Fri Episode #2134: Trillionaire Musk vs Marxist Mamdani - A False Dichotomy, UBI is Neo-Marxism - The David Knight Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a
revolutionary act. It's the David Knight Show.

Speaker 2 (00:44):
As the clock strikes thirteen, It's Friday, the seventh of November.
You're our Lord, twenty twenty five. Well, today we're going
to begin with the story that was at the top
of the Drudge Report, which is a New York Times
story setting up what they call a split screen on
wealth in America. They said, at the same time we've
elected the first open Marxist mayor of New York, we

(01:08):
now have Elon Musk, who has just gotten his company
to agree to give him a trillion dollar compensation package.
We're going to talk about that because this is about
the clash of economics and politics, and we're going to
move on to civilizational collapse competition as well. Very interesting
take on all this from a Russian philosopher who is

(01:32):
aligned in his thinking with Alexander Dugan. And whether or
not you agree with these guys, we should at least
understand what they think because of the competition, and you
might find some interesting insights in it. We'll be right back.
Stay with us. Well, the New York Times sets up

(02:12):
this trillion dollar pay package for Elon Musk as a dichotomy.
You've got socialism and redistribution of the wealth for the
little guy represented by Mom Danny says The New York Times,
and then out of control capitalism of Elon Musk. Let
me just say, Elon Musk is not a capitalist. Elon

(02:35):
Musk is the king of crony Capitalism. Not the same thing.
This is a I guess we could call this maybe
under Trump. What we do is to call it ballroom capitalism.
This is where the elites go and they pay for
their ticket to the ballroom, pay to build the ballroom

(02:56):
for themselves. They're not building anything for us. Nothing that
they're doing in Washington is being built for us. That
is the perfect symbol. That's your symbol right there, New
York Times. The ballroom. It's where the elites go to
curry favor with the ego and the power trip of
the politicians and give them some money for that, and

(03:17):
then they get massive return on investment. They get a
thousand times whatever they gave. That's ballroom capitalism. That's what
made Elon Musk so wealthy. Elon Musk became the world's
wealthiest man because he was pushing this agenda they wanted
to use for global governance. He pushed the green agenda

(03:38):
and he is still doing it. And when he did
the electric cars, he was the first one to get
there to grab all the subsidies, and he added the
self driving car. That's the issue that I had with it.
Besides the government's deliberately restricting our liberty to choose the
type of car that we want to drive and destroying
our liberty to choose to drive a cheaper car, they

(04:01):
mandate everything to make it expensive. And now they even
mandate the way it's going to be propelled and the
virtue signal while they do that, and then he gets
rich catering to that. It is an agenda for control.
The very first self driving the very first competition of
DARPA was a self driving competition. This is a government

(04:25):
agenda for control. And he's gotten wealthy by focusing on that.
And when you look at the amount of money that
he's going to be making, and it's a tremendous concentration
of wealth. You have the median American incomes around fifty

(04:46):
thousand dollars maybe you know, fifty four to fifty five
something like that. And as a matter of fact, what
he pays his employees median is fifty seven thousand, well
a trillion dollars, making a trillion dollars. That is twenty
million times what an American earns in a year. Think

(05:08):
about that, twenty million Americans. It's their entire salary for
a year going to one guy, and twenty million times
what he pays any of his what he pays his
average employees as well. So he is a king of crony.
Capitalism is an example of the concentration of power, but
so is ma'm donnie. These guys are not polar opposites.

(05:30):
You know, we always have the They always set us
up with this false dichotomy, the Sagelian dialectic. Well, you know,
it's either left or right, and you either have the
this type of thing with Musk, which is not capitalism.
It's certainly not free markets. This is a good government corruption.

(05:51):
And then you have mom Danny who says, well, I
want to help the little guy. I want to provide
all this stuff for him. And Elon Musk comes back
and he says, well, that's the way you do it
is with technology, right, you want to provide healthcare to people,
So do we so, you know, we'll hook you up
to our computer. We'll hook your brain up to our computer,
and we'll do all kinds of things, and we'll have

(06:12):
AI provide health care for you, and the robots will
provide health care for you. They work with each other.
And of course, when he puts everybody out of a job,
he's going to be there, just like mom, Danny. He
wants you to have universal basic welfare. They'll provide housing
for you. It'll be some little garage thing like out

(06:32):
of what was that I always forget the name of that. Sorry,
Steven Spielberg did a movie of it, Ready Player one. Yeah, yeah,
So it'd be your little garage of Ready Player one,
and you'll have your treadmill that makes you feel like
you're walking somewhere with your virtual headset all the rest
of the stuff. They work together, and they're not polar opposites.
They have the same end goal, and the same end

(06:56):
goal is to control you and to passy you. So
Musk is not the opposite of Marxist men, Donnie. They
both have the same ultimate goal. And so they say, well,
you know, in Austin, Texas, the shareholders just bought into
a winner takes all version of capitalism green to give

(07:18):
him a trillion dollars if it meets management goals, and
then he says, halfway across the country, home to Wall
Street Mom. Danny's victory served as a reminder of the
frustrations many Americans have with an economic system that has
left them struggling to afford basics like food, housing, and healthcare. Well,
I'm not an anarchist, but government has become too big,

(07:40):
too concentrated, and uncontrolled. And I'm not a socialist, but
WELP has become too big, too concentrated, and out of control.
And it's not because of this dichotomy, you know. I
mean even libertarian publications like Reason, I said so many
times they look at it. They say, well, government can
do nothing right and corporations can do nothing wrong. And

(08:02):
the Democrats are just the opposite, right, corporations can never
do anything right and government can never do anything wrong.
What they both don't talk about is the fact that
they have merged. We have that fascist merger, a big government,
big corporations, and big billionaires, and we're going to get
a technocracy good and hard. Because we don't understand that.

(08:24):
Progressives like mister mom Danny a democratic socialist who are
calling for something more kin to the social welfare systems
of Western Europe. Yeah, well, we're talking about universal basic income.
You know those STEMI checks that Trump started conditioning us with,
and the fact that prior to that Musk gave a
million dollars to Andrew Yang, who is going to focus

(08:47):
his campaign for presidency around the idea of universal basic income.
That's universal basic welfare, folks, this is welfare for everybody,
control for everybody. So again the Marxist versus George Gilder
calls the neo Marxist, it's a false dichotomy. These people

(09:09):
are just coming at it from a different angle, coming
at it with a different way to market this. It's
a musk similar to an earlier pay plan that he had,
a twelve step package. This will be to vastly expand
first of all, the stock markets valuation from its current

(09:30):
one and a half trillion to eight point five trillion,
while hitting a variety of other goals, including selling a
million robots with human like qualities, ten million paid subscriptions
to the self driving software, and again when you look
at self driving software, robots to replace people at work,
it's all about It's all a system of pacification and control.

(09:55):
That's why I say Musk is not the antithesis of
Mom Danny as a New Times will like you to
think they're on the same page. They have different tactics.
Some investors, including the board that oversees fartest public pension fund,
hailed the trillion dollar pay plan as a way to
motivate mister Musk. Yeah, he needs to be motivated. He's

(10:16):
got so much money. How are we going to motivate him? Well,
let's go for trillion dollars. How in the world could
he ever spend that? Again, that's twenty million times what
the median American makes in a year. Those who claim
the plan is too large ignore the scale of ambition
that is historically defined Tesla's trajectory, said the farda state

(10:39):
board of administration and a filing describing why it voted
for Musk's pay plan. A company that went from near
bankruptcy to global leadership and EVS and clean energy. There
you go, right there, crony capitalism. They're nearly bankrupt until
they decided we can tap into this un agenda and

(11:00):
the government will pay us handsomely. To try to make
this thing look real and what does it involved? And
involves taking away your ability to your liberty to drive yourself,
to own a car that you choose to have. And
with energy, you know, clean energy, well you can have

(11:21):
clean energy. It's not the sources that we had were clean.
Problem was for them that it was abundant, affordable and
reliable and they don't want us to have any of that.
They want it to be unreliable, unaffordable, and you're going
to wind up. He's got a big investment in that.

(11:41):
These battery energy storage sites, these massive lithium battery sites
to back up the grid. What a Rube Goldberg of
a design, if ever there was one, and it really
think about the fire hazard that that presents to people.
He's only had one of these catch fire. One of
the first as he put out in Australia caught fire.

(12:03):
Fortunately for the people in Australia it was not It
was out in the desert, away from population, in areas,
away from trees and that type of thing. But here
they want to put them in neighborhoods. I want to
put them in heavily forested areas. And we know what's
going to happen with that, but they don't care. Well,
our lives be better when he makes a trillion dollars

(12:24):
when he does these new inventions. Will they be better
when electricity is unreliable, unaffordable and an imminent fire hazard,
when we can't drive cars, when we don't have jobs
because of his robots, will not make life better. So
the concentration of power and wealth and to this technocracy

(12:44):
of surveillance is something that the neo Marxist as well
as the Marxist one allows them to have to tolitary
and authoritarian government. The plan is structured in such a
way that if mister Musk makes money, the companies investors do.
Point that fund manager Kathy Wood made on social media,
I don't understand why investors are voting against Elon's pay

(13:06):
package when they and their clients had benefit enormously if
he and his incredible team meet such high goals. And
again it's the same kind of partnership with government that
has made him the king of crony capitalism. And so
you had pension funds in New York and California and
the Pope pushing back on this and saying, well, we're

(13:28):
just against this because they don't want this kind of
concentration of wealth. I don't know what we do about it,
quite frankly, because you know, when you look at France
has got not just a minimum wage, they've got a
maximum wage law. And it's not all that high, I
don't think, and I mean, it's not for billionaires or
trillionaires or anything like that. And you know that's what

(13:50):
would happen if you put on a compensation package limit,
if you say you can't make a trillion dollars or
billion dollars whatever, start out at a really high number,
and before you know it, it's going to be down
really low. And I don't want to give that kind
of power to government either. I don't know what we
do with this, quite frankly. I do have an idea,

(14:10):
and I'll tell you about it in a moment. But
he says his humanoid robot Optimus, is the singular solution
for addressing poverty. In other words, there's no other solution. No,
he's got another solution that's universal basic income. And so
the robot will do all the work. The robot will

(14:32):
be your caretaker, your companion and so forth, and pacify you,
and they will put the money out there. And again,
as I pointed out, you had all these mayors in
New York, like Bloomberg excuse me, working working with Sadiq
Khan to set up this green agenda the fort so

(14:56):
you can't you have. Cars are banned, meet is banned,
milk is banned, travel is mostly banned. One trip every
three years less than a thousand miles, and three items
of clothing that you can have every year. I mean
that kind of austerity imposed on people for control, and
they measure everything that you buy and do. And that

(15:18):
came to us from Bloomberg. Deblasio is an open Marxist campaign.
He honeymooned in Cuba with Castro. I mean, this is
not something that is new in terms of Mam Donnie
for New York. They've been going down this path for
a very long time, and there's a lot of people

(15:40):
who believe that he's going to take it to the
extreme to show that it doesn't work. I think we
can already see that it doesn't work in New York,
and I think that they may be setting up expectations
there will be some limits as to what he can
actually put in and when everything he doesn't collapse in
New York as badly as and as quickly as a

(16:04):
lot of people who are Republicans and conservatives are predicting
it will happen, then people are going to say, see,
you said it was going to be hard, what's they're here?
And so I think that they're setting up expectations that
are going to fail, and it's going to help to
make him look good. So mus says, yeah, the only
solution for addressing poverty is the humanoid robot. He may

(16:28):
be confusing his wealth with everybody else's wealth, he said.
People talk about eliminating poverty and giving everybody amazing health care.
Well there's actually only one way to do that with
the optimist robot and get your brain ship as well
while you're at it, and he will have complete control
over you, and he'll sell that to the government, just

(16:49):
as he sold us to the government throughout all this stuff.
Other opponents said the plan's terms allowed to test the
board of directors so much leeway that they could award
Musk the shape even if he doesn't achieve the product goals.
And it's kind of interesting, you know, he's in Texas now,
headquartered there because like most people do that, most people
for whatever reason, they incorporate in Delaware, and there was

(17:14):
a Delaware judge there that shut down the compensation package
as being excessive. And again, I don't think the government
should be telling people how much money they have to make.
I don't believe the government should be telling corporations how
much money they have to pay. I think they'll leave
that as a decision for the people who are paying
and the people who are working. But that was a

(17:36):
one hundred and twenty eight billion dollar compensation package, one
eighth of what this is. The judge says, no, you
can't have it. So must say, all right, I'm moving
the company to Texas from Delaware. And he's not going
to have a problem with that. So again, you know,
we're going to have a maximum wage law. I don't
support that either. I just you know, the people who

(17:58):
founded this country, who put this together, John Adams, so
of course you're familiar with this. Our constitution was made
only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
unacceptable for the government of any other. You know, you
can't have the liberty that comes with the constitution in republic,
the rule of law and Bill of rights and things

(18:20):
like that. You can't have that. If you have clumps
of idolatrous people like Maga, like Antifaw, these people who
want to give absolute power and authority to institutions or
to people who worship people who worship institutions, you can't
do that. And with this constitution it doesn't work. That's

(18:44):
why we are feeling because we are no longer a
moral and religious people. We have cut God out, and
so the practical aspects of that, the fruit of that,
we are reaping what we have sown. But more than that,
God has a hand in this. He is still active
in the affairs of men, as Benjamin Franklin said, and

(19:09):
his judgment, his hand of judgment is on this country,
and you can see it. That's what I see when
I see Musk and mom Danny. I don't see Agelian
dialectic between socialism and capitalism. I see the hand of
God and judgment. Because our country no longer is structured

(19:29):
to where it can have liberty and freedom. That's something
that only belongs to a moral and virtuous people, people
who follow Christ. If you don't do that, you're not
going to have those blessings. So people like Bannon, those
people who are cheering the Vininam murder on the high

(19:50):
seas that Trump is engaged in. They want empire, they
want a caesar. They have sold themselves this idea that
the American Empire is gonna last forever. They sold themselves
on the idea that their caesar is going to live forever. Trump, Yeah,
we're gonna have all these different terms. We're gonna have
them in a third term, four term. He's showing signs

(20:11):
of his age, and they are ignoring the failing help
of both empire and emperor. That's the reality of where
we are today, and it's a sad situation. The good
news is is that, yes, there are certain aspects of

(20:32):
life here that are collective. You know, when Israel's captive
in Babylon, God's advice to them was, he said, I
know the plans I have for you to prosper, not
to harm. He said, seek the welfare of the place
that you're in. So we try to seek the welfare
as best we can of this place that we're temporarily in.

(20:54):
But it's not ultimately what we're looking for. And so
we do we do benefit or suffer based on what
happens to this country that we're in. But we have
a direct relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ if you're
a Christian, and that makes all the difference in the world.

(21:14):
But I want to talk about this perspective of this
is Constantin von Hoffmeister. He's German, and he calls this
philosophy of civilization's multipolarity, and he's kind of an intellectual
disciple of Alexander Dugan. And it's important to get these perspectives,

(21:39):
whether or not we agree with him, whether or not
they're right, because this is the perspective of Putin and
the Russian government as well. And this is an essay
that was featured in RT so as the current age
or turmoil defines civilization's role in the new World. The
Ukrainian Front extends the great decolonization wave the twentieth and

(22:00):
twenty first century, and he says, in the twilight of
the Unipolar age, the illustration of Western permanence begins to fracture.
The world that once moved to the beat of Washington's
decrees now quivers under the emergence of new centers of gravity.
The decisive variables remain Western, the electoral appetites, the donor webs,

(22:23):
the ideological blindness, the dread of forfeiting planetary control. But
he said the trans oceanic fraternity of power, stretching from
Anglo America to Brussels, crowns its dominance with a halo
of virtue. Alexander Dugan always talks about the Anglo American Atlanticism.

(22:44):
He calls it seeing the American Empire as a continuation
of the British Empire, the torch being handed over, and
how they're both sea powers in contrast to Russia being
a land power. The peril remains constant. Each side holds
apocalyptic force. The issue lies in channeling power towards equilibrium

(23:07):
rather than to ruin. Western Europe's tragedy flows from its obedience.
It is now a vassal state of Atlantic of America.
It is bleeding industry, bleeding sovereignty, and bleeding posterity while
claiming strength through sacrifice. A wiser Europe would seek reconciliation

(23:30):
with Russia, restoring dignity and production, instead of performing martyrdom
for American strategy. Western Europe's impotence reveals itself most clearly
in Germany. Once the beating heart of continental industry, it
now functions as a workshop under foreign supervision, Its factories falter,

(23:50):
its trains stall, its engineers immigrate, and its leaders confuse
submission with virtue. The moralism of its elites replace strategy.
Before twenty twenty two, Germany drew most of its gas
from Russia. It was steep, cheap, it was steady, and
it was continental. Today, a civilization once famed for precision

(24:13):
runs on gas drawn from Norwegian depths and American tanks,
symbols of a continent that traded energy sovereignty for ideological purity.
Europe watches its engine fade, its self respect drain away,
and its destiny outsourced to powers that view the continent
as both buffet and buffer. That's pretty interesting, in other words,

(24:38):
of feeding off of Europe even as we use them
as a buffer between the struggle between America and Russia.
That's what he says. The danger grows sharper through weapons
that erase time, long range Tomahawk systems, compressed reaction windows
to seconds, berthing a use it or Lose it tension

(25:00):
where one error may unleash the abyss. Economically, seizing Russia's
reserves would bury the myth of a rules based order.
A fiction that's been crafted by the West to mask
privilege as principle. Such robbery would expose the global financial
system as an imperial tool rather than a neutral platform. Well,

(25:20):
I think that has already happened. People already understand. That's
why there's the big flight away from the dollar towards
gold and other things like that, because people have seen
that it is a tool of imperialism. With the sanctions
and the confiscations that have happened, that is what is fueling.
You know, we talk about multi multipolarity. The bricks is

(25:43):
the financial aspect of that context concerns the authorship of modernity,
whether the future belongs to self determining cultures or to
an Atlanticist imperium that masks dominance as democracy. So he says,
the collapse of nineteen ninety one from the Russian perspective,

(26:05):
marked the Versailles of the East. And of course the
Treaty of Versailles was a thing that took the punitive measure,
took everything from the Germans after World War One, and
laid the foundation for Hitler's rise to power. So this
is the Russian perspective again. Don't ignore it, don't be

(26:25):
ignorant of it, whether or not you agree with it.
This is where they're coming from. So he said, what
happened in nineteen ninety one was a Versailles for the East.
It imposed a piece of humiliation and fragmentation when empire
gave way to dependency, and that wound became the seed
of restoration. The Ukrainian Front thus extends the great decolonization

(26:50):
wave of the twenty and twenty first century, Eurasia liberating
itself from the ideological and financial hegemony of the West,
as Africa and Asia once freed them from colonial rule,
reclaiming the right to define its own history, geography, and destiny.
And then he portrays the communist imperialism in a mask

(27:12):
of virtue. Listen to this, he said. Russia's story becomes
the anti imperialist mirror to Western propaganda. The former empire,
born of revolution once carried the liberation to the Third World,
going to Havana, Hanoi, Adis Adaba and so forth. That
is not what the Russians were doing. Of course, they

(27:32):
had their own little imperial game that they were playing,
and they were not freedom lovers, liberators. They didn't liberate
their own people. They murdered them in numbers that we've
never seen before. So again I said, you're not to
agree with this is a false dichotomy that he's putting
out there. But from their perspective, a part of it

(27:54):
is true. There is an American empire that is not
going to be satisfied unless it had everything.

Speaker 3 (28:01):
They'll tell you the truth about their enemies, because why
wouldn't they.

Speaker 2 (28:04):
Yeah, that's right. Yeah, just like the government is not
satisfied unless it has total totalitarian control, Musk is not
satisfied unless he's got not just a little bit more
like John d Rockefell, but a lot more. They there's
it's never enough. It's not enough to be the world's
richest man, the richest man in history. He's got to

(28:27):
get a trillion dollar compensation package. The West, which once
preached freedom, now administers obedience. True, Russia wants the axis
of revolt now stands as they still point in a
turning world. And so that is the he's trying to
claim that virtue there. But understand how the globalist agenda

(28:51):
is coming after everybody. I mean, these these fault lines
of East versus West, Land versus Sea Atlantis for says,
you know, communists, these are false dichotomies that are always
put out there when you look at what is really happening.
The agenda for climate change is still going on and

(29:12):
they're about to have their thirtieth meeting about this COP thirty,
but it is really starting to scrape the bottom of
the barrel. Nevertheless, there are places who are to still
alive and kicking, like the UK for example. The UK
with all of their financial problems at home and all
of their de industrialization where they can't make anything anymore,

(29:35):
they are squandering what little wealth they have remaining in
terms of contributing to the Green Climate Fund to the UK.
The Green Climate Fund is a global fund. It got
two point six billion dollars of UK taxpayer money. What
do they do with it? They destroyed Ugandan villages in
order to fight climate change. This is the imperial of

(30:00):
global governance and it's disguised as green virtue. So this
aid project was supposed to help you ganden farmers deal
with the impact of climate change. They were dealing with
it just fine, but the reality saw their crops and
their homes destroyed and an inhuman project that left them

(30:21):
on the brink of starvation. Local government officials were guarded
by armed security forces who raised the crops, trees and
homes as they claim to be rewilding wetland in a
project run by the Green Climate Fund. So the same
type of thing that they're doing in the UK. They're

(30:41):
literally going into the UK and destroying raising their infrastructure,
digging up gas lines and all the rest of the stuff,
so people can no longer have gas seat You're going
to have to have electrical everything, electrical cooking, electrical heating,
the rest of it.

Speaker 3 (30:58):
I think this really shows that they're there is no
level that you can reach where they'll say, Okay, now
you're green. You can have a little village in Uganda
with I can't imagine these were big quote unquote carbon footprints.
It's going to be a few farmers subsisting barely off

(31:19):
of it, but they'll still come in and raise it
to the ground. If they can profit off of that
at all.

Speaker 2 (31:24):
That's right. They'll probably engaged in very labor intensive, simple
farming that's been done for millennia and has not destroyed
the earth, so they'll focus on them. This is not saying, well,
you guys are using a lot of chemicals and you're
using big, expensive equipment and tractors and things that know
they're not using any of that. And the UK government

(31:44):
is not content to sacrifice its own people. It goes
abroad looking for people to sacrifice. Meanwhile, Bill Gates is
not the only one who's ditching the Climate initiative. Governments
are still going at it as we see. But Bill
Gates and eight hundred and ninety three companies have ditched it,

(32:07):
and they're calling for a quote, a return to economic rationality.
Nearly nine hundred companies, including dozens of large international corporations,
have quietly withdrawn from the science based targeted initiative. The
move is being touted as an overdue return to economic
common sense. Yet it makes sense, however, for Musk to

(32:28):
continue doing what he's doing. So I became the world's
wealthiest man, and he's now got a scheme which is
frightening in its extent and its stupidity. He wants to
put a massive amount thousands of satellites. First of you
got thousands of satellites for his communication network. Now he

(32:49):
wants thousands of satellites more for solar power and to
block out the sun. So he's going to block out
the sun and to cool the plant it and then
they will get the solar energy converted to electricity and
dole it out to us via microwaves and lasers.

Speaker 3 (33:09):
Walk out the sun quote unquote to cool the planet
while also presumably making it much harder to farm.

Speaker 2 (33:14):
That's right, that's right. I mean, what could go wrong
with this? What could go right with it? Actually we
should look at it, but understand the perspective here. This
is a guy, the world's first trillionaire, who wants to
own the sun and dole it out to us for
a fee. That's what putting these satellites up there about.
And of course he's involved in politics, not as a

(33:37):
distraction from Tesla, but as a way to make all
this stuff possible. And so Gates, however, is going to
move to the health of mcguffin because he's all about
population control. Population control has two aspects to it now,
depopulation and surveillance. And so he's all about the global

(33:58):
ID as well as the vaccine. He says, I'm moving
from this doomsday scenario to focus on improving human welfare
and fighting poverty. There's your ID, your government ID, and
preventing d disease. So that's your vaccinate everybody, right, that's

(34:18):
where he's headed. Meanwhile, this is an op ed piece
on Daily Skeptic. A person says, I don't want six
hundred illegal migrants moving into my town. They said there's
a military former military camp there that they're talking about
using to house six hundred migrants. Well that's really fitting, Yeah, exactly. Yeah,

(34:38):
it's an invading army. It's an invasion. Camps in Crowborough
and Inverness were identified for initial placements. Those who haven't
heard of Crowborough in East Sussex, where I live, will
be rather more familiar with AA Milne's Winny of the
Peoh stories, which are based in and around the Ashdown Forest,

(34:58):
a large area of twin tranquil open heathland one hundred
acre would right, Crowborough.

Speaker 3 (35:04):
Is six hundred migrant wood.

Speaker 2 (35:09):
Yeah, deep in the six hundred migrant forests where Winny
of the Food used to live. Crowborough itself is a mild,
mellow Sussex town lying to the south of better known
Tunbridge Wells, and largely comprises attractive housing for families whose
children attend seven primary schools and one large secondary school.

(35:31):
Shockwaves therefore reverberated around the town last week when word
spread via social media rather than any official statement, that
Crowborough Army Training Camp had been requisitioned by the Home
Office to house six hundred illegal migrants. So again the
government doesn't even inform them, it spreads around word of mouth.

(35:55):
Residents feel impotent in the face of decisions made by
official bodies, with Crowborough's situation being a microcosm of the
situation in our country. Even as the six hundred migrants
are transported to the camp from Manston Arrival and Processing Center,
given fair weather, another six hundred plus will arrive across

(36:15):
the Channel, where will they go? As the Home Office
scours the country for other facilities to requisition, hotels will
still be filled, HMOs will still be acquired, and communities
like this Sussex country town will be browbeaten by officialdom
into accepting even more. From being a facility to prepare

(36:36):
troops to defend our country, Crowborough Camp will become a
center for large number of foreign individuals of unknown providence
and intention. Such is the irony of the situation. Well,
I always say it's not so much irony as it
is betrayal in hypocrisy. The government knows fully well what

(36:58):
it is doing. That's why it did make any official announcement.
And as you point out, Lance, that is suiting because
this is an invading army. Unlike when Rome fell, you
now have the government inviting the barbarians in because the
government is the fifth column. The government is the major

(37:20):
trader in every one of our countries. And if you
don't believe that, look at twenty twenty. Look at every
single government did what that trader, Donald Trump did, Benedict Donald.
These people are the fifth column. They seek to destroy us.
It's entirely self evident that as long as our borders

(37:42):
are uncontrolled, the influx will continue unabated, more and more
of our country towns will be placed in a comparable situation.
So the Green agenda, the open borders, the concentration of
power in government, the concentration of wealth, and the crony
capitalist billionaire Stanford is under investigation for a secret screen,

(38:03):
a secret scheme help foreign governments censor Americans. We'll get
in line, right. You know, everyone hates the First Amendment.
Every country is looking for ways that they can destroy
freedom of speech and freedom of thought, freedom of religion.
And this is what we see in America. As well

(38:24):
with both conservatives and liberals.

Speaker 3 (38:26):
And the organization that's heavily funded by taxpayer money is
still going to We just lost power.

Speaker 1 (38:35):
Right analyzing the globalists. Next move. You're listening to the

(40:39):
David Knight Show.

Speaker 4 (40:50):
I was working on the news late one night for
my eyes beheld, then aeriecipher for the Monster's hen rehearse.
To my surprise, the tactics to inject what they divide
the job, the monster.

Speaker 1 (41:06):
Is the Jab.

Speaker 4 (41:09):
The spikes a graveyard stand. I caught on in a flash.
The job, the monster is the Jab. From the labs
in the castle east to the FDA where farm of
vampires feast. The gools rehearsed before nine one.

Speaker 2 (41:27):
One had to poison us, which is what they've done.

Speaker 1 (41:32):
Job the monster is the Jaz monster.

Speaker 2 (41:35):
Job.

Speaker 4 (41:36):
The Spike's a graveyard stands. He'll put you on a slab.
The job, The monster is the Jab. Big Pharma was
having fun. The party had just begun. The guests included
Fauci Donald, then Biden, who scene is a lockdown. All

(42:01):
we're fearing the news supply chains were broken. We were
singing the blues. The coffins. They told us we're about
drive you can see it all on channel five. Jab
the monster is the jaz Jab. The spikes a graveyard stab,
It'll put you on a slab.

Speaker 1 (42:23):
It is the Jab.

Speaker 4 (42:24):
The monster is the Jab. From the Oval office, his
voice did ring. Hospital cash registers.

Speaker 1 (42:32):
Went a ching.

Speaker 4 (42:33):
When people caught on to keep on the lift, they said,
whatever happened to the Wuhan Lab is the job? The
monster is the Jab, Monster Jack, the spikes a graveyard stab,
He'll put you on a slab. The job. The monster
is the Jab. Now a very hidings cool Livelyak's.

Speaker 1 (42:56):
Part of the plan. Their alibi echoes through out the lamb.

Speaker 2 (43:01):
For you living.

Speaker 4 (43:02):
They will try it again when they get to tell
Big Pharma, no mas Ja.

Speaker 2 (43:09):
The monster is the Jab.

Speaker 4 (43:12):
The spikes of the graveyard stand. It'll put you on
a slab.

Speaker 2 (43:19):
The monster is the Jab. So I think we're back now.

(43:45):
And that was kind of strange. We had all the
lights went off, and yet it appeared because of ups
we had continued the stream some sense, but we still
had to reboot some other computers in order to get
this going again. So I apologize for then. I don't
know what that was about. I guess we just had
a temporary power glitch that lasted for about thirty seconds. Here,

(44:06):
let's see, so we were talking about Jim Jordan and
he's going to ride to the rescue the grand master
of circus performing and grand standing, Jim Jordan had another hearing,
and of course what they're doing is they're focusing on
this Stanford Cyber Policy Center and they said, you were
censoring people and the behest of foreign governments. What foreign

(44:30):
government would that be? Well, yeah, the EU, Australia and
others want to censor our free speech. They want to
control the Internet, and so they don't want to have
a free internet in the US either. But it seems
to me like they were publicly talking about how one
particular foreign government, Israel, wanted to shut down anybody who

(44:51):
criticized it. First they play the race card and say,
if you criticize this foreign government, you're racist, your anti semitic.
But then they got Trump to punish universities where they
had people protesting and punish the people who are doing it.
And you had people like Randy Fine and DeSantis ramping

(45:15):
up hate speech laws to censor speech. And so it
seems to me like what is missing out of this
is the elephant in the room coming after our speech
is the government of Israel, that foreign government that has
bought our government and controls it completely. We have been

(45:36):
sold out to foreign interests. And of course you can
add to that Ukraine, in Argentina as well. These people
get massive amounts of taxpayer money. They channel a good
deal bit background politicians. They're allowed to do whatever they
wish and they direct in order people as to what
to do. As a matter of fact, they just came
out last couple of days they were bragging about how

(46:00):
Miriam Adelson's husband I freak of what his first name
was now anyway, Adelson the casino owner. He would come
in in Sheldon, thank you. It'd come in and bring
these politicians together and say, now, this is what needs
to be done. They're openly talking about this. You know,
you used to be if you said that, you were
accused of being anti Semitic, saying Jews run the world. Well,

(46:24):
Jews don't run the world necessarily, it's Israel that does.
And you've got a disproportionate number of Jews for whatever reason,
that run the media, Hollywood and other things. They brag
about it. But then if you say, what they say,
then you are a racist. Of course, right, and so,
according to Jordan, the roundtable's keynote speaker was Julie Enman,

(46:49):
the Australian e Safety Commissioner, who is explicitly argued that
governments have the authority to demand and enforce global takedowns
of content. The European Union, the UK, Australia, Brazil by
hosting this event designed to encourage and facilitate censorship compliance
with regulators from Australia, Brazil, the EU, and the UK.

(47:11):
Stanford is working with foreign censorship officials to vitiate the
First Amendment. Yeah, just ignore the in your face actions
from APAK and Israel demanding the things that have already
been put into law by the GOP in some places.
So everybody hates the First Amendment. The left hates it,

(47:33):
the right hates it, and they've all got their different
reasons for it. The question is, whenever you look at
somebody who wants to censor, it's always the people who
are doing something wrong that they don't want you talking about.
In twenty twenty three, the Cyber Policy Center was caught
covering up and lying about the work of the US
Department of homeland security under the Biden administration. So now

(47:53):
make it partisan. This is what is so pathetic about
the Republicans. They won't just stand there for free space
each instead of what they'll do as a dog and
pony show saying, look, the EU wants to take our speech.
And of course, yeah, Ursula fond of lying wants to
shut down free speech. It's all about controlling speech on
the Internet for her, and it is for the Israelis

(48:16):
as well. They have basically identified themselves as what they
are when they do that. So Stanford Internet Observatory, that's
collaborating on shutting down free speech. And of course it's
not just them, they've been one of the key ones
to do it. There's also another one that operates out

(48:36):
of Indiana University. I think maybe Indiana University of University
of Indiana. It's where they had the the Masters and
Johnson people whatever the sex studies that were done. Kinsey
Institute was out of there. It's an Indiana university and

(48:56):
conservative Indiana, and so they brought a guy over from
Italy to work in the Kinsey Institute and then they
put him in charge of censoring people. And that all
came to light when they censored eight hundred different organizations
off of social media just before the midterms in twenty eighteen,

(49:21):
and right after they had censored US at info Wars
in the beginning of August of twenty eighteen, and it
was Indiana that was heavily involved in that deeplatforming. And
so foreign governments are really pushing hard on this, as
are the American governments, and they are just going to
hold these dog and pony shows, but they're not going

(49:44):
to do anything for free speech. As a matter of fact,
you know, Hollywood didn't have free speech initially. As I
pointed out a very early movie back in the regime
of Woodrow Wilson, when he's trying to get us into
war along with Britain. You had a guy who had
worked with D. W. Griffin on Birth of a Nation,

(50:06):
and he did a movie then about the Revolutionary War,
the Spirit of seventy six, and the Woodrow Wilson administration
went it censored. He put out an uncensored version, they
put him in jail, gave him a massive fine of
ten thousand dollars. And this is before the Federal Reserve
destroyed like ninety nine percent of the dollars value. So
that was a massive fine. And they didn't enact free

(50:31):
speech protections for Hollywood until nineteen fifty two, so Hollywood
has their free speech. I think this is a good
example of why you don't need to fear free speech.
Hollywood has the worst weekend box office of the year.
They're making movies that they want to make. Their movies

(50:53):
are hateful, they're perverted, whatever, But the marketplace is speaking.
Hollywood is disappearing, and so I think we do not
need to worry about bad speech. We need to have
alternatives to it really dying.

Speaker 3 (51:12):
It's not going to be too much longer before these
AI tools make it accessible to the average person to
make movies along the quality well production quality that they
can do. I think the average person can already do
a better quality movie than the average Hollywood movie.

Speaker 2 (51:27):
Yeah. Yeah, The issue was the production values and the
look of the film, and that's the leveling of the
playing field that AI brings. And you know, the storyline
is just not there. Storyline is not anything that anybody
wants to see. As a matter of fact, We're going
to take a quick break, folks, and we will be
right back when you come back. I want to talk

(51:48):
about the arguments before the Supreme Court about Trump's tariffs.
It didn't go too well, and there was a very
interesting discussion about the concentration of power. We'll be right back.

Speaker 1 (53:38):
You're listening to the David Knight Show.

Speaker 5 (53:43):
If you like the Eagles, does the cars and Huey
Lewis in the news, They's say the Hotter You'll love
the Classic Hits channel at APS Radio, download our app
or listen now at APS Radio Dot.

Speaker 2 (54:01):
Well, before I get into the Scotis arguments about the
tariffs and Trump's tariff tantrums, and I'm going to do
that before I get into economics, but I just want
to go back and pick up these comments here. By
the way, for those of you who are wondering where
Travis is today, he and his wife are on their

(54:22):
way back to Texas, where they're going to be for
a week or so. Just had the first birthday of
his son, as you guys saw yesterday, and they want
to take him back to Texas for a brief visit.
He'll be joining us from Texas once he gets there,
but he's on his way back. So I took the
show today and I just want to think This is

(54:46):
from our producer Lance, who says right overtrere gifted a
sub on Rumble yesterday. Thank you very much. I appreciate
your support. You really do appreciate your support and really
do need it. Thank you. KWD sixty eight says st
Comported and Partnered Corporations. Hitler would be proud exactly. Yeah,
he said, that's the problem that Stalin has done. The communists.

(55:07):
They want to take over everything and run everything, and
they don't know how to run it. So he said,
I'll run it until I get what I want and
then I'll take it from them eventually.

Speaker 3 (55:17):
That's the whole It works until you run out of
other people's money. Socialism. Let's not forget that Hitler was
a socialist, that's right, and this is the type of
government that these people want to implement.

Speaker 2 (55:28):
Yeah, it's just you know, the order in which they
take everything from you, you wind up in the same
place they come back. They come at you with different
tactics and different philosophies, different lies that they tell you.
But the Nazis and the Fascists are not opposites of
the Communists. Antiphi doesn't understand what they're doing, and people

(55:48):
who support that are supporting a totlitarian government. Both of
them are to tolitarian governments. They just take you there
in a different way, with different lives.

Speaker 3 (55:58):
Hitler wanted a national socialist government, which meant the entire
world under the flag of Germany in a Nazi regime.
These antipap people want a globalist that socialist government, which
is the exact same thing, only except under a UN
or some other such flag.

Speaker 2 (56:18):
That's right, And that's the reason why you have the
people on the left whenever they see somebody who's patriotic, oh,
you're a fascist, right, because Hitler was nationalistic and Stalin
was internationalistic, and you know, he wanted a global empire
in essence. You know, their anthem or their theme song

(56:38):
wasn't the Empire strikes bag, but it was the internationale. Yeah,
that's what they're saying. And I'll never forget taking careen
to see Reds, which was Warren Beatty and Diane Keaton
who just recently passed away, and it's one of the
most disgusting movies I've ever seen. It was the first
movie I got up and walked out of. Just couldn't
believe that they were making a hero out of these communists,

(57:01):
but of course it was Hollywood, so yeah, believe it.
Wally wallras, the cars drive themselves, and we're getting priced
out of driving with insurance rates that are going through
the roof. Absolutely right. I wonder what kind of insurance
break the self driving car companies get. They don't have
such a good driving record. Actually, and I said before,
when I look at them, I think of my friend

(57:23):
that I carpooled with for a short, very short period
of time because I didn't want to stay in the
car with her. She had missed a couple of different
semesters from a massive car accident that she'd had, and
she was absolutely the worst driver I've ever been in
a car with, and the slowest driver is always think

(57:43):
about her. When I watched these self driving cars trying
to navigate a four way stop or something like that,
I was car pulling with her from Tampa to Saint
Petersburg and I said, well, I think I'm going to
just drive myself and I'm going to got an apartment
stayed in Saint Pete. I didn't like the commute anyway,

(58:05):
Will says, so I get to stay home and get
high on drugs and get a check. That's what you
BEI is correct, Yep, that's right, Just like the semi check.
Everybody got a little taste of that, and they saw
how well that worked. It was a successful test, and
they're going to do it again.

Speaker 3 (58:21):
And if you want to see what that looks like,
just look at the Indian reservations or any push.

Speaker 2 (58:27):
Yes, and I pointed that out. You know, we look
at we think, well, you know, this happened here the
Indian reservations. That's exactly what they did. They took away
their ability to be independent. Right. They weren't necessarily out
there farming in the way that we farmed, but they
were nomadic and they were hunters and gathers and that
type of thing. Took that away from them, put them

(58:48):
on a reservation, locked them in and fed them. And
look at how destructive that was of their happiness and
that type of thing. And then we did it again.
We did it with the Japanese and tournament camps. And
so you know, when you have this history, We've got
a long history of things like that in the US.
Don't tell me it's not going to happen here. And

(59:08):
when I look at these freedom cities, that's what I
see in Indian Reservation, and it's it's going to be
done again. They're going to try to do it anyway.
If I tire at seventeen seventy six mice, State of
Virginia is now one hundred percent condest it is. And again,
just wait till you see what happens next year with

(59:29):
the is it next year? No, it will be. Is
it next year? I think it is next year the midterms.
Wait till you see what happens. It's going to be
a huge route. Trump is energizing the left in a
way that has never been done before. And these people
are fooling themselves into thinking that the No King's rally

(59:50):
was a AstroTurf rally by Soros. It was not. They
don't realize just how angry Trump has made them. They
hate him personally, but they also hate his policies. And
he is stoking this in your face attitude with Ice
and the rest of them, And so get prepared for
a big blowback. And he's going to deliver us into

(01:00:12):
the hands of the communists. That's what he's going to do.
KWD sixty eight. I forgot what part of South America
there was a conference center built for climate meetings. They
cut hundreds of acres of rainforest. Yes we're going to
be talking about that coming up, and hundreds of acres
of it was like one hundred miles actually, I think
of trees that they cut down for a road to

(01:00:35):
go to this climate conference. COP thirty. That's your environmentalism
for you. But of course they had already made the
leap to say that trees are now a problem because
although the trees take out the carbon dioxide, they say, well,
they become a source of carbon, and then when they decay,
they become first they're a carbon sink, and then when

(01:00:57):
they die and they're cut down, they release all that
stuff like, well, yeah, we're not even going to be
able to make a house out of it.

Speaker 3 (01:01:03):
So are they going to apologize for all their tree
planting initiatives or were those all nonsense?

Speaker 2 (01:01:07):
Anyway? It was all nonsense anyway. That was the indulgence.
You had to pay an indulgence to the globalist governments
in order to engage in any activity. And they plant
a tree for you. Who needs the environmental scam? And
you've got a far more profitable medical scam. That's right.
It gives them all the different things that they want
to do, and people will fall for that. Unlike the

(01:01:29):
climate stuff. People see the stupidity of the climate. But
when you get sick or there's a threat that you
might get sick, people will fall for it. As we
saw during twenty twenty, work like a charm. R. Gandan's
homemade wooden hoe was responsible for the deforestation. He must
be shown the way carbon zero. Yeah. Why do a

(01:01:49):
bunch of nihilists care if the climate changes? Well, they don't.
It's always been an excuse for depopulation.

Speaker 3 (01:01:55):
Yeah, but it is also it's these people that want
depopulation that are pushing it. It kind of shows like,
if you really think this is going to cause mass extinctions,
shouldn't you be supporting that since that's your stated goal.

Speaker 2 (01:02:09):
Yeah, but they don't want us to know that's what
the real goal is. Brian dev McCartney is this live today?
I thought it was replay. No, it is live. I'm here.
See if I pinch myself, I feel it. Let's talk
a little bit about the tariff tantrums that are in
front of the Supreme Court. Now. They heard arguments on
Wednesday and the Supreme Court justices were very, very skeptical

(01:02:34):
of the arguments that were being presented by the Trump lawyer.
Both conservative and liberal justices sharply questioned Solicitor General d
John Sower. They soured on sour lawer. Federal courts ruled
that Trump lacked the legal authority that he cited under
the International Emergency's Economic Powers Act HYPA to impose the

(01:02:57):
so called reciprocal tariffs on imports so many US trading
partners and fenttal tariffs on products from Canada, China, Mexico.
It's so patently absurd, and I was entertained to see
to hear the transcripts. They had audio of some of
the questioning there. We're not going to play it for you,
but the justices were referring to it that Act. They

(01:03:21):
referred to it same way I did AIPA. I think
it was really funny. But anyway, Soa defended the tart policy.
He said it was grounded in the power to regulate
foreign commerce. He said, these are regulatory teriffs, they are
not revenue raising tariffs. Well, the justices weren't buying that
obvious lie. I mean, you just had a press conference

(01:03:44):
where Caroline Levitt was saying, well, you know, we've raised
six hundred billion dollars and we're going to apply that
to the deficit. Isn't that great. It's like, well, those
are taxes, somebody's paying them, and a lot of that
is being paid by American companies and consumers. And so
while they're bragging about that. And by the way, as

(01:04:05):
I pointed out, in nineteen forty two, under FDR okay,
the Socialist Democrat FDR, who completely restructured the government, they
did a twenty billion dollar tax increase which was equivalent
I don't remember what the original was, a ten billion
or tween billion. Anyway, it was equivalent to two hundred

(01:04:26):
billion in today's dollars. That's the important thing. And so
this is three times bigger than the previous biggest tax increase.
This is what electing a New York City Democrat like
Donald Trump, friend of the Clintons, and who has as
his Treasury secretary a guy who always worked for sorrows,

(01:04:47):
this is what he's bringing to us, the biggest tax
increase we've ever seen, and massive regulations, and not only that,
but regulations that change constantly from day to day so
that people can't do business. That's the world first aspect
of all of this stuff. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of
the liberal members, said, you say tariffs are not taxes,

(01:05:09):
but that's exactly what they are. She said, they're generating
money from American citizens, generating revenue. Neil Gorsich said that
Trump unilaterally imposed the terrorists by citing purported international emergencies
of trade and balances and the flow of fentannel into
the United States without Congress authorizing them. He was worried

(01:05:32):
about the concentration of power in the executive branch. She said,
what happens when the President simply veto's legislation to take
these powers back? So he says, so Congress has given
these powers over to the president, and then for them
to take these powers back, they have to pass some
new laws, saying well, we're going to go back to

(01:05:52):
the way the Constitution was. And so he says, well,
what happens when President simply vetos this legislation to take
these powers back. So Congress as a practical matter, can't
get this power back once it's handed it over to
the president. It's a one way ratchet towards a gradual
but continual accretion of power into the executive branch and

(01:06:14):
away from the people's elected representatives. Other Conservatives Roberts, Cony,
Barrett Kavanaugh, Alito also pressed sour the tariffs, if allowed
to stand, would result in three trillion dollars in extra
revenue for the US by twenty thirty five. So already

(01:06:35):
we have seen a tax increase that is three times
the biggest one we'd have prior, which is nineteen forty
two hundred FDR. But if this continues to stand, it
is going to be another five times bigger than that.
It's going to be fifteen times bigger than the highest

(01:06:56):
ever tax increase that FDR put in. Think about that.
The lawyer for the plaintiffs, Neil kat y'all, said, open
his argument by saying, tariffs are taxes. Our founders gave
taxing power to Congress alone. We don't think AIPA allows
this junking of the worldwide tariff architecture, he said. When

(01:07:20):
Roberts asked him if tariffs implicated the power of the
president to conduct foreign policy, he said, well, we agree
that tariffs have foreign policy implications, But he also pointed
out that despite the arguments that the reciprocal tariffs are
being used to address trade deficits. Trump imposed a tariff
of thirty nine percent on imports from Switzerland, an ally

(01:07:42):
of the US, even though the US runs a trade
surplus with that nation. So what he's saying is, if
you're saying that this is an emergency because we have
a fiscal trade deficit, then why would you impose tariffs
on somebody with whom we have a trade surplus. Nowhere
in the questioning could I see that anybody brought up

(01:08:05):
his latest tariff tantrum of the Canadian of the Ontario's
ad talking about free trade. When that happened, he said,
I'm shutting down the trade negotiations and I'm raising your
tariffs just because of that commercial, which turned out to
be true.

Speaker 3 (01:08:24):
It was a reputational emergency forum, yeah exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:08:28):
Yeah, yeah, so if it's about his reputation, he will
do a reputation of the constitution. But that should have
been front and center. I think in terms of the arguments, yes,
this is a good argument to say that. Okay, if
you're going to argue that this is an economic emergency,
then why would you harm a country that is buying

(01:08:50):
more from US? Than we buy from them, if that's
the important thing, he said, No other president has done
something like that. Supreme Court, which heard more than two
and a half hours of arguments, will not issue a
decision on the case as of yet, and it's not
clear when they will release their ruling. And typically what
they do is, you know, they look at this and

(01:09:12):
they've got their questions that they ask and then they
go back and think about the answers to that. And
so there's a good deal of time that passes. So
it's going to be more uncertainty for the businesses involved,
more chaos, more bankruptcy. Trump is knowingly violating over and

(01:09:33):
over again. We see Trump violates the law. He dares
anybody to stop him. He knows he's violating the law,
and he does it anyway, and he dares people to
stop him. So Bessant was there at the hearing, the
Treasury Secretary of the Soros soy boy, and he said
that he thought that it was a winning argument for

(01:09:54):
his side. He is the only person who has said that.
I mean, Alan Derschwitz even came out with a point
by point saying this is what they should have said,
They should have sold it. This way. Obviously you're not
going to do that if you think the guy did
a good job. Alan dir Schwitz is now fully on
the MAGA. Actually Mega make is real great again. That's

(01:10:15):
why he's supporting Trump. But again he's fully on Trump's side,
and he's concerned about how this went. But Bessent is not.
He says, he said, we had strong persuasive arguments on
the necessity of using Ayapa tariff authority to confront the
emergencies that Trump has declared this is all utter nonsense,

(01:10:38):
and he's the only one who's saying anything like that.
And it truly is amazing how these people will lie.
One of the plaintiffs challenging the tariffs said, for nearly
forty years, my family has built this business from the
ground up. Today, reckless tariffs threaten everything that we've achieved.

(01:11:00):
And it's not just the recklessness of it, it's the arbitrary,
capricious aspects of it and how it is changing on
a whim. It depends on what mood Trump is in.
If some government official in China or Canada says or
does something he doesn't like, boom one hundred percent tariffs
just like that. This is not in response to an emergency.

(01:11:26):
This is his personal attitude, and this is why the
president should not have this kind of power. So he said,
let's be clear. These tariffs are not paid by foreign
governments or companies. Said Victor Owen Schwartz, who's company VOS
Selections is one of the plaintiffs. He says they import

(01:11:47):
wine and spirits. He said, American businesses like mine and
American consumers that are fitting the bill for billions of
dollars collected monthly by our government. Unlike past tariffs set
by Congress that we could plan around, these new tariffs
are arbitrary, he said, that's right. And they're unpredictable. That's right.

(01:12:08):
They're arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, whatever, whatever the Tsar's mood is
that particular day, that's what happens.

Speaker 1 (01:12:18):
Tsar.

Speaker 2 (01:12:18):
Trump. They're unpredictable, and they're bad for business. And that's
true whether you're talking about the agricultural sector or whether
you're talking about somebody who's an importer of wine and
other spirits. Chief Justice Roberts says that the terroriffs are
taxes on Americans, and of course we all know that

(01:12:39):
it's the most ridiculous thing to think that, and Republicans
have always understood when they opposed corporate taxes, they were
always demagogue by the Democrats saying, well, you just don't
want taxes on your businesses that you love so much.
But economic reality is that businesses will have to pass
those taxes on one way or the other eventually, or

(01:13:03):
they will go out of business. And that's why you
have a lag on the time that you see between
the tariffs being imposed and the price increases. They fight
it as long as they can, but ultimately they have
to capitulate. Nobody wants to be the first one to
do it, but one by one they start to do it,
and they all will have to do it or they
will go out of business because they have to maintain

(01:13:24):
a profit margin where they go out of business. So
you can't tax the corporation, it will be passed on
to the consumers. Yes, of course there are dealings with
foreign powers, said Roberts, but the vehicle is in position
of taxes on Americans, and that has always been a
core power of Congress. So to have the president's foreign

(01:13:47):
affairs power trump that basic power for Congress, it seems
to me to at least neutralize between the two powers,
the executive branch and the legislative power, said Roberts. And
so he pushes back, and he says, well, it's actually
a mix, said the lawyer for Trump. Roberts interjected, but
who pays the tariff? If a tariff is imposed on automobiles,

(01:14:11):
who pays them, he says. In response, he says, well,
it gets allocated. The empirical estimates range from like thirty
percent to eighty percent of how much is going to
be borne by the market, in other words, by Americans
paying higher prices. And Roberts sits back, well, it's been
suggested that terriffs are responsible for significant reduction in our deficit.

(01:14:33):
I would say that that's raising revenue domestically. Again, That's
what Caroline Lovett was just saying a day or two
before that. Sonya Sotomayor then jumped in and said, so
why not why not just do what the statute permits.
You could bar importation of products altogether. That'd be the
most effective way to do it. You follow the statute.

(01:14:56):
The statute says the president can do that. What it
doesn't say is that the president can raise revenue. Gorsich
again is concerned because the power is moving from Congress
to the executive and they're not going to get it back,
he said, So things are not looking great for Trump

(01:15:17):
in the Supreme Court. Tariff Arguments says zero Hedge after
the first hour of argument, the Trump administrations justifying of
taris look to be in serious trouble, specifically his claim
that in nineteen seventy seven economic Emergency law grants the
president unilateral power to impose tariffs at will. They're saying,

(01:15:37):
this is a major doctrine's question, and when you have
a major policy issue, it needs to be decided by
the Congress, not by a bureaucracy, not by the president.
The bureaucracies are under the president, so not by the
executive ranch, but by Congress when it is a major question.

(01:15:58):
They also point out that it did not specifically mention
tariffs in that so reason on sorry, Brownstone says, when
politicians talk tough on trade, they usually promise to protect
American jobs, but sometimes those gestures do just the opposite.
The Trump administrations propose one hundred percent tariff on large

(01:16:20):
cigars imported from Nicaragua is a case in point. According
to my latest research, the tariff would shrink US gross
domestic product by one and a quarter billion dollars. It
would reduce total output by two billion dollars, and it
would eliminate nearly eighteen thousand jobs and cost state and
local governments ninety five million dollars in tax revenue. Because

(01:16:44):
we're not making cigars. Here's a good example. You're going
to put these blanket tariffs on. You're not protecting a
domestic industry. What you're doing is you're just blocking something
we don't make here and aren't going to be making here,
and you're costing the jobs of people who are the

(01:17:05):
importers and resellers of these things that are made where
they can make this.

Speaker 3 (01:17:09):
There is that there's a ton of regulations about growing tobacco,
So there's probably a reason. Whatever, the reason that it's
not made here is most likely that they can't keep
up with all the regulations compared to their competitors and
less regulated company the countries.

Speaker 2 (01:17:27):
That's right. I mean, I grew up in Tampa, and
I remember when I was in elementary school, we would
carry all pencils around everything. Everybody have their own cigar
box and they were they were easy to get because
we had a cigar wrapping industry that was there from
Cubans who would come in kind of a hand hand

(01:17:47):
rolling of the cigars and that type of thing, but
that that died out, and nobody's doing that anymore. So
it was kind of interesting. There's no domestic industry to
protect anymore. The US produces almost no large cigars rolled
by hand from long tobacco leaves and sold through tobacconists,

(01:18:09):
cigar lounges, and small brick and mortar shops. Roughly sixty
percent of all of the four hundred and thirty million
cigars imported each year come from Nicaragua. Doubling land import
costs would devastate the thirty five hundred retailers and fifty
thousand workers whose livelihoods depend on that trade. Worse, this

(01:18:29):
tariff reverses one of the administration's genuine policy successes, its
early effort to limit the FDA's overreach and the small
batch cigars and other low risk nicotine products. So what
they're saying is, you know, these cigars, as obnoxious as
they are to smell. I mean, I always liked the
smell of the cigar box, but I could not breathe

(01:18:53):
when somebody was smoking a cigar, had an uncle who
smoked a cigar, and I like, get in the car
with him. I thought I was going to, you know,
you roll the windows up, put on the air conditioning,
and start smoking a cigar. It's unbelievable. But anyway, to
each his own. If you like cigars flying, I'm not
going to try to kick him out of your mouth.

(01:19:14):
But Trump is trying to do that, and he's going
to put a lot of businesses out of business. And
this is just one example of the bone headed economics
of an idiot who bankrupted six casinos, a half dozen casinos.
I don't know if it's five or six. This is
way of all of these and we wind up having

(01:19:35):
central planning. The central planning is usually done by the
dumbest among us, and that would be the don who
is doing this and Peter Navarro. They target imported goods
with no domestic substitute, guaranteeing a higher cost for US consumers.
They stretch statutory intent, turning laws that were written for

(01:19:55):
health or trade enforcement into blunt political instruments. They contradict
stated priorities of deregulation, of supporting small businesses, and so
this is a horrible policy and we certainly hope that
it is going to be shut down by the Supreme Court.

(01:20:18):
Has to be shut down. Dougle Log, thank you very
much for the tip. I appreciate that, he says, getting
an early start on filling up the tank. Thank you,
I appreciate that. Happy Friday. Yes, it'll be good to
have a break. This has been a difficult week, nothing serious,
but just you know, not feeling good this week. Scon
Colo Rose Garden. Thank you very much, he says, no

(01:20:42):
way I can tip again. Do you know what he's
talking about. I'm not sure that was on rumble. I'm
not sure what's going on with that. But we're going
to take a quick break. Thank you so much for
the support, and we will be right back.

Speaker 1 (01:22:29):
Making sense common again. You're listening to the David Knight Show.

Speaker 5 (01:22:41):
Tell Alexa to add the APS Radio skill and have
access to the best channels anywhere from country to blues,
classic hits to news. APS Radio curates incredibly diverse playlists
for you to enjoy. Get details at apsradio dot com.

Speaker 2 (01:22:58):
And we want to thank APS Radio for carrying program
and it's a great place to get music as well.
And again, Aps and Charlie, thank you so much for
your support. I also want to tell you about Homestead
Products Dot Shop and the new product that they've got,
their organic popcorn. I love the products that they have there.
There are very very useful products that are very natural,

(01:23:23):
whether you're talking about the organic popcorn or the tumbleweed
fire starters or the freeze dried eggs that are organic
and clean. They've got great products and they really hit
the staples that are there. Travis loves the hot sauce
that they have. I don't typically use hot sauce faces
some one of the best he's had. He talks, he

(01:23:45):
raves about that all the time, and again check out
some of their products. It's great to be able to
start fires in a clean way, especially if you're going
to be barbecuing and rather than using all this lighter
fluid and all the rest of this stuff. Even if
you're building a fire this coming time of year in
your home, you want to have something that is going

(01:24:05):
to be clean and natural to start those fires, and
the tumbleweed stuff really does it. So Homestead Products Dot Shop,
we will see the organic popcorn. One of the corn
is one of the things that they have put GMO
against more than pretty much anything. So it's great to
be able to get that organic homestead products dot shop. Well,

(01:24:27):
we talked about the Big Short and how the guy
who bet everything on the collapse of the real estate market,
he said the securitization thing is a pump and dump.
It's a house of cards. There's no economic reality to it.
He's now saying the same thing about AI and the
stocks around AI, Nvidia and others, and he's put in

(01:24:49):
a massive short against Nvidia and mostly against Palenteer, and
I certainly hope that is the case of Pollenteer. The
problem is that Paleteer is most funded by governments, and
I think they're going to be immune to any kind
of really market realities. But we'll see. Anyway, he's now

(01:25:10):
put a massive hedge bet short selling of the stocks,
betting on the casino of Wall Street that they're going
to go down. He's pretty much bet the farm on it.
Deutsche Bank has started shorting AI stocks as well. And
if you go back and look at the movie The
Big Short Deutsche Bank, it was Ryan Gosling who played

(01:25:33):
a character the Deutsche Bank guy and whatever. He was
a real reprehensible character. And at the very end of
it is there's some of your thing. He goes, all right,
so hate me. I was right all along, and I
made money from it. And he's got to check in
his in for like, you know, seventy five million dollars
or something like that they made off of it, and
it's they're at it again. Deutsche Bank saw it coming,

(01:25:57):
and rather than warning other people when that came along,
they profited from it themselves. And so that's kind of
what's going on now. But as people are watching it,
they see that for those who've been in the market
for more than a few years, the memory of Deutsche
Bank's sales and trading desks quietly pitching these CDs instruments

(01:26:21):
to hedge the possibility of housing slowdown mortgage will still
be fresh. They saw it coming, they moved it to
exploit other people, to profit at other people's expense. They
knew this thing was going down. Well, they're kind of
moving in the same direction right now. Gold kind of
weathered the whole idea that the Bank of England decided

(01:26:43):
to pause any rate cuts. Whenever the Bank's cut rates,
it's always good for gold because they know that those
rate cuts are going to result in inflation. So when
a bank does not cut rates, usually it goes the
other way, but in this particular case it didn't. The
gold market is not seeing a major reaction to the
Bank of England's monetary policy decision leaving interest rates unchanged.

(01:27:08):
They said. The risk from greater inflation persistence has become
less pronounced, they said, and the risk to medium term
inflation from weaker demand is more apparent. Such said. The
overall the risks are now more balanced. So the monetary
policy statement, well again, you know they always speak like
soothsayers or something kind of like q Andon. Well you know,

(01:27:30):
it's faking riels like nostrodamus, and so everybody is watching them.
But at a commodity commodity Strategists for a Financial Institution
I n G expects record goal prices in the first
quarter of twenty twenty six. Ewa Menthey, commodity strategist at

(01:27:51):
i in G, said in her monthly gold update she
remains positive on gold. She still expects the prices to
average around four thousand and the first in the fourth quarter,
with average prices rising to forty one hundred in the
first quarter of twenty twenty six, she said, even after
the recent weakness, gold prices are still up by more
than fifty percent year to date. And again, all of

(01:28:16):
the things that caused gold to go up by fifty
percent last year, all of those issues are still there.
The issues with the dollar, the issues with deficits and
with debt, and with inflation. All that is there and
arguably worse. And so that is the hedge that it
is there for. Trump is flat, flatly denies when a

(01:28:38):
Fox anchor confronts him with mago voters pained plea, he says, no, no, no,
the prices are way down. So Brett Baer was interviewing
Trump and there was a loyal supporter that called in
with a question like you do. Here, he read out
a message from a North Carolina retiree who had voted

(01:28:59):
for Trump. She said three times previously. She warned that
she did not see the best economy now and begged
him please do something, President Trump. I want the Republicans
to keep control of Congress in twenty twenty six, but
something has to be done fast, she said. And I
don't see the best economy now, she said. Wall Street

(01:29:20):
numbers do not reflect Main Street money. Please do something
President Trump. Well, it's Regina Foley. I would say, Regina,
did you not see that in twenty twenty did you
not see that Trump was for the big guys on
Wall Street and he was destroying the businesses left and

(01:29:41):
right on Main Street and the farms at the same time. Yeah,
that is not his concern. His concern is for the
club that you're not a member of. Trump rejected what
she had to say. He said, I think of groceries,
it's an old fashioned word, but it's a beautiful word.
Grocery is a beautiful word, is it not if you

(01:30:04):
have to pay for it? Trump, He says, I think
the prices are coming down, but they're down already. And
I think the biggest problem is Republicans don't talk about it.
They don't talk about the word affordability, and Democrats lie
about it. Well, the issue is is that his concern
is not Main Street but Wall Street, and his concern

(01:30:26):
is America last, not first. Before America is concerned, Trump
is concerned with Israel, with Ukraine, with Argentina, with whoever.
He is a globalist in his orientation, and I believe
he is a globalist through and through Roughly seven out

(01:30:46):
of ten adults say they were spending more on groceries
than this time last year, and fifty nine percent say
they're paying more for utilities. Only six percent say that
utilities are cheaper. Percent of us adult say they blamed
Trump a great deal or a good amount for the
current rate of inflation. Well they should blame him for

(01:31:07):
the current rate of inflation. It was Thomas Massey. I
don't know if we still got the clip in here. Yeah,
he said what Trump did in twenty twenty laid the
foundation for what we're seeing now. You know, these are
seeds that he planted that are now coming to fruition.
But he's you know, the policies and things that he did,

(01:31:31):
the rule by executive FIAT, and the new slope of
increasing government debt was continued by Biden.

Speaker 6 (01:31:39):
Yeah, I'm getting chill bumps because I remember that I
was pointing out that the supply chain for some foods
is three years long, and that what we were doing
during COVID in terms of planning an apple tree, it's
going to take three or four years for that sometimes
five or six years for that apple tree to bear fruit.
And if during COVID you're paying people to stay home
and not plan apple tree. You're affecting the price of

(01:32:01):
apples five years from now. The same thing when you
slaughtered the dairy herd because they didn't have the facility.

Speaker 1 (01:32:07):
The school was closed and.

Speaker 6 (01:32:09):
They couldn't redirect that milk because it was in cartons
for school children, not for moms at the supermarket. So
they destroyed dairy cattle, which we're going to take two
or three years.

Speaker 1 (01:32:20):
To build back up.

Speaker 6 (01:32:21):
And so you had a lot of weird things going
on during COVID, and we're still seeing the tail of that.
No pun intended right now.

Speaker 2 (01:32:31):
Yeah, exactly. And again, you know, Marjorie Taylor Green talks
about this, and she's saying, you know, why is the
Republicans not really paying attention to what's really going on
in the economy to people's concerns about this. Everybody sees it.
Republicans see it, Democrats especially see it. They're hypersensitive to
it because they're looking really hard for any flaws with Republicans.

(01:32:53):
But even the people who are not looking for flaws
from Trump, people who voted for him three times, see
the problem. And Trump continue used to lie about all.

Speaker 1 (01:33:00):
The job market is.

Speaker 7 (01:33:02):
Job market is still extremely difficult. Wages have not gone up.
Health insurance premiums are going to go up. Car insurance
goes up every year, people's homeowners insurance goes up. Rent
is going up. People young people have no hope of
buying a home, and then when they try to buy
a home, they end up, like I said, they end
up competing with like Blackstone or somebody else. Average home

(01:33:24):
buyer now is thirty eight years old.

Speaker 8 (01:33:26):
It just came out right, The average home buyer thirty eight.

Speaker 7 (01:33:30):
On the flip side, baby boomers can't sell their homes.
They pay massive capital gains taxes. They don't know, like,
well what do I move to? How do I downsize?
I can't replace what I have, So there are problems
on both ends. Some of my own personal family members,
some of my own personal friends, they're getting by a
month to month charging up their credit cards.

Speaker 2 (01:33:54):
Yeah, and you know she mentioned the capital gains tax
that people pay when they sell their homes. That's such
a fraud simply what you're being charged for. It's a
tax on government created inflation. Right, your home is not
worth more after you've lived in it thirty years than
it wasn't you paid for, but you have to come
back and they say, oh, it's worth ten times the amount. Well,
that's because of inflation and regulation prices that they have

(01:34:16):
built into it. So then they tax you on the
taxes and on the inflation that have come in. Well,
Trump is one who is lying about this, and he
put out a big lie about how Walmart has lowered
its Thanksgiving meal prices. He was instantly owned by people
on social media because they just went back and looked

(01:34:38):
at what Walmart itself has said about what they were
putting out. It was not an apples to apples comparison,
No pun intended, right. The president's claim about falling food
prices didn't match the numbers or what Americans see at
the supermarket. Do you think that Donald Trump has ever
shopped at a supermarket? I don't think so. I mean,

(01:35:00):
people were amazed when George Bush went to a supermarket
and he was amazed at the barcode reader that was
being used to check out the prices of things, and
everybody at that point in time, it was already old
hat and people said, out of touch is this guy? Well,
you know how out of touch is Donald Trump? Do

(01:35:21):
you think he has ever ever in his life shopped
at a grocery store totally foreign to him. Walmart just
announced that prices for Thanksgiving dinner is now down twenty
five percent since under sleepy, crooked Joe Biden in twenty
twenty four. Trump put that out on social media Affordability

(01:35:44):
all upper case a Republican stronghold. He said, hopefully Republicans
will use this irrefutable fact. Well, it's not a fact,
and it's easily refuted. He was slammed of the community
note showing how Walmart's twenty twenty five meal package has
less items, fewer items, and it has more genetic generic products.

(01:36:09):
You know, their value whatever it is that they great value. Yeah,
great value is their brand, and so their brand is cheaper.
They replaced a lot of the name brand items with
great value brand, most of them as a matter of fact,
and it's quite a few items less than last year.

(01:36:30):
Consumer Price Index figures that were released in October indicated
average grocery prices had ridden three percent since the same
time last year. Meat, poultry, fish, and eggs have jumped
overall five point two percent. And so, regarding the bogus
information that Trump was peddling, the specifics of it. Last year,

(01:36:54):
the item, the shopping cart, they had had twenty one items.
This year fifteen items. Okay, so it's down about a
quarter the number of items. And they're saying, well, he
says it's down by twenty five percent. Well, they're getting
fifteen items instead of twenty one they got last year.
And again they substituted their own great value stuff for

(01:37:14):
the national brands. They're at a lower price. So he
didn't reply to that. Instead we did was he doubled
down the next day. He posted again a second time
on Thursday morning, the same claim again. Twenty twenty five
Thanksgiving dinner under Trump is twenty five percent lower than
twenty twenty four Thanksgiving dinner under Biden, according to Walmart,

(01:37:39):
what an amazingly stupid, stupid liar Trump is. It's just amazing.
And that's what he's like the Clinton's in that regard,
Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton. I mean, you can show the
smoking gun in their hand, and you can show the
picture of what's really going and they will still lie
to your face. It's absolutely insane.

Speaker 3 (01:38:00):
What really shows is that Walmart thought they could get
more from their customers for Thanksgiving meal last year.

Speaker 2 (01:38:07):
Yeah, that's right. Yeah, last year it bought more, so
it should be a red flag to the gop irate.
Republicans reportedly ready to break with Trump to end the shutdown. So,
you know, you've got a lot of people like that.
Voter is concerned because, hey, the economy is not good.

Speaker 1 (01:38:24):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:38:24):
We've got people being fired, massive layoffs. It's difficult to
get a job because we still have this massive you know,
foreigners saturating the job market. But the economy is not
good either, and everything that he's done with all this
tarif stuff has really put the cabash on the economy.
It's been a huge drag on the economy. So consumers

(01:38:48):
are not happy about it, and they've got a lot
of Republican politicians who are not happy about that either.
One up, Senator Mike Rounds in South Dakota laughed out
loud when asked about the anti filibuster push. Politico reported
he said, welcome to the dawn of Trump's lame duck era.
Trump wants to terminate the filibuster in order to get

(01:39:12):
the immediate problem solved, and there's other issues with this
that he's not going to give up on. Instead of
what he wants to do is to set a very
bad precedent for future government so he can get immediate relief.
It is so typical of Trump. Tuesday's electoral blowout was,
in the words of a retiring congressman, a red flag

(01:39:33):
to the GOP. He has zero ability to work across
the aisle, said Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, who is
not seeking reelection, so he's now free to tell people
the truth. He needs to face reality and needs to
learn how to talk to Democrats that he can reason with.
Many Republicans expressed frustration that Trump's demand to end the

(01:39:55):
filibuster would backfire once Democrats regain the majority. This is
the case, folks, with all of his dictates, everything that
he is doing, all the changes that he's made, are
going to be empowering the Democrats when they return to power.
And believe me, with the policies that he's doing, there's

(01:40:15):
going to be a tremendous return to power of Democrats.
I don't want to see that. I don't like their
policies and I don't want to give them all kinds
of new powers, which is what Trump did. I mean,
just look at what he did with the gun control
by executive order. That's just one of the things I
al want to get rid of. The filibuster and so
forth and so on, and all this stuff is going
to backfire tremendously on us. Last night's results look like

(01:40:38):
a recipe for them to lose the House and the
Senate next fall, said a Democrat, Chris Mercy Chris Murphy Senator.
And they're going to find it. They're going to hand
us a fifty vote majority gift wrapped when we show
up on day one, he said. Republicans are getting ready
to defy the president if you want to allow compromise

(01:40:59):
to get a government funding bill passed. They know that
he doesn't drive up turnout when he's not on the ballot,
and he won't be despite his musings about running for
an unconstitutional third term. Many are privately signaling that they're
preparing to break with Trump if he doesn't allow Republicans
to negotiape on an extension of Obamacare insurance subsidies that

(01:41:21):
Democrats are demanding, said Politico. Others blame the President and
his top budget Aid Russ Vought, for favoring hardball moves
such as canceling blue state transportation projects. And firing federal
employees that only serve to cause Democrats to dig in further.
This is what he does everywhere. He does this with

(01:41:43):
the Democrats, he does it with foreign countries. He's poisoning
everything because everything is about confrontation. It's about professional wrestling.

Speaker 3 (01:41:51):
Really, It's amazing to me just how much passion there
was for reform around twenty sixteen onward, and Trump just
completely co opted all of that and turned it all
to his own self serving goals.

Speaker 2 (01:42:07):
That's right.

Speaker 3 (01:42:08):
If the is MAGA movement people were actually caring about
the constitution and improving America, they could have done so
much good.

Speaker 2 (01:42:17):
Well, yeah, because we're at the end of the four turning.
Everybody sees the problems with these institutions that have become
aged and corrupt, they have had mission creep and all
the rest of the stuff. Reform is very badly needed.
But what Trump did was he turned everything to his
own purpose, and he's making everything even worse than it was.

(01:42:37):
So they said that many Republicans are privately signaling that
they're prepared to break with him. One irate senior House
Republican granted an animity to speak, blamed Trump and bought
for spurring the shutdown with their unprecedented move to unilaterally
rescind congressional funding over the summer through a so called

(01:42:58):
pocket recision. That decision is why we're in this mess,
said the Republican. So what he's saying is he played
hardball and created this breach. You know, just like we've
never had issues with Canada before, he creates these conflicts
out of nowhere. That's why we're here at this particular point.

(01:43:18):
And we're going to take a look at some of
the aspects of that coming up when we get back.
But you know, when you look at gold again, it
is difficult situation that we're in right now, and gold,
if you can get into it, if you can start to,
don't store your money and a checking account, necessarily put

(01:43:38):
it into gold, because that's where you're going to see
the value retained, and you know, not in a savings
account at a bank account. You're going to need to
have cash for paying bills and things like that. But
don't just leave all your money parked into the bank
or into bonds which are going down significantly. Understand the
overall situation that's there, and make sure that you had

(01:44:02):
your bets at least a little bit. One of the
ways that you can do that, of course, is with
Tony Ardeman Wisewolf gold and you can get there through
David Knight. Not gold. You can gradually accumulate, determine a
budget that you want to save, and when you save,
put your money into something that's going to retain its
value rather than the dollar, which is constantly going down.

(01:44:22):
Gold is not going up in value. What you're seeing
is the dollar going down in value. If you go
to Kitko and look at the news there about gold,
you can look at the price of gold and they'll
show you a chart that instantly click up a chart
for a period of time, and you can look at
gold and US dollars how it is faired, and you

(01:44:43):
can They've got about a dozen different currencies there that
you can look at it. You look at it in
the dollar, you can look at the euro, you can
look at it in the end, in the yuan from
China and so forth. And it's kind of interesting because
they don't all move in the same way, and it
really underscores the situation that it's the dollar that is
going down, not gold that is going up, and so

(01:45:06):
don't store your stuff necessarily in US dollars, put it
in something else that diversifies it out. So when we
look at this shutdown, US flight cancelations are accelerating as
airlines are complying with the government shutdown order. You know,
isn't it interesting I'm looking at this something. You know,

(01:45:26):
the only real effect that we've had. First of all,
there are people who work for the government. They're not
getting paid. There are people on welfare, they're not getting paid.
But other than that, is there anything that the government
does that we really need? I understand that people are
getting paid or the getting welfare whatever, they're not getting
their check. But for the rest of us, who are
not on welfare, who don't work for the government, what

(01:45:48):
effect does the government shut down having for us? Nothing?
Do you need anything that the government provides if you
don't work for the government, No, you don't. The only
thing you need is the being able to fly and
that infrastructure, which doesn't need to be run by the government.
It was Guard who pointed that out a couple of
days ago, But now Reason has got an entire article

(01:46:11):
talking about why we need to separate out the flight attendants,
air traffic flight attendants. Air traffic controllers need to be
separated out and run as a separate entity, because keeping
them in as one hundred percent government employees means that
every time there's a shutdown, and there's a lot of shutdowns,

(01:46:31):
every time that happens, it creates chaos. And this is
really bad. We're seeing US flight cancelations accelerating, and.

Speaker 3 (01:46:41):
It's candidate that has already privatized that.

Speaker 2 (01:46:46):
Yes right. US airlines began canceling hundreds of flights Thursday
due to the FAA's order to reduce traffic at the
country's busiest airport starting Friday today. Because of government shutdown,
more than seven hundred and sixty planned flights today on
Friday were cut from airline schedules. The forty airports selected

(01:47:07):
by the FAA span more than two dozen states and
include hubs such as Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, La Charlotte. According
to the agency's orders, which is published Thursday evening, in
some metropolitan areas, including New York, Houston, Chicago, and Washington,
multiple airports will be impacted. The FAA said the order

(01:47:27):
that the reductions will start on Friday at four percent,
and by the time we get to November the fourteenth,
they will ramp up to ten percent in a week
right the days of seventh, So in another week they're
going to get it up to ten percent of the flights.
There are going to be an effect between six am
to ten pm local time, and it will impact all

(01:47:48):
commercial airlines. The decision to reduce service at high volume
markets is meant to maintain travel safety. As air traffic
controllers exhibit signs of strain hours be for the reductions
went into place, airlines were scrambling to figure out which
flights they were going to cut again chaos, the Trump

(01:48:08):
policies of chaos. If your flight is canceled and you
no longer want to take the trip, or if you
found another way to get to your destination, the airline
is legally required to refund your money, even if you
bought a non refundable ticket. Just a consumer tip to
all of you out there. America's longest government shutdown shows

(01:48:30):
why we must free air traffic control from politics, says
Reason and again, as I point out, Guard made the
same libertarian statement as well, this is something that doesn't
need to be run by the government. It's like a
public utility essentially, and it should not be subject to
these government shutdowns. And it's interesting that, as you point out, Lance,

(01:48:55):
we had a listenerho pointed out Canada moved to separate
the air traffic controllers from the government a while back,
and they have their own separate thing. The first people
to do it was New Zealand. And what happened to
cause that. You know, New Zealand was one of the
most socialist countries and then they hit the wall. They

(01:49:18):
got to a situation where they couldn't pay the salaries
and the expenses of their ambassadors abroad, and they're having
to use their personal credit cards to try to get
things done, and it got so bad that you know,
New Zealand is a small country, and so you know,
just like you look at the ship of State, right,
the bigger it is, the harder it is to turn
this thing around because of the momentum, and so you know,

(01:49:41):
we're kind of like the Titanic, but they had a
smaller ship of state and so they were able to
turn that thing around real quickly. It is one of
the reasons why we went to New Zealand to see
if it had really changed, because they were doing all
kinds of market changes in New Zealand, so they had
people government officials, ambassadors and so forth. In other countries
they couldn't pay their salaries. You know, we have a

(01:50:02):
situation now in Germany where and it's German papers who
are reporting this. I'm surprised that hasn't really been picked
up by American papers. But it's German paper that's reporting
the fact that the US government is telling US soldiers
stationed in Germany to get on the German welfare payment.

(01:50:23):
How's that?

Speaker 3 (01:50:23):
And I guess why not food from the food kitchens?

Speaker 2 (01:50:26):
That's right, food from food kitchens? Yeah, and why not?
Because I mean, you've got an invading army of people
from the Third World. You know, we're not invading them
in the same way. But you know now we can't
afford this empire can no longer afford to pay soldiers
for food that they've shipped over. They said, go to
the food kitchens in Germany to eat, because we can't

(01:50:47):
afford to feed you. We've got an army that we
can't feed. You talk about a declining empire stretched too thin? Boy,
doesn't that say it all? How incompetent and loof this
government is? And what is Trump's first priority. This his
palace that he's building, his ballroom. This is one of
the effects of ballroom capitalism. Can't even be concerned about this,

(01:51:11):
can't even make this the top priority. He's just too
distracted with doing gold upfits of things in the White House.
And so, as Reason says, as of today, we're living
through the longest federal government shut down in US history,
surpassing the thirty five days shutdown in twenty nineteen during
the first Trump administration. Since nineteen eighty there have been

(01:51:34):
eleven such shutdowns, most of which have left air traffic
controllers to work without pay for duration. And again it
was that one that lasted for thirty five days back
in twenty nineteen. The reason that ended was because of
the air traffic controllers. In other words, is there anything
that government does that we actually need on a day

(01:51:54):
to day basis? Absolutely not. And we got the big
US military, which doesn't keep us safe. It endangers us
because of the military adventurism. And we can't even afford
to give food to our soldiers in Germany, telling them
to go to food food markets or whatever the charity places.

(01:52:18):
Air traffic control is too important to be vulnerable to politics.
Around the world, governments have acknowledged this and deep politicized.
New Zealand did it in nineteen eighty seven. They removed
it from the Transport Ministry, and they permitted the aviation
user fees that had been paid to the government instead
of be paid to a new institution, the Airways New Zealand,

(01:52:42):
and they run the air traffic controllers. It worked so
well that within a decade a dozen more governments had
followed suit, realizing that air traffic control is essentially a
public utility analogous to electricity. The most powerful opponents to
reforming the current air traffic control system, of course, are

(01:53:02):
members of Congress because they want to have that control,
but also the business jet community, the people who have
the private luxury jets. They don't want to have the
air traffic controllers separate out into their own entity. Here
that's privatized. Congress likes to micromanage the FAA. Every five

(01:53:25):
years or so, when it's time to reauthorize the FAA,
Congress imposes a whole raft of demands and policy changes.
There have been two attempts to make an a air
traffic control system independent of the government. The first one
was during the Clinton administration. They did a major study
that envisioned a self funded air traffic services corporation with

(01:53:48):
aviation user fees and bonding authority. It received one hearing
in Congress and then it died. And again, you know,
this would have been probably the early nineties, mid nineties.
After New Zealand did it in nineteen eighty seven, a
lot of different countries were looking at it, so it
took a look at it and it died. The second
attempt took place during the first Trump administration. It was

(01:54:11):
championed by Republican Representative Bill Schuster, who chaired the House
Transportation Infrastructure Committee. It was modeled after New Canada, the
privately run, non profit corporation that owns and operates Canada's
civil air navigation system. So the first Trump administration said, hey,
Canada has privatized this, let's do it like they did.

(01:54:33):
It's working out well for them. It had the support
of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. It was also
supported by the Business Roundtable, nearly all major airlines, and
it got editorial endorsements from nearly all the top ten
newspaper editorial boards except for the New York Times. Two
versions were approved by the committee, but they never reached

(01:54:54):
a vote on the House floor, and so I would
say that's I'm not sure if that was when the
Republicans had the majority of when Pelosi did. The campaign
against the bill was led and funded by the National
Business Aviation Association, a lobbying group for private jets. They
portrayed the proposed nonprofit stakeholder government corporation as a takeover

(01:55:17):
of air traffic control by the big airlines that would
shortchange private planes and rural states. Their underlying interest was
to preserve its fuel tax, as opposed to the weight
distance user fees that business jets all over the world
pay except in the United States. So they have a
preferential tax thing here that they want to keep. There

(01:55:41):
is every reason to expect that in future years will
be more federal government shutdowns. It's one of the only
things that Congress does anymore. That's right. The New York
Times has now changed its position. They released a video
editorial August tenth criticizing the business jet lobby for opposing
air traffic control reform. During his first term, Trump endorsed

(01:56:04):
Schuster's bill, even held a White House event to promote it.
Deep politicizing the US air traffic control system would be
the most effective way to insulate it from inevitable future
government shutdowns. See it needs reform, just like Lance was saying,
we needn't have reform. But Trump is so focused on confrontation,

(01:56:25):
on chaos, and on making himself more powerful he can't
even do the things that he was doing in the
first term. Air traffic controller is worn of a tipping point.
They said, what you're seeing is a lot of people
truly having to call in sick so they can go
earn money elsewhere. I think you're also seeing people just

(01:56:46):
calling in sick because they're sick and tired of like, well,
I'm going to spend the holiday weekend with my kids
for once. They said. Morale is already low before the
government shutdown due to a long standing staffing shortage across
the system, mandatory over time, stagnating wages, or other factors
dampening morale, which has gotten even worse now that controllers

(01:57:08):
are not being paid at all. One controller said they
haven't taken a second job yet, but they know a
colleague who's already moonlighting in private security. He said, you know,
I'm going to join that guy here next week if
things don't pan out, said the controller, just so that
I can pay my mortgage. Some air traffic controllers so
they haven't been able to get a loan, or they

(01:57:29):
have been able to get loans from their credit union
to cover their expenses for a few paychecks, while others
have been forced to take on part time jobs. I
work with people who are working a second job at
night and are just calling in sick in the morning
when they can't go to the job that does not
pay them because they're too tired for working the job
that does pay them. So it was more than a

(01:57:52):
month and the last government shut down in twenty eighteen nineteen,
when a small number of air traffic controllers and a
few facilities called in sick that caused major disruptions at
airports up and down the East Coast arguably helped to
bring the shutdown to an end later that day. So
why isn't it happening now, Well, they said, the FAA

(01:58:15):
has gotten better at managing staffing shortages these days, several
controllers said. One controller said more of their colleagues have
called out sick during this shutdown than they did during
the previous one. While the impacts on travel have been
mostly isolated so far, but it's going to continue to build.
It does degrade that margin of safety. If a bunch

(01:58:35):
of people are sick or not at work, and I'm
having to do their jobs along with my own. So
another controller who handles traffic around a major airport, so
we'll have to see, you know what happens with us,
Blackshaws said. Brazilian nuts for a bag went from about
five dollars to nine dollars and fifty cents overnight. Wow,

(01:58:58):
there you go. But we have to have that because
Trump doesn't like the person who's the president in Brazil,
so he's gonna double the cost of your brazil nuts.
You're not gonna get your brazil nuts here in America.
You're gonna have to get him from Brazil. But you're
not gonna be able to get him because he's he
doesn't like the Brazilian president. He loves, however, the Argentinian president.

(01:59:20):
So still no help for American farmers while we work
together put together a package of forty billion dollar bailout
for Argentina. I am sick and tired of Trump. I
don't understand why people can't see it. He disgusted me.
He is absolutely disgusting. We're gonna take a quick break, folks,
and we will be right back.

Speaker 9 (01:59:50):
He is a song I owed you might banto here
in you You know nothing happy, ain't got no cash,
ain't got no car, not to empty booster shots in
your own nothing.

Speaker 2 (02:00:13):
To be happy.

Speaker 9 (02:00:17):
You can't even buy ins a store because of your
low social credit score. Own nothing, be happy?

Speaker 2 (02:00:35):
You would own nothing.

Speaker 1 (02:00:38):
And be happy.

Speaker 2 (02:00:41):
Be happy at each some.

Speaker 5 (02:00:42):
Bugs here news now at apsradionews dot com, or get
the APS radio app and never miss another story.

Speaker 2 (02:00:55):
And again, folks, a reminder that if you would like
to support the program, or if you'd like to find
out where you can other places where we can find
the program, go to Davidknight dot news and you'll see
the links to ways that you can support us and
all the different places where you can find it. And
by the way, you can now on substack you can
get the audio podcast without any commercials. I mean, we

(02:01:15):
put them out on Speaker, and I'm not happy with
the number of commercials that Speaker has put on there,
but it's too difficult now for us to try to
get them off, so it's kind of an all or
nothing thing. So if you'd like to get it without
the commercial interruptions, you can do that on subscribe Star.
If you're a subscribe Star subscriber. For a while, we've

(02:01:37):
been putting up a link to a commercial free audio
broadcast for them, as well as articles that are there.
Or you can sign up on substack as a paid supporter.
You conscribe subscribe there and that helps the program to continue.
Let's take a quick look at what's going on with
climate because again, this whole thing about this cop you're

(02:02:00):
going to hear a lot about this in the next
week or so. The problem is that the places that
have really been enthusiastic about this, where they're talking about
the UK, where you're talking about New York, they're basically
hitting the wall on this, and people are seeing that
it is untenable. Even the government officials in New York
are seeing this and what's up with that dot com?

(02:02:22):
It said hell as Don froz Over. New York Governor
Kathy Hochel, a leading contender for greenist governor in America,
wants to redo their infamous Climate Act because New Yorkers
can't afford it. A sure sign that the rapidly rising
cost of energy has become a big election issue. New

(02:02:43):
York State is between a rock and a green hard place.
Change the law or do the impossible. That's their choice.
What's set all this off is a court ruling that
the Climate Act is, in fact a law, not a
political promise that can be ignored. When can The law
calls for an impossible forty percent cut in New York's

(02:03:05):
CO two and other greenhouse gas emissions from nineteen ninety
levels by twenty thirty. The twenty nineteen law, which remains
one of the most ambitious in the country, gave the
State Department of an Environmental Conservation until January twenty twenty
four to issue regulations to ensure that they meet these

(02:03:27):
targets that were set in law. These are not promises
made by politicians, but they were targets that they passed
into law. This department never issued any regulations, so a
bunch of big green groups sued. The department explained in
court that issuing the regulations was quote infeasible because it

(02:03:50):
would require imposing extraordinary and damaging costs on New Yorkers. Well,
that's what the green New Deal in zero zero is
all about imposing extraordinary damaging costs on everybody. The judge ruled, however,
that the law is the law, and he gave New
York State two choices, either change the law or issue

(02:04:17):
the regulations. This reminds me of the statement that Ulysses
Grant had. He said, the best way to get rid
of a bad law is to rigorously enforce it. But
now the question is can they get rid of the
law of the deadline is February sixth, twenty twenty six,
which gives the legislature just a couple of months to

(02:04:38):
change the law, since it only starts in early January.
Changing the law this big that fast will be very hard.
If the law is not changed, then the final regulations
are due on that date, so they must be working
on them now. However, Hockel says that they will appeal
this decision, which might or might not drag things out

(02:04:59):
for a couple more months. The confusion is huge, so
where we go. These idiotic agendas that are put on
by whether it's a Democrat or Republican are you can't
comply with these things. They're impossible to comply with it,
and they're constantly changing it, and so just like he's
got with the tariffs, it's the problems and the confusion

(02:05:24):
as to what is finally going to be the regulation.
They can't even make up their mind because they've become
so detached from any reality. Europe's last minute climate scramble
Brussels is now watering down it's twenty forty target, just
in time for the COP thirty, the thirtieth anniversary of
this climate conference. The deal was struck just before the

(02:05:47):
COP thirty summit in Brazil. It calls for ninety percent
reduction in greenhouse gases by twenty forty compared to nineteen
ninety levels, but that number, as bold as it sounds,
hides a series of escape patches. These escape patches could
be achieved by purchasing foreign carbon credits, the indulgences right

(02:06:10):
paying other countries to cut emissions on behalf of Europe.
This means that European industries will only need to achieve
an actual eighty five percent domestic reduction, basically de industrialization,
but it's also going to raise their costs significantly as well.
A lot of car companies had to pay elon Musk

(02:06:30):
because he had electric car and that he was selling
and they didn't and a particularly revealing twists, The EU
also agreed to consider using another five percent worth of
international credits in the future, which would effectively soften the
target even more. For all practical purposes, the so called
ninety percent headline figure is now nothing more than political

(02:06:54):
theater designed to placate activists and bureaucrats alike. That's what
all this stuff. It's all political theater. It's all continual
climate nonsense. And you know, when we look at what
is happening with the COP thirty story about the rainforest,

(02:07:16):
one hundred thousand rainforest trees likely to be cut down
died in Vain. As COP thirty faces brutal net zero reality,
they've already cut them down. So they're saying, is these
one hundred thousand rainforest trees for this massive highway that
they're building was done in Vain Because this conference is

(02:07:40):
just hollowed out. This is from Chris Morrison and The
Daily Skeptic. He said, your correspondent is a kind chap
who doesn't intrude on private grief. For that reason, I
will not be attending the upcoming COP thirty conference in
the Brazilian city of blim with the zero pantas see

(02:08:00):
falling to pieces. The faces of those attending will be
long as the local eight mile highway that cleared one
hundred thousand mature rainforest trees to help speed the seventy
thousand climate cultists on their way. I was wrong before.
It's at one hundred mile road. It's only eight miles.
They had to cut down one hundred thousand trees. This

(02:08:21):
is this is the rainforest after all, so massive destruction there.
You and Chief Antonio Boiling Guterras told the Guardian quote,
we don't want to see the Amazon as a savannah,
and yet what are they doing. They're cutting trees just
for this one conference.

Speaker 3 (02:08:41):
We don't want to see it as a savannah. We
want to be able to drive through it on our
new road.

Speaker 2 (02:08:45):
See the sights as always, as when, as always, when
the bloviating Gouterras and the cop brigade rolls into town.
You couldn't make this stuff up, although they frequently do.
It seems some of the overpriced hotel accommodations might fall
short of the usual standards of comfort expected by the
annual saviors of the planet. It is reported that thousands

(02:09:08):
of rooms and love motels have been turned into diplomatic
suites by replacing the heart shaped beds, the dance poles,
and the leopard print decorps. It seems hourly rates are
not on offer, and the prices are as high as
one thousand dollars a night, with ceiling mirrors presumably thrown

(02:09:28):
in at no extra charge.

Speaker 3 (02:09:32):
They would have been cheaper if they'd charged him by the.

Speaker 2 (02:09:34):
Outm the cop meeting. Someone always ends up getting screwed,
he said. Alas again the money spigot has been turned
off in the US until last year. The biggest supporter
of all things net zero and the climate stopping Paris Agreement,
the Donald has been kicking ten bells out of the
whole boondoggle. And I would say this is Trump is

(02:09:58):
not as good on climate as I had wished he
had been. He pretended that we were in the Paris
Climate Accord, and he kept us in it the entire
term his last one. But he did have some good
things during his first term. He's still pretending that we're
in it and still says, well, okay, well now that
we got out of it, we got back into it.
Now I can get out of it within a year.

(02:10:20):
It's not a binding agreement. It's amazing to me to
see somebody like Trump, who has such utter contempt for
the rule of law, for the Bill of rights, for
the Constitution, be such a fastidious follower of the unratified
climate treaty. It was self ratified by Obama and by

(02:10:43):
John Carrey, which is nothing. That's not the way that
it works. It's just another example of how Trump doesn't know,
doesn't care about the Constitution, but he has done some
good things in terms of pushing back against the zero nonsense. Again,
they don't need it, you know. That's where Bill Gates
says they don't need but one mcguffin and the health

(02:11:04):
mcguffin is where both Trump and Gates are, you know,
together like Siamese twins, joined at the hip. So where
possible green energy products projects have been canceled, Federal funding
of climate alarmism wiped out, Foreign aid to boost said
alarmism overseas has been removed, while climate scientists have been

(02:11:26):
told to stop peddling nonsense and resume a scientific process.
The U N already knows what Trump thinks of the
net zero project. It's a scam, a con job. That's
what he told them at the Journal Assembly. They laughed
at him during his first term, but they're not laughing now.
Five heads of state all that's the only five heads

(02:11:47):
of state are expected to show up this year, although
the UK secure in its role as the sacrificial canary
and the net zero mine is being represented by the
by Prime Minister Cure Starmer and the Prince of Wales.
Not much point asking Starmer for more money. He's flat broke,

(02:12:07):
while the windsors have been having a few extra calls
on their finances as late. As of late, while money
will be in generally short supply, the tipping will be plentiful,
tips such as by the way the Gulf Stream is collapsing,
the Arctic ice is vanishing, and the coral reefs are disappearing,
none of which are true. However, many times we hear them.

(02:12:31):
They remain firm favorites of the people selling the alarmism.
Something mere evidence and observation have little chance of ever
removing from the public stages and prints. COP thirty is
supposed to be supposed to be significant since it is
ten years since the Paris Climate Agreement and it was
supposed to save the world by a program of global

(02:12:54):
decarbonization d industrialization. Actually, folks, this year, barely a third
of the countries have submitted supposedly binding plans to decarbonize,
and they're all looking for loopholes about how they can
still virtue signal that they are part of it to
the bureaucrats and to the alarmists that are out there,

(02:13:16):
but to get away from it because the reality of
how absurd it is. Voters don't care about decarbonization schemes.
When they are asked to spend money, they will not
pay to avoid imaginary climate scenarios based on junk climate models,

(02:13:36):
which is why Gates is leaving. You know, he was
able to get away with junk medical models and junk
pandemic scare tactics. He was able to get away that
it still is. People bought into that, fully, they're just
not buying the climate stuff. So it always works when

(02:13:56):
you do it with medicine, you can take money from everybody,
you can completely fleece them, and you know they will
do it out of fear of dying, and hospitals have
known this a long time. Bill Gates knows it as well.
He's not talking about climate change and as they point
out in this article even as you have this big

(02:14:18):
hurricane that we just hit. He was silent on that. Typically,
and there are a lot of people who jumped on
board that. Typically whenever there's any weather, they always say, see,
that's climate change. They don't even understand the difference between
climate and weather. On Tuesday, is the strongest Atlantic storm
in ninety years, slammed the western coast of Jamaica with

(02:14:39):
one hundred and eighty five mile on hour winds. Gates
was downplaying climate change. Now this is from the Guardian,
and they are very upset about this because they believe
that there is a connection. They said, there's a straight
line between climate disasters and the higher temperature is and

(02:14:59):
acceleration of both poverty and disease, and he is ignoring this.
So he said he can't talk about human welfare and
ignore what's going on with climate change because they completely
believe both of these mcguffins at the Guardian. The state
does its best to sell hurricanes as I'm sorry, it

(02:15:20):
was Slate. It was Slate, it was not the Guardian.
They're trying to sell hurricanes as a climate change. I
mean they do that all the time in Florida. And
look at we just talked about how Michael Mann had
such a horrific record of predicting how severe the hurricane
season is going to be every year, and again there

(02:15:42):
hasn't been a severe hurricane season this year. There has
been a severe hurricane. That's not the same thing. The
inherent tension that Gait posits between the quality of life
and lowering emissions is simply false, and it is a
favored talking point of climate denialists. This is Slate coming
after Gates because he's pulling back from this mcguffin. Gates

(02:16:06):
understands that his health mandates are not liberty when he
talks about the quality of life.

Speaker 3 (02:16:15):
I mean, so, of course it's not connected to that.
Just look at the quality of life improvements in that
Ugandan village where they tell everything down. Now they can
build a beautiful new thing, just like Gaza. They're getting
this same opportunity.

Speaker 2 (02:16:29):
That's right as swamp creatures. I guess you could say,
did that they put it back into the swamp? Well,
you know a lot of this stuff was done because
of the idea that we had too many people, people
were killing the planet. That was what they sold us.
Is what paul Erlick sold us. Paul Erlick is now
ninety three. I wonder if he's going to survive the shock.

(02:16:51):
As the Popular Mechanics points out, they have severely miscalculated
how many humans are on Earth, and so this is
another one of their dire predictions that has been shown
to be false. They've been wrong about everything. This is
supposed to be one of the foundational aspects of the
whole climate movement, you know, the whole gaya movement, that

(02:17:12):
we're a virus and we need to be minimized or eliminated. Well,
the problem is that they haven't really been counting the
people in rural areas and all this came up. As
Popular Mechanics is pointing out, you know, this is one
that the other dire predictions that has failed because these
people who say that this is the quote unquote the science,

(02:17:34):
they can't even count. They got false data, false premises,
and therefore they come to false conclusions. And so the
reality is is that they said, when they started looking
at rural dam projects across thirty five countries, they said,
you know, I think we haven't been counting the population. Quickly,

(02:17:56):
guess what they've been estimating it, just like the estimate
the temperature readings. Talked about this over and over again.
It's become a big issue in the UK, but we
do it here in the US as well. They will
have weather stations that so called weather stations, but those

(02:18:16):
are actually interpolation points. They'll take a reading over here,
another reading over here, and then they'll get something in between,
and they'll just interpolate between those two, average it out
or something, and or maybe they go up a little
bit on it. And the readings that they're the actual
readings that they're taking are being messed with because they're

(02:18:36):
comparing them to older readings when it was not a
heat island. Now, in many cases they have moved these temperatures,
these thermometers that they've got in a particular city. They've
moved it to airport tarmacs, and of course it's going
to be hotter there, or they moved it to other places.
When I talk about a heat island, and I've mentioned

(02:18:58):
this before, even in North carol which is not a
real urban, heavy urban area, but we could go into
Raleigh and we could watch the temperature from Raleigh to
where we were. It didn't matter what time of year.
It would always be about four degrees cooler where we
lived because it was in a heavily forested area versus

(02:19:20):
being in an area that was concrete and streets and
things like that. And Raleigh even though it wasn't a
big urban city. But that's what they're doing. They're moving
these to different places. They've shut down temperature stations, and
they're using their digital thermometers, their interpolation to invent this stuff.
And they've done the same thing with populations. How did

(02:19:40):
they find their mistake. Well, they said, when they go
in and they build a dam, they have to count
the people very exactly because they're going to have to
give people some compensation. And so they went through in
thirty five countries and they looked at the data where
they were building a dam and moving people out of
their homes, and they said, well, we had estimated that

(02:20:01):
the population in this area was this, but actually we
found now that the population is that. And so they said,
if we look at this, we think that it is
that we have underrepresented rural area populations by a significant margin.
They said, the populations have been underestimated by between fifty

(02:20:21):
three percent and eighty four percent over the period that
was studied. So all the dire predictions from Paul Aerlick,
you had another one of these things where if he
was true and population large population was a problem, we'd
all be dead by now, and it hasn't been because

(02:20:42):
they got that all wrong. When dams are built, large
areas are flooded, people need to be relocated. The relocated
population is usually counted very precisely because the dam companies
pay compensation of those affected. Unlike global population databases, with
such local impact statements provide comprehensive on the ground population counts.

(02:21:04):
They're not skewed by administrative boundaries. We then combine these
with spatial information from satellite imagery, and so again, just
like the temperature readings, they estimated it and they got
it really wrong. Many countries don't have the resources for
precise data collection, and they have difficulty traveling to far

(02:21:25):
flong rural areas, so it only exacerbates since it's counting discrepancies.
So if we're really undercounted by that massive amount, it
is a massive news story, and it goes against all
the years of thousands of other data sets. A few
million or even billion would upend our understanding of human

(02:21:47):
occupation on the planet. They said, scientists will need a
bit more evidence before they rethink decades of data research.
So it doesn't matter if they estimate things and they
get their projections wrong and the data is all wrong,
it doesn't matter. They got false data, they got false premises,
and they don't care that their conclusions are false. They say, well,

(02:22:09):
we're still not really, we don't care if there's you know,
another billion people on Earth. We're still not going to
change our dataset research. So I would just say that
they need to get a bit more evidence before they
look at this stuff. So this is the first time
that they've really had any heart of it us. The
rest of stuff has been estimated, and now they reject

(02:22:30):
it because if you're doing real science, the first thing
you would have done would be to get the evidence first.
But they're not doing that.

Speaker 3 (02:22:41):
The solution first, that's right, that's rights.

Speaker 2 (02:22:45):
And then they backfill with a bunch of excuses, which
makes us back kind of where we started. Elon Musk,
and Elon Musk has proposing satellites that would adjust the
sunlight to prevent global warming. Well, these people freak out
about the fact that he's going to get a trillion dollars,
and I think it is absurd that he's getting that

(02:23:07):
kind of compensation. I don't really know what we do
about that without having some unintended consequences. Nevertheless, this is
a guy who's not enough for him to be the
king of crony capitalism and to get paid by taxpayers
for the things that he does excessive amounts. He now
wants to essentially own the sun and dule it out

(02:23:28):
to us on an allowance and take a cut from
sunlight coming to that's how you get even richer.

Speaker 3 (02:23:36):
And comments a point out I don't know if he
really can do that make a ac extra effect, but
this is what he's trying to accomplish.

Speaker 2 (02:23:45):
And if he can sell or if he can sell
the premise to the politicians, or better yet, if he
can buy the politicians, then they can fund this even
if it doesn't make any sense. I mean, his whole
thing has been his whole business and has been off
of self driving, which doesn't work quite well, and off
of the evs which are still not working very well.

(02:24:08):
So it doesn't have to really be a solution. He
just has to be something that he can get funding
from the government. For And he's even crazier now than
Bill Gates says on the climate stuff. So he's doubling
down on the same kind of greenwash stuff that made
him rich in the first place. He is trying to
be the architect of the humanity for humanity in space.

(02:24:30):
But I think the way to look at this is
that he wants to own the Sun. He wants to
block it, and then he will let it through and
he'll give us the energy from the Sun as much
as he decides that the government's decide that we should
have it. Maybe we should call him the son king
of crony capitalism, Louis Louis the sixteenth thing. So this

(02:24:56):
week Musk floated an audacious vision, a vast of orbiting satellit.
It's not merely to beam internet or data, but to
harvest social energy. I would say, to block it and
to regulate how much sunlight reaches Earth. On Monday, he
wrote on x he set a large solar paneled AI

(02:25:16):
satellite constellation would be able to prevent global warming by
making tiny adjustments and how much solar energy reached the Earth.
Who are you to decide what the thermostat should be
on Earth? Right? This is what we're talking about. For
the longest time they said they're not doing geoengineering. But

(02:25:37):
for decades they've been having these geoengineering conferences. And I
remember about ten years ago there was a paper and
the guy said, well, the big issue is who gets
to set the thermostat? Just like in your home, right,
women always want it warmer than men do, and so
who gets to set the thermostat Because there's going to
be some countries that want it warmer, others who want

(02:25:58):
it cooler. Who gets to set it? Well, I guess
we've settled that now to be set by the technocrats
like Elon Musk and we will pay them handsomely to
do it. The arrogant idiots who want to juineer jeo
engineer God's craftsmanship. Here he already commands more than eight
thousand satellites in orbit. He stands at the intersection of

(02:26:20):
private ambition and state power. Yeah, the king of crony
capitalism and those eight thousand satellites that he's got up
there now for his Internet that's available to the public.
He's got permission to put up like twenty thousand satellites.
And then there's a separate network that they're working with

(02:26:42):
him at the Pentagon of Satellite Network. So Pentagon wants
to have its own satellite Internet system so that when
they shut ours down, they'll still be going. Many observers
who are weary of climate doomsday narratives and wary of
billionaire behaviors have urged Musk to refrain from playing god.

(02:27:05):
Two vast engineering ambitions, one focused on solar panel power
and the other on climate control. The first part would
be musk plan involving satellites that would collect solar energy
in space. He thinks that he could harvest one hundred
gigawatts per year. To put that in perspective, one gigawatt

(02:27:25):
equals the output of a large nuclear power plant. So
by putting these things in space where it's not diminished
by the atmosphere or clouds, he would be able to
get one hundred would be like having one hundred nuclear
power plants in terms of energy it would collect, and
that's not going to be making its way to Earth
to help the trees and the crops grow. He'll be

(02:27:49):
intercepting that space based solar power isn't new, but it
has never advanced beyond early experiments. The challenge is transmitting
that energy you back to Earth. It will likely involve
converting solar power into microwave or laser beams and then
directing them to ground based receivers, and theory it could

(02:28:10):
supply clean electricity to power grids or floating data centers. Well,
here's the other reality of this is that once he
converts it to I don't know about the microwave, but
I do know that the laser is going to be
blocked by clouds, by dust in the atmosphere, anything like that.

(02:28:32):
That's going to be diminished. So he's going to have
some transmission losses there with the laser transmission.

Speaker 3 (02:28:38):
A second part I would think if he can actually
do this, it would also be a weapon for the government.

Speaker 2 (02:28:44):
Oh yeah, oh yeah, yeah, So they can cut off
the sunlight so that you don't have any energy. They
cut off the energy from the sun, then send it
to their own places and dole it out to you
on an allowance, because you know, you can't have access
to what God has put out there. I remember when
I was in college, they had demonstration of transmission using

(02:29:08):
the laser. They were transmitting an audio thing, so basically
he had you know, he's playing an audio source on
one side of the room, and then he had a receiver.
He was converting it to laser and modulating the laser
and getting it on the other side, demodulating it and
running it through speakers. And he demonstrated that was what

(02:29:30):
was happening by holding up a something that blocked the
laser completely and you could hear it cut off the
audio I was playing. Then he took an eraser back
when we had chalkboards, right, and he hits the erasers
together and you see the dust coming down. And as
you saw the dust coming down and the red laser
hitting that dust, you could hear the noise coming through

(02:29:52):
the transmission. So that's the kind of thing that they'd
be faced with when they transmit it back. But still
just because it doesn't work doesn't mean that they won't
fund it and he won't make a lot of money
from it. A second part of musk Vision goes further.
Instead of just harvesting sunlight, these sunlights could control how
much sunlight reaches Earth. This, by the way, folks, is

(02:30:15):
a tacit admission that climate is determined by the sun,
it is not determined by human activity. And I've pointed
this out so many times. Just think about seasons, you know,
and what is the season. Well, it's just a slight
variation in terms of solar energy that we get because

(02:30:35):
of the angle of the Earth that you know, we
tilt away from the Earth or we tilt forward to it.
That gives us our summer and our winters. And so
I've made that argument the past. I had some person
when I talked about that. It said, that is the
biggest reputation of all this human stuff I've ever seen, right,
And somebody said that is the dumbest argument. I said, well,
if you don't understand that sunlight is the drive of climate,

(02:31:00):
you are the dumbest person out there. And there's a
lot of people who are that stupid because the only
believe what the media tells them. The swarm would make
tiny adjustments to solar energy, cooling or warming the planet
as needed. The method would rely on reflective or shading mechanisms.
Surfaces are capable of angling themselves to deflect a small

(02:31:23):
fraction of the Sun's rays. Yet the scale of Musk
proposal goes far beyond an engineering challenge. It reflects a
civilizational leap, a vision of humanity that is extending its
control beyond the planet, says The New American. The idea
for all its ambition is not new, though it echoes

(02:31:44):
concepts imagined more than half a century ago. The ambition
echoes the ideas from the nineteen sixties physics, especially the
Dyson's sphere, a vast cloud of satellite's orbiting a star
to capture its energy. First proposed by a physicist, Freeman Dyson.
It was a thought experiment about how advanced civilizations might

(02:32:05):
power themselves, and Musk even referenced the same idea when
he urged followers to quote think in terms of Kardashev
two well. The Kardashev scale, proposed in nineteen sixty four
by Soviet astronomer Nikolai Kardashev, measures civilizations by how much
energy energy they can access. Type one would be harnessing

(02:32:30):
all energy available on its planet. Type two would be
to capture the full output of its star. Type three
would draw power from an entire galaxy. By those standards,
humanity is still far below type one. Musk's remarks suggest
that he sees our destiny as cosmic, and again this

(02:32:50):
is his vision of where he wants to take civilization
is truly satanic. There are risks and there.

Speaker 3 (02:32:58):
Is also a lot of marketing hype here. Type up
to diyce in sphere. To capture the entire output of
a star would be a complete shell around a star
that captures literally everything it's outputting. This is uh, you know,
putting a few satellites in space with solar panels is
not a type two civilization.

Speaker 2 (02:33:17):
Mm hmmm, yeah, that would actually be kind I think
it'd be that'd be taking us back to type one,
because what you're doing is you're harnessing the energy that
really is available on this planet, the solar energy that
is available naturally. These risks are existential. A miscalibrated shading

(02:33:37):
system could disrupt rainfall, collapse ecosystems, trigger abrupt warning warming
known as termination shock. A single error could push food
systems pass or limits and make regions unliv unlivable. Even
the architects of such projects seem to be aware of
that danger. The growing fascination among elle, however, with bunkers

(02:34:01):
and remote compounds and self sufficient hideouts, reveal an unspoken
admission that their own interventions could go catastrophically wrong. If
the effort failed, or if it caused new crises. The
likely response from those in charge would not be to
stop or to restrain, but it would be to double

(02:34:21):
down and to consolidate. They would claim that failure proves
the need for stronger oversight. This is what we always
see from the government. New American is right. Every time
they have a monumental failure. It's always because we didn't
do enough of what the failure was based on. The
line between state and corporate power has already blurred, forming

(02:34:43):
a technocratic block that uses climate policy, among other common threats,
as a moral cover for planetary management. The rhetoric is humanitarian,
but the design is unmistakably managerial and technocratic. And this
is why I say, when we look at how much
money is being concentrated in the hands of a few

(02:35:03):
people and the governments, how much power is there, there
has to be some constraint of this, somehow, some way.
The real constraint is because we are no longer a
moral and religious people, but we have governments and technocrats
who think of themselves as God. A grieving family is

(02:35:24):
used a chet bot. Here's the good usage of AI
to fight a one hundred ninety five thousand dollars hospital bill.
They cut it down to thirty three thousand. The AI
identified all the different tactics of fraud that hospitals choose,
not all of them, but many of them, a duplicative

(02:35:44):
billing for the hospital charge for both master procedures as
well as individual components. It also uncovered improper medical coding
and regulatory violations that invalidated major portions of the charges.
This is a family that got a one hundred and
ninety five thousand dollars bill because they had a relative

(02:36:07):
who had a heart attack and was in intensive care
for four hours, four hours, one hundred and ninety five
thousand dollars and the guy died. So for that wonderful
care that they gave one hundred and ninety five thousand dollars.
The initial bill was described as incredibly opaque, with massive

(02:36:29):
unexplained line items like seventy thousand dollars cardiology. That's what
it said. So they started using this AI to do
a forensic audit. And you know, that's the key issue.
That's what I've been saying. You know, whether it does
people use it to do AI commercials or whatever, the

(02:36:50):
real concern is how AI can be used to audit people.
We saw this with Trump going after his personal enemies, right.
For example, he wanted to go after Latitia James. So
and they also wanted to go after Lisa Cook, who
was one of the people on the FED Board of
Governors who did not want to lower interest rates like

(02:37:13):
Trump did. And so he had POLTI who was at
his Federal Housing Administration. I think it is or HUD
or something like that. I guess he's with HUD, and
he had him go back and do a forensic audit
using AI of these individuals. I said, very Stalin esque,
you know, bring me the man off, find the crime.

(02:37:35):
And he wanted to get some dirt on these people.
So they went back and looked at all their real
estate transactions, going back for decades to find places where
they had made gotten loans saying that they were personal
residences when in reality they were rental property. And in
the case of Letitia James's going to be a little
bit gray area because she didn't actually collect any rental money.

(02:37:59):
She had a relative who's been staying in that house. Nevertheless,
the issue was that AI can go through and do
these forensic audits. That's what Doze was doing and I said,
when Doze was going through it, I said, just remember
you like it when it's doing audits and finding government waste.
Wait until every one of us gets an IRS audit
every year from artificial intelligence. And of course, because it's

(02:38:23):
going to be AI, they're going to say, well, that
was all objective and you can't object to it. And
so if it flags you for something, good luck trying
to get that overturned. That's what AI does really well,
and it's going to be weaponized against us. So in
this particular case, a forensic audit of the complex medical codes.

(02:38:44):
The analysis revealed several serious and costly billing errors that
the average person would almost certainly miss. The most significant
findings were duplicate billing. The AI identified that the hospital
had built for both a master procedure and and again
for every individual itemized component of that same procedure. This

(02:39:06):
is not permitted under Medicare standards because it's basically fraudulent, right,
you're billion twice. The chatbot also uncovered in proper use
of medical codes, specifically the miscalculation of services using inpatient
codes instead of emergency codes. The flag potential regulatory violations.
Concerning how ventilator services are built on the same day

(02:39:29):
as an emergency admission. These fundamental errors invalidated huge portions
of the charges. Armed with this specific evidence based analysis,
the family moved from a position of weakness to one
of strength. The AI helped to compose letters that cited
the specific billing violations and raised the prospect of legal action,

(02:39:50):
negative publicity, and even appearances before legislative committees. So hospital
dropped the original bill from one hundred ninety five thousand
to thirty three thousand dollars. Before the resolution, the hospital
had even suggested that the grieving family should appeal to
charity to help pay the exorbitant, fraudulent bill.

Speaker 3 (02:40:12):
So other infuriating thing about this story is that they're
still going to have to pay that thirty three thousand
after this, after the hospital tried to steal one hundred
and fifty thousand from them, they will face no consequences
but one hundred and fifty thousand of fraud that they
tried to take. They will instead just get the payment. Okay, well,

(02:40:34):
find you can pay the reduced amount.

Speaker 2 (02:40:36):
That's right. And again, the guy's insurance had just lapsed
prior to that, and so you know that's on them.
And that's the other thing. You know, the thirty three
thousand dollars. I think if you've got somebody four hours
of care and the patient dies, I think thirty three
thousand dollars is just unjust. You know, there's got to

(02:40:58):
be everybody's got to look at that and say, how
do they get away with that? I mean that's insane. Yeah,
and wait a minute, and he points out in this
article is that another mother used AI. Alicia Biddle, used
GROC to challenge a fourteen thousand dollars hospital bill for
her infant son's care, calling the inflated charges theft. So again,

(02:41:21):
you know, that is one advantage for AI, but it's
also something that's going to be used against each and
every one of us when government audits us.

Speaker 3 (02:41:31):
I like how they have to specify she called these
inflated charges quote theft, you know, seeing as how they
tried to steal from her. They have to specify in
this article that it's illegal for hospitals to bill you
twice for the same thing, because in ordinary things that
would obviously be illegal in any other circumstances are legal
for hospitals. So of course they have to specify that.

Speaker 2 (02:41:52):
That's right, and they're completely detached from having to produce
any results. Right, doesn't matter if the patient died or not.
Well Jersey Boys eighty nine, thank you for the tip,
says Hello, David. What's your opinion on Greg Geese's American
System of Economics book called Miracle of Water Well, Gerald Clenty,

(02:42:12):
Beyond Wallacey, Greg Reace. I don't really know Greg Grease.
I mean, I've seen some good reports from Greg, and
I've seen some bad reports from Greg. So it's it's mixed.
But American system of economics, I'm assuming that you're talking about,
you know, what we have. You know, what we've evolved into,
as we've been saying throughout the program, is a kind

(02:42:35):
of crony capitalism, corruption that is there. We don't have
free markets anymore. And you know, when we talk about capitalism,
I think people are thinking of our current system of corruption,
this mixture of government and markets. I support free markets,
and I prefer the American system that we had before,

(02:43:00):
we had before FDR, the one we had before Lincoln.
But again we're a long ways from that. That does work,
that does creat prosperity. But what we've seen in these
previous fourth turnings has been an increasing micromanagement and accumulation
of power by the government, and that doesn't work. It's

(02:43:22):
just the solitarianism light. But the solitarianism is getting heavier
and heavier all the time. A book called the Miracle
of Water. I don't know about that. I'm assuming that
this is what you're talking about, is looking at the
crystaline structure of water and frequencies and things like that.
I've not delved into that. And Jerald Sentti will not

(02:43:44):
be on today. Next week will be when he's on.
He missed last week because he had a medical issue,
but he will hopefully be on next week. Twenty thirty
ev agenda will ban non plug in hybrid cars like
the Toyota Prius. Yeah, we're seeing that already in Sadique
cons London. First they started to give preferential treatment to

(02:44:09):
hybrid cars that would give them brakes in terms of
fees that were charged. Then that went away. Then they
started charging them, and then they you know, billing them,
I should say, not just charging your hybrid, but billing them.
And now they're flat out banning them. And you know,
when we look at one of the few electric cars.
That was a good idea. What was it called the bolt?

(02:44:33):
Was it the Chevy bolt?

Speaker 3 (02:44:34):
Was that I believe volta Okay, there was also a bolt,
but that was different.

Speaker 2 (02:44:40):
Yeah, well their idea, and of course Masa has had
the same idea. Maza was thinking, you know, we could
use the small roadary motor, which would be small, just
use it as a generator, so make the car electric
drive all the time. But we'd have a battery and
then as the battery starts to drain down, you've got
a generator. It could kick on and charge the battery.

(02:45:02):
So it would not be wouldn't have a transmission that
was driving the wheels. It would just have a generator
that is sending electricity to the battery into to the wheels.
And that was the idea behind the Chevy Vault. But
again they discontinued it because it was not a zero

(02:45:22):
emission car. You got to have absolute zero and that's
the inflexible insanity of this whole climate thing. That was
actually a good design, and I thought it was a
good design. Eric Peters thought it was a good design.
He said, finally, you know, a good use of all
this stuff. And yet they banned it because of their agenda.
Real Octo Spook says, free the cows, let them fart es,

(02:45:46):
fart freely and proudly. I think that Benjamin Franklin would
agree with that as well. High Boost says Walmart receives
twenty five percent of his revenue from Snap.

Speaker 3 (02:45:58):
That's right, and well, I guess that's why they had
the discount, only.

Speaker 2 (02:46:05):
Saying come back to us because we're still the best priced.
So I don't know. Government only produces regulation. You're right,
Georgia Boy eleven forty two. That's exactly right. That's why
we're not missing them. And if they hadn't regulated to
death the TSA. Another TSA, the air traffic controllers. Yeah,
get rid of the TSA. Why is the TSA still there?

(02:46:27):
Those guys love their job so much that they're working
without pay. Let them go away. We certainly don't need them.
There hasn't been a threat to airports airplanes and for
over a decade because if there had been, we would
have seen one terraced event after the other. And because
they are very poor at their job in terms of

(02:46:48):
finding things. We have people who get through the TSA
and get their destination. Then realize, Oh, I flew through
this with a gun. How did that happen. It's because
they do a horrible job. And if people are really
trying to do terrorism, they would attack the airports at
the places where the TSA creates the big pile up
of people. It's just that simple. That's what terrorists and

(02:47:10):
third world countries do when they have airport like securities.
To make sure that somebody doesn't smuggle a bomb into
a church building, what they do is they blow up
the area where they're doing the bomb scanning and kill
a large number of people. Right, Overture says, when government
is everywhere and then everything, the slightest disruption impacts everyone.

(02:47:31):
That's right. Naburu twenty twenty nine. Muskrats satellites are falling
back to Earth every day. Yeah, and of course it's
not an issue when he shoots rockets up. Right, emissions
don't count when they come from cows farting, that's going
to kill us all. But these guys shooting up rockets

(02:47:52):
that are going to be more than you would could
ever more of these magic gases than you could ever
produce in your entire lifetime, that's not a problem. That's
another one of the indicators that these people are lying
to us real.

Speaker 3 (02:48:09):
Octo thing is that, you know, his satellites are falling
to Earth, his cyber trucks are falling apart. I don't
think he'll actually be able to steal the sunlight, as
much as he may try. I think he'll just be
a ton of government money. I am still worried on
the off chance that he could be able to do that.

Speaker 2 (02:48:26):
Yeah, yeah, well, it'd be a negative effect whatever he does,
I think, And it's a it's a foolish idea. And
he's not the only one who has worked on geo engineering.
There's a lot of people working on that. Gates has
done it as well. The real Octos spook says, how
is Musk going to beam that power to earth dangerous
microwaves and lasers heating steam generation plants. Yeah, well, you know,

(02:48:50):
put him out in the ocean or something like that.
I guess, I don't know. I mean, it seems to
me like a very lossy form of transmission that's there.

Speaker 3 (02:48:58):
And that's the other thing that I was saying, is
that if this could be done, then those same lasers
or microwaves could be used as a weapon themselves the people,
aside from the weapon of stealing the sunlight.

Speaker 2 (02:49:09):
That's right, yeah, block the sunlight and then use it
to kill people. There you go, Buro twenty twenty nine.
Muskrat is to tech what Gates is to modern medicine.
I would agree with that. Let's take a quick break
and we will be right back.

Speaker 1 (02:49:24):
Folks, you listening to the David.

Speaker 10 (02:50:56):
Night Show, Elvis the Beagle and the Sweet Sounds of Motown.
Find them on the Oldies channel at APS radio dot com.

Speaker 2 (02:51:11):
I remember last year when Coca Cola did the ai
ad and a lot of people said that looks really cheesy,
and you know, there's this Coca Cola is drownding in money,
right and they're going to go cheap on an ai ad. Well,
they have double down doing it again this year. They're
very proud of it. Here's what it looks like. That's
appeel to solid. Oh wait a second, that isn't its opportunity?

(02:51:33):
Do you have the coke ad that you can play?

Speaker 3 (02:51:35):
Yeah, sorry, I'll get that.

Speaker 2 (02:51:38):
It's not behind the right button there. So Santa Claus decorations,
Polar Bears. But the one thing that they don't have,
which is really kind of interesting, and most people are
not talking about it. One thing that is missing out
of all this. Of course people are saying they, you know,

(02:51:59):
it looks okay, but I mean, how is it supposed
to get me to want to have a coke? Right?
Got all these animals that are doing human like things,
waving to the big trucks bringing in all the Coca cola.

(02:52:22):
It's all about Coca Cola, man't it. I mean it
doesn't even really seem like Christmas putting lights on things,
and they got things that are red and white, but
you know, Coca Cola's right and white, because you know,
we look at this, this just doesn't have any kind

(02:52:45):
of wonder or awe anything. It's got Santa Claus right there, right,
and they're all happy because Santa Claus got there with
a Coca Cola. Well said, The ad showed significant improvements
since last year. It still has some of the usual
AI issues, like non spinning wheels, although I did see
a close up of the wheel that was spinning.

Speaker 3 (02:53:05):
There was one shot where there was a non spinning wheel.

Speaker 2 (02:53:08):
Okay, so said the last year people criticized the craftsmanship,
but this year the craftsmanship is ten times better, said
Practique Thakar, Coca Cola's head of Generative AI. He says,
don't believe the haters. This is great. He praised the

(02:53:29):
fact that they had five AI specialists parsed through seventy
thousand video clips in just thirty days to create the ad.
Production used programs like open AIS, Sora, Google's VO three,
and Luma AI. I would have thought that they would
have gotten something better using those, don't you think again?
I wonder if these are five people who just kept

(02:53:50):
doing prompt after prompt prompt so they could get something
that they thought was okay, seventy thousand of these little
clips and then piece them together. They poured pray. They
did a documentary the Making of where they patted themselves
on the back for writing prompts and these AI programs.
They said. Post production is a new pre production. Advanced

(02:54:11):
reasoning models let artists plan and solve them early and
making scenes feel real before production locks in, combining human
creativity with AI to turbo charge expression and imagination, giving
creatives more freedom, speed and control than ever before. Look,
I would agree with that the problem is is that
this is showing that the people put this thing together

(02:54:31):
didn't have much imagination. I mean, you know, so you
got anthropomorphied squirrels and beavers or whatever waving to red
trucks going by. Who cares? I mean, you know, yeah,
you can get AI to do that for you. But
it's still kind of stupid. But the real issue is
this article on the Blaze points out lost in all

(02:54:53):
the criticism of the shift to non human artists is
the continued refusal of Coca Cola to even mention the
word Christmas. Nowhere in there does anybody say Christmas. Nobody
has Christmas. Thinking that, that's how much this is. They're
pushing back against all even can't get can't even get

(02:55:14):
Santa Claus to say Merry Christmas. Isn't that amazing? The
word Christmas is never displayed, never uttered, in any of this.
It is a forbidden word.

Speaker 3 (02:55:24):
Here the background music, they're going, Holidays are coming, Holidays
are coming.

Speaker 2 (02:55:28):
Holiday exactly, that's right. And then you know what we're
talking about AI commercials. The Cuomo ad. He got a
lot of flak for that. And look at this Cuomo ad.
He has himself doing one manual labor job like washing
windows on the skyscraper, one after the other. And trying

(02:55:50):
to make the case that he knows how to run
the city. He's going to have a lot more police.

Speaker 8 (02:55:55):
I'm and and I could pertain to do a lot
of jobs. But I know what I know, and I
know what I don't know, and I do know how
to make government work.

Speaker 1 (02:56:06):
I'll hire cops, the partner.

Speaker 8 (02:56:09):
With local community groups and keep our families safe, and
we'll get the homeless off the streets and into the.

Speaker 1 (02:56:16):
Help they desperately need.

Speaker 2 (02:56:18):
There are a lot of jobs one of the old
people's homes.

Speaker 8 (02:56:21):
But I'm ready to be your mayor on day one.

Speaker 2 (02:56:25):
It doesn't have much of a record to run on, doesn't.
I mean, we're gonna get the homeless off the street
where you're gonna put them in some homes where you
can kill them, and you could use the five thousand
new cops. That's the only concrete thing he's got, just
more police, right, So I wonder he lost the election.
You got to have somebody with some idea. You can't
just beat somebody without having any alternative, you know. Greg

(02:56:46):
Abbott said he's going to put a tariff on all
New Yorkers who are fleeing Mom Danny to Texas. Again,
it was just a joke, a stupid joke. I mean,
these people, it's like the content for the UH with
a Cooke ad. You got to have a good idea,
you got to have a good joke before you put
it out there. It does, it's not enough to carry

(02:57:07):
it through that. So anyway, parents are fleeing various places
out of the schools because of Mondami. This one guy
who is a consultant helping people to get into elite
private high schools and middle schools and other states. He says,
within the first thirty minutes of the announcement of Man
Donnie's victory, I got three messages from families looking to

(02:57:30):
move to help the kids. Well, you know, it's been
pretty bad for a very long time, did they just now? Notice,
let's talk a little bit about what's going on in
terms of war. And as I said at the very beginning,
you know, when we look at these abuses, look at
the concentration of power in Washington, we look at the
concentration of power into these technocrats. What is the answer

(02:57:53):
to that. Well, as John Adams said, we need to
have a moral and religious society. And what would that
look like. Well, it certainly wouldn't look like the people
who are pushing us into war. Love the graphic on
this pull this supplance Dick Cheney, the blood demons and
their evangelical priests investigating the demonology of violence, and it's

(02:58:16):
got pictures of laughing John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Netanyaho, and
Ben Shapiro. There this is by J. D. Holly says
Dick Cheney is dead and history will take a long
time catching up to the scale of his evil. He
was the architect of deceit, the engineer of empire, the
cold mathematician of a war that burned millions of souls

(02:58:38):
to ash. He lied to the world and to his
own nation, staring straight into the cameras, while inventing weapons
that did not exist and threats that were never real.
Even Cheney could not have accomplished his work alone. However,
he needed priests to bless his bombs, pastors to silence
dissent theologians to perfume the stench of murder, and he

(02:59:01):
found them in the pulpits of evangelical America. On October third,
two thousand and five, two thousand and two, five men
wrote a letter that would become a moral disaster for
the church. Richard Land of the Southern Baptists, Chuck Colson,
a prison fellowship, Bill Bright of Campus Crusade, D James
Kennedy of Coral Ridge, and Karl Herbster of the American

(02:59:22):
Association at Christian Schools. They invoked Augustine and Aquinas to
tell President George W. Bush that invading Iraq met the
standards of a just war, a theological falsehood so brazen
even Pagans should have blushed, and so on that note,
we'll have to end the program. But that is the

(02:59:42):
key issue. Our society is headed to war, foreign and
domestic civil war, class war because we won't fight the
spiritual war. Thank you for joining us. Have a good weekend.

(03:00:06):
The common man. They created common Core and dumb down
our children. They created common past, track and control us.
They're Commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing
and the communist future. They see the common man as simple,

(03:00:26):
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,

(03:00:51):
it's time to turn that around and expose what they
want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll
find at the Davidnightshow dot com. Thank you for listening,
Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially,
please keep us in your prayers. The Davidnightshow dot com

All Episodes

Fri Episode #2134: Trillionaire Musk vs Marxist Mamdani - A False Dichotomy, UBI is Neo-Marxism

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Ruthie's Table 4

The Joe Rogan Experience

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Fri Episode #2134: Trillionaire Musk vs Marxist Mamdani - A False Dichotomy, UBI is Neo-Marxism