someone else who hasn’t had anything to do with it shouldn’t have a say over how it’s operated unless you come into a voluntary contract with that person.
So if I promise that I’m not going to put something up on my play on my social media account and you come in and we have an agreement and I breach the agreement, then you can get me for breach of contract. But third parties who aren’t party to our personal agreement should have nothing to do with it. That’s aggressive, that is immoral and it opens everything up if the state gets involved, to the tragedy of the commons, where everybody starts to argue, Facebook obviously is seen as a public square, but in the end, who’s going to control it? The politicians? The question that then comes in which David and I, we always.
We come at it from different angles. Quite interesting. You can see. I’ll put this full piece out so you can see where David and I really come to a lot of agreement. And then there’s this added thing that I try to try to put in, which is called unconstitutional conditions, which is if these. If these business people are asking for the state to create an abstract entity for them called a corporation, can the state then demand of them? You must conform to what we demand for your shipbuilding company. You must be open everywhere, right? In some cases, that would be considered what’s called an unconstitutional condition.
So we go to the Cabrini Green case where again, there was a child killed in a parking lot in a drug deal of this section eight housing. They then tried to say, anybody who wants to live here has to give up their right against unwarranted searches and seizures as protected by the Fourth Amendment. That case was brought to the Supreme Court and they found against the government. They said, that’s an unconstitutional condition. And the bulk of cases revolving unconstitutional conditions, they find in favor of the individual’s rights and so on. But what happens when Hillsdale College or Grove City College doesn’t want to conform to Title Ix? Well, it turns out that the Supreme Court finds it in a completely different way.
They say, no, you’re taking federal money. Again, it should. Should be unconstitutional conditions. And if you really want to pare it down. Hillsdale College in Grove City said, we’re not going to take any money. We’re not going to take any students who take any money. Okay, cool. But if we look at it and say, if a business person or people asked for corporate status, does that then mean that the politicians can demand of them something that is an unconstitutional condition? Well, that would then go right back to Hillsdale College and open them up once more to the content of what they’re teaching just because they asked for corporate status.
Now, one of the things as, and I’ll mention just real quick, and our guest is coming up, if you want to get into the real depths of this stuff. I brought these books with me. There’s a woman named Sheila Ogilvy talking about corporations and the creations of corporations. I saw her for the first time on a mises Institute speech that she gave. And you can see I’ve got all sorts of stuff in here, but I was looking at things like, like the, like the guilds that precede seem to have preceded the concept of the corporation. Because the corporation, there’s nothing in the us constitution that really explicitly allows the federal government to create corporations.
Okay? That’s the problem. It’s the creation of a corporation which confers certain benefits and shields the assets of the people creating the corporation. And they get bankruptcy laws and things like that that are involved with it as well. So it is a government entity which is forcibly taking people’s money to fund the government, supposedly for their protection, now conferring some sort of protection against people who are doing business, creating an abstraction called corporation. The question then comes down to, and it’s something that’s debatable and fascinating conversation. If you ask for corporate status, can they then say, well, your social media site is going to be what we define it to be.
If you open up a store and you make it a corporation, well, we’re going to force you to put pornography magazines in your bookstores because it’s free speech. Right? This is the problem. The state enters. It screws everything up. So talking about that, let’s talk about how the state screws up everything with fiat currency. But beyond that, let’s discuss with our next guest how the state, which is supposedly there for your protection, is the predator. In a moment, we’ll be joined by Jacob Hornberger, the founder and president of the Future of Freedom foundation, to talk about his excellent two part essay, investigative essay on Ian Freeman, bitcoin and the United States government’s malfeasance against my friend Ian Freeman, the common man.
They created common core to dumbed down our children. They created common past to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future. They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. The most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It’s time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
Please share the information and links you’ll find@thedavidknightshow.com. thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. Please keep us in your prayers. Thedavidknightshow.com great stuff, great people. The knight family had great conversation with travis last night, and now I’m ready for a great conversation with a man I’ve respected for a long, long time, jacob hornberger, the founder and president of the future of freedom foundation. Jacob, thank you for waiting. That, that little segment there, as I tried to go through unconstitutional conditions in a, in a very, very brief, compact form. And you as an attorney and a great defender of freedom, I would love talk to you about that subject sometime.
Welcome to the david knight show, jacob, and thank you again for being here. Oh, you’re welcome, guard. Thank you for having me back again. It’s nice to be here. Oh, it’s delightful. Absolutely delightful. Every time I see you, you’re doing great stuff. You’ve always got an upbeat attitude about things. Your conversations with Richard Ebeling, you know, just awesome. And your work at Future Freedom foundation, fff.org, everybody. Fff.org. and on Twitter, it’s uture of freedom. I really appreciate so many of the things you do, but obviously, you know, I contacted you because of this remarkable piece that you did.
And so far, you’re the only person in the world who I have seen do this for this man, Ian Freeman. And as literally, Ian is not too far away right now from me in federal prison. And Jacob, I want to let you know, he has called me from his cell as we’ve spoken. So you’re speaking to a man who’s known Ian for a long time. And I also want to let you know, I think I might have mentioned an email. Ian and his business partner Mark, they invited me in as another radio host in the state.
There was no competition, sense of competition or anything like that. It was all conviviality. They said, why don’t you come over and do the show with us some nights? So I said, sure. I used to join them on Wednesday nights. I sat in the very studio, not at the time, where the feds threw in their flash grenades and brought the drone inside and, you know, blew out the front window. I’ve been in that room. And it was, you know, reminded me of what the feds did to your farm, you know, what the government did to your farm with the migrants.
And so thank you very much for writing this piece about Ian Freeman and bitcoin, but specifically the malfeasance of the federal government in going after a man. And then in addition to going after a man unjustly besmirching his name later, it just, it just piles on insults. So thank you. And I don’t know what drew your attention to getting into this, but I know that, you know, Ian and Mark are great people. As I mentioned, they came across the state to attend my mother’s memorial service. I didn’t even know they were going to be there. I was stunned that they were there.
And I think about his wife, who, you know, they just got married. And so you are a good man doing what you’ve done, and I appreciate it very much. Well, you’re welcome. It’s actually a three part article. As you know, guard, I was a lawyer in my previous libertarian life. I practiced law as a criminal and civil defense, criminal defense lawyer and civil lawyer for twelve years before I moved over into the libertarian movement. And so when I heard about Ian’s case, I kind of looked at it in a superficial way and saw that he had been convicted of fraud.
So I thought, well, there’s no need in going any further than this. This was quite a long time ago. And because we, we libertarians don’t believe in fraud. We don’t believe people should commit fraud. And we think that’s one of the proper roles of government, is to punish people who commit fraud. And I had looked at the newspaper articles where it said that he had defrauded people with his bitcoin operation. And so I didn’t really have much interest in looking at the case until I went to pork fest this last month. And there was a speaker there talking about the case.
And so I turned to my friend Jim Babb, who knows Ian well, also, I don’t know Ian personally. I think I appeared on his talk show, Free Talk Live maybe 2025 years ago. And I said, what’s the story on this case? And Jim said he got railroaded. And so I said, well, do you understand the bitcoin ramifications of this? And he goes, not really. Well, I got intrigued and so I started reading some of the newspaper articles about the case, but I couldn’t get a handle on where the fraud was with respect to the bitcoins. And so finally I got Bab to locate a transcript of the trial.
Now a transcript is all of the testimony that’s taken down by the court reporter from day one to day eleven all the way to the jury verdict. So I went back to my lost law days and said, well I think I’ll read the transcript. So I did. I read witnesses one’s testimony all the way through the jury verdict. And at the end of this guard, I came to one conclusion. And it is a firm conclusion. It’s a long three part article. I think it’s each, each part is about 5000 words. But that conclusion is that an innocent man has been railroaded into a federal penitentiary and had his savings of $5 million in appreciated bitcoins seized by the feds.
And he’s going to be sitting there if this thing holds up on appeal for eight years. An innocent man, eight years in the federal penitentiary. And as you say, you know, leaving his wife behind. This is an absolute horrific miscarriage of justice by the New Hampshire US Attorney’s office, which just recently got accused of misconduct. A lawyer in there got accused of misconduct and by the chief judge of the US district courts there in, in New Hampshire. But they sent an innocent man to jail. And that’s detailed in my three part article. Jacob, again, you know, sentimentally you really touched my heart.
In fact, I was, I had a ticket to go to pork fest and I knew you were going to be there and I was sick. I couldn’t go and I was so disappointed. And it’s just incredible the way you picked up on this like a lightning bolt and going through the, all of the information from the courts, the transcriptions, just amazing, amazing stuff. I mean this is the sort of thing that this is like. It’s a, it’s, if people want to see a true crime book that someone has written, read your pieces on this because it’s, the criminals are the government and, and what they did to Ian especially is, and it’s even in the opening, you, you open the piece and if you will indulge me, I’d like to give just a bit of this opening from your piece from part one where you say, you know, he was labeled a fraudster.
The us attorney’s office in New Hampshire sent out a press release October 2, 2023, in which Freeman was labeled a fraudster. And then you write the next paragraph. There is one big problem, however, with that description. Freeman was never convicted of fraud, and the us attorney’s office knew that when it sent out that press release on the day of his sentencing. So maybe we can use that as a leap point to sort of talk about that and then backtrack into some of the circumstances of what they accused Ian of doing. And by the way, I was there the first day that Ian got his first bitcoin, and they had a bitcoin kiosk at a Liberty forum thing where Ron Paul was there, and I just didn’t make it to the kiosk to get one.
They were like, you know, $25 a bitcoin. And so we were there together and I just didn’t make it over to the room and it was shut down by the time I got there. Let’s start from that fraudster point from that October 2023 moment with the us attorney’s office totally mislabeling what actually happened in the court, and again then closing the doors to a lot of people who sentimentally, like you might say, well, if he was convicted of fraud, I’m not going to look into to that. It’s bitcoin, it’s shady, it’s fraudulent, and then you open things up a little bit.
It’s amazing. Yeah. That as I’m reading the transcript, they’ve got, you know, all this evidence of people who had been defrauded by online romance scammers, elderly people, sixties and seventies, who had lost their spouse and were looking for love on the Internet and got scammed by people sending large sums of money through, through. By buying bitcoins from Freeman. Well, as I’m reading all this and I get to the jury verdict, I’m like, stunned, stunned because the jury verdict does not find him guilty of fraud. In fact, what was the real shocker was he wasn’t even charged with fraud in that jury trial.
And yet here’s the us attorney’s office putting out this press release saying, this man’s a fraudster. This was a shocker for me. So here, here’s, here’s what was going on there that you described right at the beginning. It’s a very complex case. It deals with bitcoin. But, but here’s what was going on at the very beginning of the trial, that there was a IR’s agent named Pavel Prolotsky that decided that he was going to investigate Freeman. Now, Freeman really is a heroic figure in all this. I mean, as you pointed out, he was at the very beginning of the bitcoin phenomenon, and he.
And he wasn’t doing it to make money. It was because he saw what the founder of bitcoin, the inventor of bitcoin, a guy, an unidentified really person, they’ve never. Nobody’s ever seen this guy or know who he is, named Satoshi Nakamoto. And he had came up with bitcoin to circumvent the government’s massive destruction of financial privacy. Privacy with their anti laundering statutes and banks. Everybody knows that if you go and deposit more than $10,000 in a bank, they have to report you to the feds and so forth. So Nakamoto comes up with bitcoin as a way to preserve financial privacy and circumvent the government’s destruction of financial privacy.
And Freeman understands this perfectly. I mean, he’s a libertarian. From the word go, he says, my gosh, this is fantastic. He recognized that long before most other libertarians recognized it. So he starts selling bitcoins when it was zero. And I know, just to interject, and I know Ian is anti war, so he wanted a way to circumvent the United States government using. Using their us government money in ways that would fund their war. He wanted as many people as he could to get away from the us government money system. Right? He saw the destruction of the dollar, the paper money that Franklin Roosevelt had instituted in the 1930s in a total unconstitutional nationalization of gold.
He had seen what the Federal Reserve had done over the decades of monetary debauchery, stealing people’s money through inflationary fraud and taxation. So he starts selling bitcoins as a way to help people. But also, and more important, he starts educating people on bitcoin coins and what the virtues of bitcoin are. And he’s getting a commission on his sales. And clearly he gets on the radar screen of the feds, because the feds understood, just like Freeman did, that this new bitcoin posed a very big threat to the government’s control over financial affairs. So they start monitoring Freeman.
Freeman’s not committing any violations of laws in this process. He’s selling bitcoin coins. He establishes a bitcoin kiosks in. In key New Hampshire, where people could just go in and buy bitcoins like, like out of a vending machine. They’re unmanned kiosks. And the. The indication is, is that people from all walks of life were buying bitcoins. Young people, uh, you know, teenagers, people just go in there and put their money in and buy bitcoins. So he made a lot of money for people that were buying bitcoins, because, as we all know, bitcoin, bitcoin soared in value, including some of the bitcoins that Ian acquired.
So he gets on the government’s radar screen, and this is was the shocker for me. They send this guy, Pavel Polotsky, an IR’s undercover agent, to start befriending Ian, becoming his friend, saying, oh, I’m interested in libertarianism and I’m interested in bitcoin. And he uses taxpayer money to start buying thousands of dollars of bitcoins from Freeman with the idea that he’s going to come up with a crime. They’re looking for a crime that they can get Freeman on, because they hate the fact that he’s not only a libertarian, but also that he’s engaged in this bitcoin business.
So this guy Pulaski investigates Freeman for a year and essentially comes up with nothing substantial. Now, there’s two, what I call add on charges. And in part three of my article, one, dealing with not running a licensed business. He didn’t get a license from the federal government to run the bitcoin business. And then he supposed income tax violation, both of which are as bogus as a three dollar bill, as I point out in part three of my articles. But to establish the bogus nature of these things, Pulaski comes up and tries to entrap Freeman into committing a crime.
Now, when a federal agent does that, and that’s where the fraud really comes in, he is fraudulently representing himself to be somebody he’s not. He’s telling Freeman that he’s in the car business. He’s not. He’s an Ir’s agent. He tells Freeman, and this is the telling blow. He tells Freeman, or he says in Freeman’s presence, so that Freeman could hear him, I’m a drug dealer. This is a year after he’s been investigating, clearly has come up with nothing. But he says, I’m a drug dealer. Now, why does he say that? Well, because now they’re gonna make up a crime.
They’re gonna get Freeman to sell bitcoins to a guy that he knows is a drug dealer. Well, Freeman’s antenna immediately goes off. Freeman’s not, obviously not a dumb guy. And he turns to this guy and says, well, you shouldn’t have told me that, because now I will not sell you any more bits, coins. You are a drug dealer. You’ve put me on notice. That’s it. It’s over now. At that point, it should have just stopped. Here’s a citizen telling a person, I’m not going to do business with you because you’re a drug dealer. But Pulaski didn’t stop.
He was desperate to get this guy Freeman on any kind of charge. So he says, well, no, look, I’ve got lots of friends that are ready to spend money with you. We’re ready to buy large quantities of bitcoin coins from you. So he’s tempting him with money into committing this crime, right? It doesn’t work. Freeman says, no, I will not do business with you. So Pulaski still doesn’t give up. He’s obviously desperate. And so he says, what about your unmanned bitcoin kiosks? Because, you see, he could just go over there and buy bitcoins. Freeman wouldn’t know it.
And Freeman says, no, you don’t have permission to buy bitcoins from me and those kiosks. So here’s. Here’s the stunner. When I read this, I just was absolutely stunned. This really got me. This is so upsetting. Oh, it’s incredible. I mean, here in America, you can understand this kind of thing goes on in Russia, but here in America, prolocky goes to an unmanned bitcoin kiosk without Freeman’s knowledge, consent or permission, because Freeman had said, you don’t have permission. He goes there anyway. He puts in $19,000 of taxpayer money, buys bitcoin, takes all this evidence to the us attorney’s office in New Hampshire, who then proceeds to get an indictment against Freeman for illegally selling bitcoins to a drug dealer.
And that’s just unbelievable. That was one of the counts of the indictment. Oh, it’s. It’s phenomenal. Now, the judge, Judge Joseph Laplante, he lets this count go to the jury, which is shocking in and of itself. But after the jury verdict, his wisdom gets the best of him. I mean, because he did the right thing in this thing. He throws out that count, and he’s not because he’s morally outraged, which he really should be, but because he concludes that there’s no evidence of guilt here. So here the prosecutor has done this and there wasn’t any evidence of guilt.
This was an innocent man who had said, I will not do business with you, and gets convicted with. In front of a jury, with the jury’s verdict. But the judge says, no, there is no evidence. This. This guy is clearly innocent of this particular charge and he throws it out. But that’s what caught my attention? Guard, because if the government’s willing to resort to that kind of outrageous conduct to indict and convict an innocent man, it throws into suspicion the other charges that they brought against him. That was that he got convicted of. And when I went into those charges and that realized it’s no, absolutely.
And that’s one of the key things, is you looked at that tip of the iceberg and then you dug down deeper and, and then you start getting into again, you got the, the impression that Ian was involved in defrauding lonely people and lonely hearts sorts of things when he was just a facilitator of trades in bitcoin, that then other people then use the money in the ways that they might want to use the money. As if I went into a bank and said, can you change this hundred and turn it into twenties? There’s much more to this that I think is really important.
And just sentimentally, I’d like to add this, Jacob. So I, when Ian was found guilty, of course, you go through the time period, then there’s the sentencing. So a lot of us gathered in Concord, new Hampshire, at the federal building there, the federal court. And we went through all the kabuki dance of, you know, having to leave your phone in a place where they don’t have separate containers. Anybody could walk back, just pick up their, your phone on the way back out, you know, all the dumb things that they do at the courthouse. And then we go inside and it turned out they delay it.
They delay the sentencing. So we have to go back a few months later, you know, Ian’s trying to recoup and get maybe one more appeal with, with his attorney, and the sentencing comes along again. So get this, Jacob. I go back to the courthouse, see a lot of other free state project members, fellow libertarians there. And I walk in and the main court, there’s someone standing by the door who says, it’s, it’s full, can’t go in. And I said, he goes, you’re gonna have to go to the video overflow room to watch on video feed, you know, that sort of thing.
And I thought, hmm. So I went and used the bathroom and I said, that guy’s lying. He’s lying. I know, I know it’s not full there. So I just walked past him and went in, and it was half empty. And yeah, and so, you know, as an attorney, you know, what they were trying to do? They were trying to make it look like Ian didn’t have support from his friends. They were trying to demoralize a guy they had already wrongfully, wrongfully accused of a crime and convicted. I just. It just. I’m getting emotional. Just. It just gets me so angry, you know? Well, you can see Ian’s state of mind by the agreement that they induced him to sign.
And this was another stunning aspect of this thing. Freeman was fortuitous. I mean, he was. He was making commissions off the bitcoin sales, just like any real estate person makes a commission off bringing people together. His commission was like around 10%. Sometimes it went up higher, but that’s how he was making his money, that people would come to him and say, I want to buy some bitcoins. And, okay, so I sell you bitcoins, I get a commission off the deal. But he clearly had acquired some bitcoins, because when they did that paramilitary rate on his house, that, for me, brought up images of Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Yeah. That they. They seized what amounted to about $5 million, most of which was appreciated bitcoin. So. So Freeman was just at the right place at the right time. He buys these quantity of bitcoins, and they’ve soared in value to $5 million. They take these things. Well, they. It was always clear that the judge was going to order a forfeiture. The only real question was, was he good? Was the 5 million to go to the government, or was it going to go to these romance scam victims? The probation office says it can’t go to the romance scam victims.
This is a money laundering case. Now, they’re wrong about that because. But, but. Well, let’s set that aside for a moment, that they’re. They’re right in the sense that it’s not a fraud case because he wasn’t convicted of fraud. So all these romance people that got scammed, their testimony was really irrelevant insofar as charged with. Yeah, he wasn’t. He wasn’t the one who was involved with the romance schemes. That’s the point. You know, let me tell you something, something. If Ian Freeman, if there was any evidence at all, even I owed a tiny bit of evidence of fraud, you can bet your bottom dollar the feds would have charged him with defrauding those people because they.
They had this Pulaski trying to set him up on a bogus crime. So that indicates that there was no evidence at all, which is why they didn’t charge him. But the judge was determined to use Freeman’s money to reimburse these people. When Freeman had nothing to do with their fraud, it should have been the fraudsters who reimburse these people? Yeah, well, they couldn’t catch them. They didn’t even try to catch. Yeah, that, that’s it. They didn’t even try to go after them. That’s a great point. Yeah. And, and the banks that were from people that wired their money from, they have all these know, your customer regulations and stock supposed to ferret out these scams and so forth, they didn’t get targeted by the feds.
It was only Freeman who sold them bitcoins at their request. They were, the customers were saying, we want you. We want this money to be used to buy bitcoins for our lover. And a lot of time they would keep it secret from Freeman, even when Freeman would ask him, because Freeman, he didn’t want to facilitate romance camps because his business depended on ratings, online ratings. So if he’s got disgruntled customers, they’re going to put bad ratings on him. And so Freeman did everything he could to ferret out these scams, but on this agreement that they made him sign.
Now, here’s a guy that clearly is, has to be depressed. He’s done everything right. He’s tried to do everything right. He tried to ferret out scams. He worked with law enforcement to go after scams. He’s now facing the possibility a 2030 year jail sentence. Yeah. And so they come to him and they say, well, you’re going to forfeit your money anyway. You’re 5 million. But you got a choice. You can, you can do the right thing and have the money go to the romance victims instead of the government. And so they knew Ian’s anti government sentiments.
So Freeman does what, what is the right thing? In his mind? He’s thinking, if I’m going to lose the money anyway, I’d rather it go to the romance camp victims rather than the government. So he’s a good guy in that sense, but he still has an appeal coming. And so on an appeal, he could get this conviction reversed. Well, you know what? The feds had him signed in this area. I mean, you couldn’t find a better example of duress than a man that’s facing many, many years in the penitentiary. He’s having to leave his wife. They, they put a provision in the, in the agreement where Freeman says, okay, I agree that the money will go to the romance scam victims, which is fine, because he still has a.
Preserving his appeal rights in an appeal. He’s gonna get his money back regardless of what the agreement says, because he’s innocent. They insert a provision in there that says no matter how the appeal works out, even if you’re judged totally innocent, you will never get your money back, period. And Freeman, in a time of great duress, obviously signs that agreement. Just when I read, he, he talked to me about that, actually, from his jail, from his cell, and, and it’s, it just blew me away, Jacob. And again, and apart from his close friends, you’re the only person I know who knows this stuff.
It’s just, it’s stunning what you’ve been able to investigate and uncover. I mean, you’ve done just an angel’s work here. It’s terrific. And the content of what you’re putting out there. I hope people, even if they’re not familiar with Ian, if they’re not familiar with free talk live, and they were one of the top talk radio shows for a long time, if they’re not familiar with their work, I hope they will look up and find out about the personality of Ian and the work that he was doing and what the feds did, because that was just, Ian and his attorneys talked about that and he just thought, well, this is my best alternative.
What can I do? And it’s amazing to think that they literally, he was trying to operate even though he wasn’t required to. He was trying to operate under the know your customer modus operandi. He was saying, I don’t, I want to. What are you doing? You know, what is this? Is this involved? I don’t, you know, do the right thing on here. It’s not getting involved with drug dealers and yet the banks, which have the federal FDIC insurance and all this other nonsense, and they have the know your customer statutes that come, of course, from the seventies on the, and kept getting inflated.
Inflated. They don’t have to. And they’re the ones where the final, the final output for the money, for the scammers was being translated. They don’t have to answer for anything. And it is just unbelievable. And as you say, even if he were to be found to have been wrongly convicted, the money is still being just gouged out of him. Him. And of course, he’s going to have some leftover. He was talking to me a little bit how, you know, it actually is going to allow him to retain a portion of what he’s already saved up and so on, but on principle, it’s just, it’s terrible.
It’s unbelievable. And now, and just to let you know, Jacob, bonnie and Ian approached me and what I do is I package for them on Friday evenings. I put together six segments for them to cover 3 hours of free Talk live. And so I take my liberty conspiracy streaming show, and I go back a few days, and I take segments out that I’ve discussed, like what you might have seen from that show from the other night, talking about the courts and the free speech stuff and social media and things like that, unconstitutional conditions. And then I put it out there for them in 620 minutes segments that essentially covers the 3 hours.
And, um, because Ian’s not there now, and so he can’t host the show, so Bonnie has to try to do this stuff herself. Ian is the tech whiz. He’s literally guiding her and guiding me through the tech from his cell, talking to us on a tablet that, of course, he has to pay for it. He’s like, well, yeah, if you go to the upper portion of the screen, you’ll see this. He’s, you know, he’s a genius, obviously, but he’s a very reserved, calm person. And it is, it is really something else to see how the government has mistreated this guy and now left all these other people who are working with him, you know, out on a limb, and you can see in markets all the people who support each other, and now they’re trying to catch up.
So I’m, I’m helping out on that on Fridays. You know, I get, they’re nice enough to ask me to. Would you like to put some segments on here and let us have some content? So I do that for Friday nights for them. Well, that’s really nice to hear. But, I mean, this was their objective, to remove this guy from, from the bitcoin area, as well as free talk live. I mean, we got to lock this guy up. When you, when you’re creating a crime, and especially after a guy that says, I don’t want anything to do with you, and you keep pressing and pressing and pressing, that means they’re doing everything they can to remove this guy to a federal penitentiary for a long period of his life.
And I, I would invite, this is a very long three part article, 5000 words each part. But I would invite everyone that listens to your show, listens to this broadcast to take the time, because I have carefully explained the criminal justice ramifications of this. By the time the case goes to trial, the money laundering charge is thrown out of. There is no money laundering charge anymore. So the feds are keep saying, oh, this was a money laundering case. Bull. It’s not a money laundering case. It was chiefly a conspiracy case. Now, what’s a conspiracy? A conspiracy is an agreement to commit an illegal act.
They never prove that Ian Freeman agreed with anybody to commit an illegal act. That’s how we know he’s innocent. The only ones that he would have entered into an agreement with to be convicted of were the Roman the romance scammers. And yet it is undisputed that he never agreed with any romance scammers to defraud these people. But what the prosecutors did, who were very clever, they’re very good lawyers, they bamboozled the jury, they bamboozled the judge into thinking that this is a fraud case. But they didn’t charge him with fraud because they knew they couldn’t prove fraud because he never committed fraud against any of his customers.
And so the only thing left is this conspiracy charge along with the two add on charges. There is no evidence of conspiracy or illegal agreement anywhere in this record. Now let me address. Yeah, oh, sorry, go ahead. Well, the two add on charges, let me just mention real quick, this business of operating a light, an unlicensed money bitcoin business. The statute was passed before bitcoin was enacted, a money transmitting, making money transmitting, subject to getting a federal license, which is ridiculous in and of itself. But the judge says, oh, well, clearly bitcoin is money. Well, Congress has never said that.
Exactly. And I cite three articles in my, in my piece where financial experts, one Forbes magazine, one the Federal Reserve bank of Australia, another guy that founded bitcoin or something like this, is major area for selling bitcoins. They all say bitcoin is not money. But you see lawyers and judges, oh, they know more than economists do. And the judge was certain that bitcoins money. So we, we’re gonna, we’re gonna convict a guy when there’s a difference of opinion from financial experts and economists. Ridiculous. This is federal court. Oh, yeah, absolutely. I was mentioning to the audience the other night that, you know, even the SEC and the FDIC, they can’t come to an agreement as to whether or not bitcoin is money or something else.
They don’t know. And it really is. It’s like, it’s like a poisonous emperor’s new clothes. They are wearing nothing and they’re marching down the street and everybody’s going applauding, saying, oh, yes, you convicted this bad guy over this or that, and none of it applies. It’s a total tapestry of competition webs. It is absolutely a tapestry of lies. Well, it’s because of the us attorney’s office, they were sending out press releases containing lies that this was a money laundering case. After sentencing, when they knew the judge had thrown out the money laundering charge with a judgment of acquittal.
Judgment of acquittal says, this man is innocent. And they were sending out press releases saying, oh, this is a money laundering case. He got convicted of money laundering. Oh, he’s a fraudster. Never got convicted of these. And that’s how the mainstream press came up with all these false statements in their newspaper articles. And then there’s, it’s, oh, I was going to say it’s interesting because I tried to contact one of the local news people because they were, they parroted that line and I said, this wasn’t fraud, I hope you understand. And they didn’t even bother. They didn’t change anything.
They just left it, you know. Yeah. Because they’ve got the us attorney who they think is going to be very reputable and very credible. This is the office that I just mentioned that got labeled grave misconduct by the chief us district judge in New Hampshire, misconduct by one of the lawyers in there. And this is the same outfit that, that convicted an innocent man. And they just send out false press releases to the press. So the press says, oh, well, the us attorney’s office would never lie about some like this. You’re right, of course. And then there’s, there’s the tax evasion charge, which is phenomenal.
Also that, you know, the standard procedure that the IR’s uses is you write a letter to the person, you say, let’s sit down. Let’s see whether you owe how much taxes you owe. We’ll get a schedule if you owe taxes and so forth. Resorting to criminal prosecution is a last alternative. But this is ion Freemanda. He’s a bitcoin guy. He’s a libertarian. He’s a lower class citizen. We don’t have to treat him like we do a high school principal. So, and this is in part three of my article. So they just indict him. Well, the IR’s agent takes the stand and says, well, I used a standard deduction in determining whether he owes any money and hit.
And his defense lawyer says, well, but if he had used the other itemized deductions, it’s possible that he wouldn’t know any taxes at all. And she says, well, that’s right. And he says, so you don’t really know whether he owes any taxes or not or not, do you? She goes, no, that’s correct. I really don’t. He gets convicted on that testimony in a federal court. I mean, this is for justice in a federal court system. JACOB thank you again. He’s Jacob Hornberger, the founder and president of the Future of Freedom foundation. Find them@fff.org dot Jacob, it’s just great to talk to you.
Scholarly, conversant, just upbeat, positive and with, you know, real moral core and the powers of investigation. I really appreciate what you’ve done because there are very few people who are willing to rise to this standard and uphold principle with that amount of energy. And I really appreciate that. That’s a very rare, rare commodity for people often nowadays. And I want to mention we had some comments inside the rumble chat and inside Rockvin chat. First of all, welcome, everyone. If you’re watching to the David Knight show, I’m Gardner Goldsmith filling in for David. I have a show Monday through Friday called Liberty Conspiracy.
I’ve done a lot of writing for the Mises Institute foundation for Economic Education after Jacob was there when Richard Ebeling was, was there and Sheldon Richmond was there. And I do liberty conspiracy Monday through Friday. And I work for MRC TV doing articles for them. I want to thank Mark. Mark Young contributed $10 to the program. Thank you, Mark, for doing so. And if anyone has any comments or anything like that, please remember, please remember Jacob’s pieces. I’ve been re xing or retweeting these things. Find them at Jacob Hornberger’s blog. You’ll see all his great writings and you’ll see these pieces at fdA, fff.org.
and feel free if I’ve missed any of your comments. If you have questions, feel free to bring those out. And we’ve got rumble also as well. We’ve got a lot of people watching on rumble. Ron, thanks for being there. Rogue statesman, thanks for being there. Fregan from Toronto, thanks for being there. Freegan as well. And atomic dog says, great guest. Thank you, atomic dog. More power to you. Watch that radiation, my friend. Watch out. It’s good to have you there, Jacob. I’m curious to see what you think of possible appeals for this. And, you know, I’ve been, I was thinking about contacting Mark sisty, you know, on the legal side for Ian’s team and find out and see if I can interview Mark.
He’s been around for a long time and stuff here in New Hampshire. What do you think of the possibility of appeal? Because there’s so much ambiguity and wrongdoing that I would think there’d be some open spaces to try to walk through on this. But I don’t know, it seems like that just sentimentally, a lot of the judges and so on would not want to deal with this. Well, I addressed that in part three of my article. What are the chances on appeal? And before I forget, and at the end of part part three, I include Ian’s mailing address at the federal penitentiary that he’s in in Massachusetts.
And, you know, as a former criminal defense lawyer, I know that it can get really lonely in a penitentiary, you know, having talking to clients and had clients in that position. And so I included that address for people to write to. Freeman. His wife’s name is Bonnie. She’s also a libertarian. I think he would love to get letters from people. At least that’s my experience with people in the criminal justice system. So that’s why I included that article. You know, I mean, that address, as I said in state, in part three, you know, the big problem you have in the federal court system is that you’ve got the inside the box thinkers who are judges.
Now, libertarians are outside the box thinkers, and it’s very hard for inside the box thinkers to relate to outside the box thinkers, because they, they’ve just got this indoctrination. The welfare warfare state is good. This is our society. The regulated society is good. This is our society. The libertarians look at it from the outside and say, this is not a good way of life. And so all these federal judges are inside the box thinkers, but by the same token. And so they support things like the drug war. And as I point out, the real core issue here is the drug war.
These anti laundering statutes and stuff all originated with the drug war, which has been going on for decades. I mean, when I was a criminal defense lawyer there in Laredo, they were in Texas, they were putting people away on drug charges, just like Judge Laplant’s doing today and these prosecutors are doing today. So you’ve got these inside the box thinkers, but yet judges do the right thing. When, when Laplant threw out that charge, that was impressive. The government appeal that order, and then for some reason, they dismissed their appeal. So that order is final. So that’s impressive that Laplant would do that taken up on appeal.
I haven’t read the lawyers briefs, but to me, if they take up the case where they should and say there is no evidence of conspiracy, which is the only thing he was convicted of, other than these add on offenses, they should throw this thing out there. There is a no question, this is an innocent man. Now, you got to preserve these things on appeal in the trial court. I presume that they preserve these, these points on for appeal, assuming they did and they raise these points on appeal. I think there’s one heck of a good chance if judges are doing the right thing.
And like I say, La Plant did the right thing. If they apply that same standard that La Plante did to the conspiracy charge and the tax charge and the licensing charge, you’re going to see Freeman walk, walking out of that federal penitentiary. But unfortunately, as I indicated earlier, losing permanently his life savings of those bitcoins, which is a travesty of justice. It is. It’s such a travesty. And I hope that people will pick up this cause for Ian and for Bonnie and for the principle, the principle of this, which runs consistently through many things, all the way into even recognizing the force of the state.
You know, as we get into the abstract argument about the state, people think the state is there to protect them, but if they don’t want to pay for the state, they’ll find out how much protection they’re going to get. They’ll get protected from their own freedom, and they’ll be put in prison and for not paying their taxes. And so what Ian was trying to do was educate people through the radio and through that great talk show, and they worked super, super hard, always going out to events here in New Hampshire. I remember one of the last times I saw Ian, we had pizza together.
We were sitting with a libertarian fiction novelist, F. Paul Wilson. And Paul is just a great guy. Medical doctor, numerous books on the New York Times bestseller list. We’re all sitting there together having pizza, and now Ian’s in prison. It’s just. It’s insane. It’s absolutely insane. All the wonderful things that could happen for him and his family. I look at this as the economic equivalent of Julian Assange, really, what they’re doing here, bespirating a man’s good name, trying to claim that any other people who participate in this peaceful activity will end up being possibly, or could end up being put in the same position.
That dark cloud of threat that’s put over all sorts of people. It’ll be very interesting, Jacob, to have you on again, maybe, and I’ll contact Bonnie and see, see if she wants to chat with us a little bit about this. But this essay that you’ve written, I hope it inspires people to take up his cause. You know, if you look at people like the West Memphis, West Memphis three, those boys who were on death row, and then people raised money to get a DNA test to show that they should not have been charged with murder long, long ago, or other other cases where they find that people have been on death row, actually were wrongfully convicted.
People have taken up some of these causes, and they’ve done remarkable things that, you know, show the courage of people to try to help other people who’ve been wrongfully convicted by the state. And I think right here with Ian, it’s a great example. And you remind me again of the violent way that they went after Ian as well. Early in the morning, like 05:00 in the morning, blowing out the front window, sending in a drone, and then, and then basically perp walking him outside with nothing more than a bathrobe and maybe boxer shorts on, you know, just in, in, you know, 30 degree temperatures.
Just ridiculous, unbelievable what they did to him. So any, any final thoughts that you might offer to people, as we, we mentioned, fff.org dot. I’ll put this up on the screen once more on part one. And I just want to compliment you. Also, I have a couple other tabs open for people, because you always have your conversations with Richard Ebeling, and you also carry great pieces by John Miltimore and John Whitehead. So let me just go over here. John Whitehead, how the police state muzzles free speech. And back to your piece of if people want to contact you on fate on, on twitter, it’s uture of freedom.
And you also, of course, are@fff.org. dot any final thoughts about the Ian story and what you hope to see people might get out of the article that you wrote? Yeah. I am so glad that you mentioned Julian Assange, because after I have studied this case, there is no doubt in my mind that Ian Freeman belongs in the same category as Assange and for that matter, Edward Snowden and Rossell. Yes. Yes. I mean, this, this is a truly innocent man who is doing heroic work showing people how to regain and restore their financial privacy, and a libertarian.
And this is an innocent man that has been sent into a federal penitentiary for the next eight years of his life, which we’ll put him at about 50 years old. I think he’s about 43 now. It is a total unjust conviction, and I hope that people will take the time. Like I say, it’s a long three part article, but this is an innocent man we’re talking about. I mean, there’s nothing, there are few things more horrific than the idea that, especially for a lawyer, that an innocent man gets convicted, wrongfully convicted, and is serving time in a federal penitentiary.
And I hope that people will take the time to go through my article with a fine tooth comb and, you know, just realize that this is what the feds have done, just like they did with Assange or tried to do to assange, just like they tried to do with Edward Snowden. They didn’t succeed in capturing them, but what they did with Ross Ulbricht, they have done to Ian Freeman. And that’s where I leave people, is that this is a, is a case you should strike at everybody’s conscience, because this is one of our people, one of our libertarians that they targeted with bogus crimes and succeeded in sending away to a penitentiary.
Jacob, if I were wearing a hat, I would take it off to you right now. And it’s a, it’s a strange thing, Jacob, because, you know, I’ve admired your work for a long time, and, you know, I’m of the generation behind you that sort of saw what you and Richard and other people were doing. I was very inspired by that. As you know, I mentioned, I used to drive down to Feta from New Hampshire down to Irvington, and I’d go to the wonderful meetings there, you know, seeing Robert Higgs or, you know, James Bovard speak or whoever it might be.
It was just terrific, you know. And so I was soaking up what you guys soaked up from other people, like Fa Hayek and Henry Hazlett and maybe the iHS is Baldy Harper or whoever it might be, you know, Rothbard and, you know, all these people. And one of my students became an intern over at the Mises Institute, which is really cool. And I just got a text from him recently, so that’s great. And he’s like, you know, oh, I met Tom woods or, you know, I saw Joe Salerno and I was like, oh, this is great.
This is great. You know, and, you know, there are very few people who know these names, but I was, you know, I’m 21, I’m reading Joe Salerno stuff, you know, and it’s wild. So, you know, I’ve been, I’ve been working, striving to expand what I’ve been doing a lot more and really, really get concrete and doing the scholarship, getting more of my pieces out there. I was doing a lot of writing for mises before. I’ve been doing a lot for MRC TV now, sort of trying to bridge the gap for the paleo conservatives to see the more libertarian side of things.
And they’ve been very nice to me, even though we disagree on a number of things like their Israel stance and so on. But what you have done is remarkable, and I would love to have you on again, whether, you know, I’m filling in for David or I’m doing my own show. And FfF is just a great place. And I really appreciate everything that you do there. The essays are excellent. And every day, if people sign up for your email list, if they support ffF, anything like that, and this isn’t to engender people to, you know, support fff, but you just sign up for the email list.
It’s free. And the work you do there, showing great pieces from so many different people is just spot on. It’s great. You get, I, I utilize it so much when I’m doing research for my own show on the news every day, thanks to you. Well, you just made my day. Thank you very much. And you bringing up all those names and fond memories. And Richard and I have known each other, Richard Ebola and I, for gosh, since I discovered, almost, since I discovered libertarianism. Well, know, in the late eighties, Richard and I met in Dallas, and it’s just been a labor of love.
He and I do libertarian angle today. And we just, yeah, we just love libertarianism. So. Oh, it’s great. It’s so interesting. And I’ll let you know. Jacob, for a while in the nineties, I was pretty badly injured, so I was going to go into television work, and I ended up going into television work and doing things like that. But it was tough. I was, I did about four, three or four years of physical therapy. And it was, it was bad. And so I couldn’t really go out. I couldn’t, couldn’t ask girls to go to movies and stuff like that.
So I stayed home and I tried to walk and exercise, do PT, and I discovered those knowledge products tapes. And yes, yes, I actually wrote to Charlton Heston about his series on the great philosophers because they were so good. And he wrote me back, wow. Yes, I got a handwritten note from him or typed out and handwritten by himself, by him. And it came just a couple weeks later. And what happened was, and, you know, the format of those tapes. And if people aren’t familiar with the knowledge products tapes, George, George Smith wrote some of the scripts for those, some really, really good economic writers.
They had Lewis Rukhiser doing the great economist stuff on mises and all these different people, even bomba Virk and people like that. You know, Menger, Carl Menger, you know, some of the people who are, you know, for people who are interested in free market economics and ethics, they’re standouts. And, you know, the Austrians are the pre Austrians. And so there were great tapes and they had a certain format. So with the Charlton Heston ones, you’d be listening to tape on Immanuel Kant, and they had a man who would do the voice of Immanuel Kant. And Heston would come in with a quick intro and say, for Kant, it was man’s subjective nature that could not be surpassed.
And then you’d hear the man do the voice, and it is our innermost self that cannot be surprised, you know, that sort of thing. And then he’d come back and recapitate, according to Kahn. So Bud light, you might remember this, Jacob Bud Light had a series of radio commercials back in the early nineties, maybe 1993, 94, and they were the same format. And Charlton Heston was the host on these Bud light beer commercials. And he said, let’s find out how one man made his night a Bud light night. And you hear the guy and he’s like, so I was in a bar.
And then Heston jumps in too quickly. And he’s like, he was in a bar. And it’s the exact same thing. I’m dying. So that’s actually what inspired me to write to him because I love those, those tapes. And I would listen to those as I got physically better and I would go out for walks. I got a better education from that than I did in my college years. So I said, I’m going to write to him. Him. And of course, he, you know, he was very good on the right to keep bear arms. So get this, I sent him some stuff I wrote on the second amendment and the right to keep bear arms.
I sent him a copy of the law by Frederick Bostia Bastier. I call him Frederick Bastier’s the law. So I, you know, sent it over to him. It’s wonderful, you know, and a couple weeks later, and I mentioned the beer ads, I said, it’s just like this tapes. So I get a letter back from him and he says, yeah. He says, thank you so much for your message. That made my day, or something like that. He says. He says, I never thought of it, but I think you’re right. I bet they did format those based on the tapes.
And he goes, I can’t believe it because they’re so esoteric. Not everybody, except libertarians really know those tapes. So then he says, and thank you for your articles. They’re, you know, very, very good, very principled research. And he said, and thank you for the copy of the law. You’re right. It’s one of the best. I usually reread it every few years. Wow. Yeah. So this is a man who not only got hired to do these things, he was interested in the philosophy. He was driven by it. You know, the man who played Moses, he wasn’t just acting.
He. He felt strongly about this stuff. And the way that he decorously said, I already have it, which was, that was also very good. You’re right. I usually reread it every few years, so. What a wonderful sentiment, and what a wonderful man. And, you know, you carry on the tradition, and I really appreciate all of that. It’s just a wonderful circle of friends here, and it’s great to have you on as I get to fill in for David. Thank you, Jacob. What a great story. And what really struck me about your story was that here you were injured, which with a time of, I’m sure, great despondency, and you turned lemons into lemonade and used that period of time to really educate yourself, accelerated your healing process.
I think. I think it did. It gave me something to do. And as you know, I was sick. I couldn’t go up to pork fest. I’ve been sick again recently, and I have to tell you, during these trials and tribulations, and I know this is the way Ian’s looking at it as well. We’ve spoken about it. You realize that God is involved in something here. And David knight mentioned a man who was put in prison, but he was a Christian, and he realized God put him there so that he could talk to men inside prison about Christ.
He took that understanding that, look, there is a creator. There is someone who’s behind all this. So there’s something going on, and I’ve got to respond and do my best. So, um, yeah, if you got a couple of minutes still, would you. Do you have a handle on what kind of penitentiary he’s in? Ian is in? I couldn’t get a good handle on that. Uh, you know, honestly, I I don’t really know what this level security it is. I’ve never spoken to Bonnie and never spoken to Ian about it. Um, so I will find out for you and.
And let you know about that. Yeah, I’m curious as to whether it’s one of these country club, so called country club penitentiaries or whether it’s something else. I just couldn’t get a handle on that. The image that I got was I could hear his cell echoing when the times we’ve spoken on the phone was that it’s probably not pleasant at all within the realms of the prison system itself, relatively speaking. But I’ll find out. I’ll try to get that info for you and let the audience know, too. Yeah. Yeah. Because if anybody deserved to be in their best facilities, the white collar, country club facilities, it’s Ian Freeman.
And if they haven’t put him in one of those, you can see the vindictiveness is still working. That’s. Yes. Yes. That. That takes my breath away. That’s. We’ll see. I’ll try to find out. But they’re just scorpions. They’re vipers. And. And hopefully, maybe these people will be able to change their ways before they pass on. But Ian stands out. He. He knows. He knows what’s right. And you do. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you, Gardner. Appreciate all your kind words. And thanks for giving me the opportunity to share this horrible miscarriage justice, miscarriage of justice with your listeners.
And it’s remarkable. Great work, fff.org. that’ll be my signal. Obviously, we’ll move along and so on and close up the show. But, Jacob, I can’t think of a better way to fill in for David Knight and close the show. But thanking you again. The hat is off. Thank you so much, Gardner. And I’ll be. I’ll be in touch with you later this afternoon to email you and thank you and stuff, too. Sounds good. Have a happy holiday season. Thank you. Happy Independence Day. Yeah, you got it. Take care. Thanks, Jacob. Oh, good man. Good man. Jacob Hornberger.
What a good guy. All right, so we’re a little bit over time, but I do want to do one thing for you all. Everybody, before we go, I want to give you one last message about freedom and that. Let me see if I can find it. Here comes to us. Let me see. Where is it from? The 10th Amendment center. Do I have it? Oh, I hope I’ve got it. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Okay, so here we go. Here it is. The 10th Amendment centers. Mike Meharry as we sign off and we head over this way. Just remember this, everybody.
This is, at least, construction wise, the way it’s supposed to operate in America under the constitution. I think most people completely miss the most significant part of the Declaration of Independence. We focus on the philosophical stuff at the beginning, that all men are created equal, that we’re endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, and that government should be by consent of the governed. Important stuff. But the most significant part of the declaration is the actual declaration at the end, where Jefferson writes that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states.
The colonies seceded from England as 13 individual nations, they had the same footing as Spain or England, and they had their own sovereignty along the way. The states never gave up that sovereignty. They delegated some power to the central government under the Constitution. But that fundamental aspect that Jefferson laid out, free and independent states never actually change. That is the most significant thing in the Declaration of Independence. Well stated. And to conclude, let’s talk about individual sovereignty. Remember, no state actually has any authority over anyone at all. It is usurped, it is claimed over people. It is operated through acts of violence and threats of aggression.
That is every political unit. The more decentralized they are, the better the system seems to work. When you have written down codes for those decentralized systems, that seems to work better. And if you’ve got real principles based on the golden rule and the Bible, that seems to work better. Don’t forget, for thousands of years the Irish had a decentralized non state system called the Brehon law system. The Vikings had what was called the Goddard system. And of course, the Israelites who escaped from Egypt had their tribal system before they brought in a king. So as the United States shirked off a king hundreds of years ago, on this day, the Declaration of Independence announcing their independence, let’s think about individual independence as well.
And I want to thank you for being there with all of us here on the David Knight show. Thank you to David and to Travis and to everyone. Our guests, Toby and Jacob Hornberger. And I do hope you’ll seek all of those good people out. And of course, I’ll see you tonight on Liberty conspiracy live. Little plug there for 06:00 p.m. and you can follow me. Aardgoldsmith thank you everyone for being here and God bless you all and God bless the knight family. Happy independence day, everyone. Be seeing you. The common man. They created common core to dumb down our children.
They created common past to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future, unsophisticated, ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It’s time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you’ll find@thedavidknightshow.com. thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing.
If you can’t support us financially, please keep us in 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.
