Wed Episode #2127: America’s Gangster Government: Venezuela Killings & Gaza Genocide

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a
revolutionary act.

Speaker 2 (00:35):
It's the David Knight Show.

Speaker 3 (00:43):
As the clock strikes thirteen, it's Wednesday, the twenty ninth
of October. You have Our Lord, twenty twenty five. Well,
interestingly enough, Bill Gates has written an essay pulling back
against climate alarmism. He's still selling global warming, but now
he is saying that it's not an existential emergency. So

(01:03):
does that mean that we have zero justification for net zero?
I think it does. But we'll see what happens and
what might be behind the motives behind what he is doing.
We're also going to have in the third hour an
interview with the CEO of the National Constitution Center. He's
just written a book that kind of traces historically how

(01:28):
the country has swung between the two poles of Hamiltonianism
and Jeffersonianism. Where are we today? Where should we be?
We'll be talking about that in the third hour, and
prior to that, we'll be.

Speaker 4 (01:41):
Talking about the gangster.

Speaker 3 (01:43):
Government that we truly do have at this point in time,
continuing to ramp up the threats, the murders, the lies,
the theft. We'll be right back to stay with us. Well,

(02:09):
what we see is nothing short of federal gangsterism. And
remember the term gangster. Where did that come from. It
came from alcohol prohibition, the original drug war. But that
was done at a time we still had as a
country and as both parties had respect for the Constitution.
That is no longer the effect that is here. We

(02:31):
have the US military bragging about killing another fourteen people
just yesterday, four more boats blown up, and they openly
admit these crimes. This is murder. These extra judicial killings
are not legal under our law. They're not legal under
the Constitution, they're not legal under international law. This is

(02:53):
a gang that we have. It's not the Trump administration,
it's the Trump gang. They act like they're I don't know,
from the gambling industry, the mafia people, or something, right,
organized crime. We got war peaked announced on Tuesday. Yesterday,
at the direction of President Trump, the Department of War

(03:15):
carried out three lethal kinetic strikes on four vessels operated
by designated terrorist organizations. They've got that all up per case.
I guess we're going to be talking about DTOs next, right, Well,
you're a DTL. We have designated you as a terrorist organization.
We don't have to prove anything. We just point and label.

(03:39):
Just like the liberals, right they call.

Speaker 4 (03:41):
You a racist or a fascist than you are.

Speaker 3 (03:46):
They don't have to prove anything, they don't have to
debate you. And of course Trump doesn't like debates either,
especially with Ronald Reagan, because he would lose badly. But
he doesn't want to have a discussion of policy, a
discussion of the constitute. The four vessels were known by
our intelligence apparatus. This is what Warpete said. What is

(04:07):
the intelligence apparatus? They should be calling them intelligence apparatchicks.
These are the people who served the government's interests. They
were known to be carrying narcotics. These are all allegations,
not a single ounce of truth or detail about any
of this. No due process whatsoever. There was one survivor.

(04:32):
Regarding the survivor, they contacted the Mexican government and said,
you take care of him. I guess pretty soon we're
going to be up into the Gulf of America. Excepted
the case they assumed responsibily, because Americans can be bothered.
We only kill people, we don't rescue anybody. These narco terrorists,

(04:53):
according to Warpete, have killed more Americans than al Qaeda.
Prove it of all who they are. Secondly, prove give
us a comparison about this, and you know what you have.
Trump's vaccine has killed more people than the drug war
and al Khatic combined. They just won't admit it yet.

(05:16):
As a matter of fact, there was an interesting article
completely false by Reason magazine saying where's all the dead people?

Speaker 4 (05:24):
Well, you don't see them because you just read the
government reports. You should be.

Speaker 3 (05:28):
Ashamed of yourself at Reason to not see. You never
saw before kids dying of heart attacks who are in
middle school and high school. You never had schools doing
electro cardiograms before the kids were allowed to participate in sports,
and yet they go along with the denial. Anyway. Some

(05:50):
online reactions to Monday's operation that were put together by
W and D, who loves this kind of sick cheering
of mass murder, said, it's like the word isn't getting
back to the club. All the boats are spontaneously combusting
another one. Can we get this in four K the

(06:10):
video of the ships being blown up? Asking for a friend. Yeah,
there's a large number of people still. I think it's APE.
I hope it's a small percentage of people who glory
in this kind of violence. They cheer the government on.
They want more militarized police. I forget the guy that

(06:33):
used to work for Fox News at the when the
Charlie Hebdo attacks happened. He said, all these people complain
about militarization police. I want more militarization of the police. Well,
how about we just keep the radical Muslims out of
the country.

Speaker 4 (06:47):
Would that do?

Speaker 3 (06:48):
Instead of turning ourselves into a police and surveillance state,
instead of destroying the constitution completely over this failed approach
to harmful drugs?

Speaker 4 (07:00):
Why not?

Speaker 3 (07:00):
They are harmful? Alcohol was harmful too. It didn't work
to have prohibition, did it? Death from above, below, by
land or sea. It has long been overdue to rid
ourselves of this terrible plague, said another one. And for
what it's worth, I lost a daughter to this demon
as well. It hits hard, and now we strike back harder. Well,

(07:23):
I'm sorry that you had a loss, But to blindly
strike out at other people makes about as much sense
as somebody. This whole tactic here has been a proven
failure for half a century. And to continue down this
road and to just blindly strike out at people when

(07:47):
that's not going to change anything. It's not going to
bring your daughter back, it's not going to save other
people from a drug overtost. This is a spiritual medical problem.
It is not a law enforcement problem. This makes about
as much sense as somebody who's who lost a family
member going on a mass shooting spree.

Speaker 4 (08:07):
That's what these people are. These are people.

Speaker 3 (08:10):
They've had a difficult situation in America here with the drugs,
and so what Trump is going to do, as far
as I'm concerned, as a complete non sequitur because he
was bullied or because of the drugs or whatever, He's
going to go out and start killing people, just like
these training shooters.

Speaker 4 (08:31):
They brag about it as well.

Speaker 3 (08:33):
So when you've only got a hammer, everything looks like
a nail and they want to hammer everything. So or
Pete is famous for saying no refuge and no forgiveness.
And you know, there's no sanity in this either continuing
to do the same thing and expecting different results. There's

(08:55):
a very definition of insanity. And that's why these people
have gone crazy with the drug war, as they've basically
lost their mind. They've oeded on force. Heg Seth announces
the fourteen dead and Pacific military strike and alleged drug boats. Yeah,
you know, Warpete is a really tough guy. He can
push a button thousands of miles away and kill people.

(09:17):
That makes him really tough, doesn't it. This guy discussed
me like so many other people in the Trump administration.
You've got an Attorney general who has set herself against
the bill wrights. We're going to talk about that later.
Condemnation for the strikes has grown universally, condemned by Democrats
as well as a growing number of Republicans. No one

(09:38):
said their name, no one said what the evidence is.
No one has said whether or not they're armed, and
we've had no evidence presented, said Ren Paul. Details on
strikes have been scant, with Paul claiming that as a
Senator he hasn't been briefed on the strikes whatsoever. The
Trump gang has been tight lipped about the obstrate operations.

(10:00):
One whistleblower within the Trump administration admitted that one of
the vessels was retreating before it was struck, a key
detail that was admitted by Warpeat when he announced the strike. Meanwhile,
the US is conducting a third bomber flight off the
coast of Venezuela. They want to start that war so badly,

(10:24):
and they are not planning on even asking permission. They're
not even going. Yeah, they probably get it from the
warmongers in Congress, but they don't even want to bother
with it. Who cares about the Constitution.

Speaker 5 (10:36):
I also want to point out in both these articles
they've had that line. The Department has spent over two
decades defending other homelands. Yeah, look how well it's worked
out for them.

Speaker 4 (10:46):
Yeah, that's right.

Speaker 5 (10:47):
Yeah, Maybe want the tender ministrations of the US military
to do for us what it did for Afghanistan.

Speaker 3 (10:53):
Or on tender hooks. Yeah, yeah, it worked out really
well for all these other countries, didn't it, Vietnam, Afghanistan?

Speaker 4 (11:00):
Rock? How's this going to work out for us? Good? Point? Well.

Speaker 3 (11:04):
Two USB one B Lance Lancer bombers the part of
the US and flew near the coast of Venezuela Monday,
according to flight tranking data, and the latest provocation aimed
at the country and its leader Maduro. The flight marks
the third time that bombers have flown near Venezuela since
October the fifteenth. I didn't vote for this. I hope

(11:28):
you didn't vote for this. I hope the even the
MAGA people didn't vote for it. I've seen some accounts
out there that are, you know, people who want to
get a big following or whatever influencers are bots saying
this is what I voted for. Shame on you, Shame
on you. You voted for war murder and a continuation
of this failed war on drugs. You're stupid and immoral,

(11:52):
just like the Trump gang, you know, the one of
the gang, the MAGA gangsters.

Speaker 6 (11:57):
But this is exactly what everyone at MAGA was hoping for.
Everyone was voting for Trump with the wishes that he
would just go to war with Venezuela. Yeah, Venezuelans.

Speaker 4 (12:06):
Yeah, that's right.

Speaker 3 (12:08):
Make America gangster again, right the Rubio doctrine. The neo
cons are back, and this is an essay by Ron Paul,
not Ran Paul. Ron Paul came out swinging against the neocons,
especially Marco Rubio. According to Bloomberg, says Ron Paul, it
was Rubio who finally convinced Trump to take ownership of

(12:30):
the US proxy war in Russia in the first place,
the first time to place sanctions on Russia. Up to
this point, Trump chose to portray himself as a mediator
between Ukraine and Russia and to say that it was
Joe Biden's war. But then after Rubio pushed him, he
owns it and he makes it clear that he wants

(12:52):
to escalate. Following a confusing few weeks since the Trump
Putin Alaska summit in August, after that meeting, Trump dropped
the neo kan position that a ceasefire in the Russian
Ukrainian War would occur before any peace negotiations. It was
a sign that Trump was looking more realistically at the war,

(13:13):
but a surprise call to Putin the day before Ukrainian
President Zelensky was to arrive in town just over a
week ago reinforce that position. Zelensky left empty handed. He
was seeking Tomahawk missiles that could strike deep into Russian territory. Then,
out of the blue, Trump last week announced through his
Treasury secretary, the Soros Secretary Scott Bessen, that the US

(13:36):
would be sanctioning Russia's two largest wall companies until Russia
declares a ceasefire in the war before negotiations. That won't happen,
But what it means is that Rubio and the neocons
have successfully gotten Trump to step on the escalation escalator.

(13:57):
That is what they always do, and it'll be much
harder to back down now. Suddenly, after several weeks of
extra judicial murder on the high seas the name of
fighting the drug war, Trump announced that land strikes on
Venezuela would begin soon. He did mention that he might
brief Congress on his plans for war, not that Congress
can be bothered to care much way one way or

(14:18):
the other. The neo coon old guard that still dominates
Washington form policy is taking a victory lap. South Carolina's
Lindsey Graham was on the Sunday Shows bemoaning the conversion
of no regime change wars President. I'm sorry he wasn't
he was beaming over the conversion of no regime change

(14:40):
Trump to a regime change war Trump. The Saddam Hussein
weapons of mass destruction factories of two thousand and two
have become the Nicholas Maduro cocaine and fentanyl factories of
twenty twenty five. That's exactly right. What Ron Paul was
saying is that the weapons of mass destruction factories didn't exist.

(15:04):
It was a made up lie. And just like the
fentanyl and cocaine factories don't exist, it was a made
up lie. Once again, the neocon war lies are amplified
by the mainstream media and transmitted to the American people.
The Global War on Terror, so called has been rebranded

(15:24):
the Hemispheric War on Narco Terror, and the US military
industrial complex is rubbing its hands in anticipation of a windfall.
After Bolton's disastrous stint in the first Trump administration, promises
are made that the second Trump administration would be neocon free. Instead,
the neocons are back, this time with Little Marco. Unless

(15:49):
Trump wakes up soon, the neocons will destroy his second
term and maybe the country. Yeah, we'll see what happens
with this. But that's where Trump is. He has no principles,
so he is open to being persuaded by whoever's got
the most money or whatever. And again there's money behind

(16:13):
this stuff. Many times he will say whatever he needs
to get the votes of the MAGA people, and then
he will do whatever he needs to get the money
of the big financial backers that are out there. Artie
has an interesting story about Trump's idea of the Golden Fleet.
Actually it's going to be a golden fleece. And this

(16:36):
is not Jared and the Argonauts and the Golden Fleece.
This is you know, we've got the Golden Dome. You know,
Israel it's got their iron Dome. We've got a golden
dome because of Trump, of course, and now he wants
to have a golden fleet.

Speaker 5 (16:51):
I just assumed the Golden Dome is what he called
his head.

Speaker 3 (16:55):
Well, Artie points out some very interesting facts about what
has happened to American naval power. He said, it's well
known the current state of the US Navy does not
meet existing challenges, let alone those that could arise from
a potential conflict with China. During his first presidential term,
Trump aimed to significantly enhance the fleet. He wanted to

(17:16):
get it up to three hundred and fifty five major vessels,
but right now there's only about two hundred and ninety.
Details are still unclear about the number and the kinds
of ships that he wants to build, because he's just
throwing an idea out there, the Golden Fleet, but we
don't know what that is.

Speaker 5 (17:34):
Hopefully not the kind of ship that you launched once
and then it sinks or stops working and it's multiple
billions of dollars worth of debt you've accumulated.

Speaker 4 (17:44):
Yeah, that's right. Well, here's the real issue.

Speaker 3 (17:47):
And it's kind of interesting for Artie to look at
this because when I talked to I tied to Putin's
Rescue and the guy they call.

Speaker 5 (17:55):
That, what was his name, Alexander Dugan?

Speaker 3 (17:58):
Thank you, Alexander Dugan. One of the things that struck
me was how the Russians perceived They call us Atlanticists, right,
and they kind of see America as a continuation of
the British Empire that was based on sea power. They say,
both British Empire and the subsequent American Empire are based
on seapower, so they kind of group the two together

(18:20):
and call them Atlanticists. Well, they see themselves as a
land power, because again they have the largest land mass
of anybody. But for them to look at America the
sea power and to see what the facts that I'm
about to give you here tells you what they think
of America. What we should be concerned about right now.

(18:43):
The root of the problem, says our Tea, lies in
the overall decline of American shipbuilding. Which is once the
strongest in the world, but has lost ground to European competitors,
then to Japan, then lost ground to South Korea, and
now to China. Currently, the US accounts for less than
zero point one three percent of global commercial ship building,

(19:08):
while China dominates with a staggering sixty percent. They have
sixty percent of the ship building. We have one tenth
of one percent. Think about that. It's pretty amazing six
hundred times what we were doing. Military ship building, which
was which once drew talent and resources from the commercial sector,

(19:30):
now finds itself in limbo. And I got to say,
you know, when you look at the in electronics, for example,
when I was working in electronics, the military stuff was
lagging severely behind the commercial stuff. It was not where
the state of the art was. And part of that

(19:50):
was that they had to do testing on everything, rigorous
testing and had to be proven in a lot of
different environments. So you still had the Space Shuttle using
very heavy, very bulky core memory rather than solid state
memory because that just doesn't have enough of a history
on it. So the military stuff is not where the

(20:10):
cutting edge technology is happening. And the same thing is
true in shipbuilding, and so if you don't have a
viable thriving commercial shipbuilding, then you're not going to have
a viable thriving military shipbuilding operation.

Speaker 7 (20:24):
It reminds me of that story that you always tell
of the carpenter that you used to know who used
to work on yachts in North Carolina, and how there
used to be a large yacht building industry in North Carolina,
but then there was a tax on yachts, so you know,
these billionaires are gonna have to pay more for their yachts,
which destroyed the yacht building industry in America.

Speaker 6 (20:46):
And the billionaires just went and got their yachts from
other countries because you know, you can easily just that's right,
to sail them to America.

Speaker 3 (20:52):
That's right, that's right. You don't have to do anything
specially get them here, all right. So our ship building
commercial ship building volumes, I said, are even lower than Russia's,
which is basically a land power. They're going to hang
on to these areas in Ukraine because that's where their

(21:15):
black sea fleet is and things like that, but other
than that, for the most part, they're kind of landlocked.
We are building all these ships, they're building more ships
than we are. And then to Israel, the IDF chief
on Gaza says, the war is not yet over. Hold
that peace prize for.

Speaker 4 (21:33):
A little bit longer there.

Speaker 3 (21:34):
We're not really sure if they're ready to get that
printed up with Trump's name on it yet. Yeah, Trump
will have to settle for some casino in Gaza. He
may not get his metal.

Speaker 4 (21:47):
Yet.

Speaker 6 (21:47):
They aren't claiming that. You know, they're still being attacked.
We just haven't finished attacking them yet.

Speaker 4 (21:51):
That's right, that's right. We still have some more civilians
we can kill. Yeah, that's right.

Speaker 5 (21:56):
What he means is they're still Palestinians alive in Palestine.

Speaker 3 (22:01):
Our sacred mission of bringing the fallen hostages home and
we will continue the campaign against Hamas. And again, people
are digging through the rubble that Israel has CREA are
trying to find the bodies. They have found a few more,
but until they get that last one, they're not going
to stop.

Speaker 4 (22:20):
A y'all.

Speaker 3 (22:20):
Zamir said this at a military conference. Israeli forces have
continued launching attacks since the ceasefire deal was signed October
the tenth. They never stopped. I knew that was going to.

Speaker 4 (22:34):
Be the case.

Speaker 3 (22:35):
Killing at least ninety three Palestinians in that time. Well,
you know, we're trying to catch up there in Venezuela
with boats. I guess according to numbers from Gaza's health
Ministry and the IDF, that currently controls about fifty eight
percent of Gaza's territory. That's why it's going to continue.
They got to get that other forty two percent. Zamir's

(22:57):
comments came on the same day that Hamas returned another
Israeli body, leaving a total of twelve deceased hostages under
the rubble in Gaza. Israel has handed over at least
one hundred and ninety five Palestinian bodies to Gaza in exchange,
including many that could not be identified and that were
buried in a mass grave.

Speaker 7 (23:17):
How did they know that wasn't one of them one
of the hostages.

Speaker 4 (23:21):
That's right.

Speaker 3 (23:22):
It was clear that when Israel signed the ceasefire deal
that recovering all of the Israeli bodies would take some time,
but the Israeli government attempted to use Hamas's lack of
access to all the hostage remains as an excuse to
blow up the deal, and continues to claim that Palestinian
group is delaying the process. According to israel news site Whynette,

(23:44):
Hamas has conveyed that it has located the remains of
seven to nine Israeli bodies and is working to excavate them.
Israel is asking the US for permission to expand its
occupation of Gaza seeh like I said, they've only got
fifty eight percent.

Speaker 4 (23:59):
They want that other.

Speaker 3 (24:02):
As a sanction against Tamas for the time that it
is taking to find the bodies that perhaps Israel buried
under the rubble. Israeli drone strike attack and Southern Gaza
kills two more Palestinians since the truce went into effect.
They've killed dozens of Palestinians. I think that. In the

(24:22):
other articles, ninety some on allegedly crossed a line, including
as a reported last week, seven young children who were
targeted in a vehicle with their family. They killed eleven
people in that attack. And it's kind of what the
US did in Panama. You know, you tell people don't
go to this particular place in that particular place, you know,

(24:46):
get out of the area. Came the loudspeakers in Panama,
and people like, what area are they talking about? And
where do they want me to go there's no information. Instead,
death rained down pretty quickly, the same type of thing here.
You need to get out of this area. Don't cross
that yellow line. What yellow line? I don't see a
yellow line. They killed him. So before we take a break,

(25:09):
we have a North American house hippo. Thank you very
much for that. Tried reading the art of the deal.
You should read A Lucky Loser. Then couldn't get past it.
Couldn't get past the first page. Spelling, grammatical and obvious
factual areas, inappropriate capitalization, run on sentences, no paragraph structure.

Speaker 4 (25:28):
Awful.

Speaker 3 (25:29):
Well, I thought he had least gotten a ghostwriter for him,
but evidently maybe he had more participation in it than.

Speaker 5 (25:36):
The ghost Maybe he had too much ego to get
a ghost rider. Yeah, yeah, we've got Guard Goldsmith. Get
to see a gardening. Find Guard at Liberty Conspiracy his
show that runs at six pm during the week. Because
in even the anti drug statutes are in constitutional, they
might as well claim people were smuggling marble just because
they have lost them in DC. You can't bring into

(26:01):
the District of Columbia the real octo spook welfare. Countries
like America cannot afford ship building of a large military scale,
probably will never happen. Probably can't afford to have another
build it for us.

Speaker 3 (26:11):
Yeah, unless we can get somebody to take our funny
paper money. I guess that's the fun issue.

Speaker 5 (26:16):
We promise we're good for it.

Speaker 3 (26:18):
Yeah, we're gonna take a quick break quotes, We'll be
right back.

Speaker 2 (27:57):
You're listening to the David Night Show.

Speaker 8 (28:01):
Here news now at apsradionews dot com or get the APS.

Speaker 2 (28:06):
Radio app and never miss another story.

Speaker 3 (28:10):
Well, welcome back, folks. Before we go any further, I
just want to thank the people who have contributed to
us on Zeal. You should be grateful as well. Maybe
you're contributing somewhere else. We have other places that people
can contribute, and you know, sub subscribe Star was one,
and of course on Rumble people leave tips and on
cash apps, yes, but I have the names on Zeal.

(28:34):
I just want to confirm with the people that we
received it, since they don't get any confirmation other than that.
And I just want to think that because it's the
people who support the program financially that keep it going.
And so I want to thank Beverly S. Gretchen C
Julie W, Marilyn G. Matthew M, Ramon G, Susan L. Michael,

(29:00):
Darren M, and Robert B. Thank you very much. And
on cash app we have Dustin W. So I want
to thank you all very much, appreciate it. And right
now we are at about five eighths on the gas gauge,
just a little bit under that, and we're getting pretty
close to the end. But we'll continue on with this

(29:22):
and I want to talk about what's going on with
Bill Gates. As I mentioned at the very beginning, we
have Bill Gates now saying the climate change will not
lead to humanity's demise. Isn't that interesting? Maybe zero will.
Certainly they intend to de industrialize. I mean we're talking

(29:43):
about something it's far beyond just losing shipbuilding capability. It
is losing all manufacturing capability. It's about losing our power
as well. And so this is something that I reported
last week. There was one guy who's been one of
the well known climate alarmists, which is what we always
call them. They would call us deniers because we deny

(30:06):
that CO two is a problem. We would call them
alarmists because they're telling everybody the sky is falling in
the world is going to end. And now even Bill
Gates is pulling back from that. We had a guy
who was pulling back from it. I mentioned last week.
He said, I still believe that there's global warming. I
just don't believe it's going to kill everybody. Well, there's
been a lot of people who've been saying that for

(30:26):
a very long time. I don't believe there's any global warming,
and I certainly don't think that CO two is an issue.
Especially whatever is happening, whether it's CO two or anything else,
or even if it is warming, it's not man made.
So it's not made by man and it's not going
to kill us all. That's the two things you need
to understand about. We should all agree on that. And
so the question is what is up with Bill Gates?

(30:47):
Why is he doing this? This is what's the justification
now for zero If they don't have the alarmist thing right,
we have to sacrifice everything or we're all going to die.
So you know, we're going to tell you what you
can eat, what you can drink, what you can wear,
if you can travel, You're not going to be allowed

(31:08):
to own anything. What's the justification for that? Kind of
draconian policy. So he's warning against climate alarmism, which is
pretty amazing because he's spent billions of his own money
sounding the alarm about the dangers of climate change. He's
now pushing back, says The New York Times, against what

(31:28):
he calls a doomsday outlook. He appears to have shifted
his stance on the risk posed by a warming planet.
Many people have said, even if your dire predictions of
the rising seas and rising temperatures and all of us
of that stuff happens, we can just adapt. You know,
there isn't any anything that we couldn't adapt to in
any of that. I don't think any of that stuff

(31:49):
is going to happen. The coral reefs are not dying
as they predicted, The glaciers haven't melted, the polar ice
caps haven't melted.

Speaker 5 (31:56):
Not as single one of their predictions has come true.

Speaker 4 (31:58):
That's right.

Speaker 3 (31:59):
We've got fifty years of failed predictions, just like fifty
years of the war on drugs.

Speaker 5 (32:03):
If they were to come out tomorrow and say the
sky will continue to be blue, chances are it would
turn green the next day. I also want to point
out that the headline is Bill Gates says climate change
will not lead to humanity's demise. And I assume he
whispered under his breath, you know, so no one could
hear it will be me?

Speaker 3 (32:19):
Yeah right, yeah, yeah, that's the question. What are they
going to do? Are they pivoting now one hundred percent
of the pandemic mcguffin, You know, because he has to
have some kind of justification for the global id and
the surveillance police state, and some kind of a justification
to steal all the money from us and to force

(32:40):
us to eat what he wants us to eat. So
I don't really, I'm not sure what his end game
is here. But the New York Times continues, They said,
coming just four years after he published a book called
How to Avoid a Climate Disaster? Just now he says
there's going to be one.

Speaker 4 (32:59):
What's that? We made it? All right? We made it? Yeah,
And that's the tack that he is taking. Now.

Speaker 3 (33:04):
It's the same thing that Trump and Fauci and the
rest of these people did after what they put us
through their fake pandemic. Mcguffin, they declared victory. Is that
See it worked. We made a few mistakes, but hey,
it worked. I think that's part of what he's doing now.
I think it's getting to the point where the lies
are so untenable, just like with the pandemic, that they
have to pull back and say, see it worked, and

(33:26):
they're going to take another tack to get where they
want to go.

Speaker 5 (33:29):
I think there's also a little bit of the fact
that if you tell people over and over again that
the world is ending, it breeds this sort of nihilism
where people eventually don't care anymore. Okay, the world's ending,
So I'm not going to do anything. If you say
the world is ending, so you got to give me this,
eventually may just go Why would I give you any

(33:50):
the world's doomed. I'm not going to give you the
last little bit of my freedom so that you can.
You know, I want to at least enjoy myself on
the way out.

Speaker 6 (33:56):
Yeah, I think it's just that it's what you're saying.
They've kind of played out global warming for the time being.
They need to give it a rest. They'll come back
in a few years with, oh, no, we've got a
new climate disaster. This is so much worse than global warming, which,
of course, you know, we were right about the whole time,
and we've backed off of that.

Speaker 7 (34:15):
But this one, this is different.

Speaker 5 (34:16):
Global warming too, new and improved.

Speaker 3 (34:20):
And of course they did a complete one to eighty
after about eight years of this stuff. First it was
going to be a new Ice Age, and then they
just go completely opposite direction, say no, we're going to
have such massive global warming that everybody's going to die.
And then after it became clear there wasn't going to
be a global warming, they switched to the term climate change.
You know, they still call the dire alarmism, and so

(34:43):
now you know they're coming back and saying, well, it's
still a problem and we're still going to have to
have you do certain things for us, but we can't
go with these dire predictions like al Gore and the
rest of them. And of course Bill Gates was one
who is selling that stuff as well.

Speaker 5 (34:57):
Well.

Speaker 3 (34:58):
A Princeton professor Mike Oppenheimer's, quoted by The New York Times,
said Gates is setting up a false dichotomy. He said
that it is usually propagated by climate skeptics. That's right,
we've been calling these people alarmists all this time.

Speaker 4 (35:12):
He said.

Speaker 3 (35:12):
It pits efforts to tackle climate change. Against foreign aid
for the poor. Despite his efforts to make it clear
he takes climate change seriously, his words are bound to
be misused by those who would like nothing more than
to destroy the efforts to deal with climate change. Yeah,
that's me. I'd love to destroy all this stuff. So

(35:33):
he's rejecting the doomsday view. Is the headline from Bloomberg,
The Doomsday View of climate change and a memo he
rejected it. According to Gates, prioritizing the fight against rising
temperatures above all else means that issues such as human
health and equality risk being overshadowed. So where's he going

(35:57):
to go with this? Is he going to try to
bring back de Ei or something like that.

Speaker 5 (36:01):
There's also the fact that if the world really is
melting down, if it's ending, if it's about to collapse,
who cares. Oh, this is going to negatively disenfranchise somebody
in Guyana or something like that.

Speaker 4 (36:15):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (36:16):
From a purely rationalistic, materialistic perspective on things, if you
believe that the world is melting down and we have
too many people, there's no God who cares. You cut
off all four and aid, you starve these other countries out,
and you say I'm sorry, this is a zero sum game.
The world is burning down. I've got to make sure
that our country survives. So if your country doesn't make

(36:38):
it too bad, my apologies.

Speaker 3 (36:41):
Well that's why when you look at these two things,
human health and equality, I think that first one human health.
That means that he's pivoting to this kind of world
health organization mcguffin. I think that's what he's going to.

Speaker 5 (36:54):
Solutions are becoming, well, we got to track and trace
you all the time. The solutions aren't open. Well, we
have to cull the population. It comes down to that event.

Speaker 6 (37:03):
They got way more traction in just a few years
with this health mcguffin than they did with the climate
mcguffin over decades.

Speaker 4 (37:12):
That's right.

Speaker 3 (37:12):
Look at how effective that was when you had Trump
and the rest of the world on the same page
scaring everybody to death about the boogeyman germs that are
out there.

Speaker 4 (37:21):
So you know, you do that and that worked.

Speaker 3 (37:24):
So well, let's just go do with that because they
get all the same things. They got a global ID,
they get constant surveillance and tracking. They get to lock
you down. You know, that was always the goal with
the climate stuff, and so it's a lot easier for
them to do a lockdown based on a fake pandemic
mcguffin than it is on climate change. So he's pivoting

(37:44):
to that, and he's going to do it in the
name of helping humanity. So he said climate change is
serious and we've made great progress. He's going to declare victory,
just like Trump and Faunci and Biden did on COVID.
And so you have the head of Climate Chain Center,
the European Central Bank, because all these institutions have got

(38:05):
now people who have built their career on pushing this lie.
Her name is Irene Hemskirk. She said on Tuesday that
water scarcity and floods are putting the economic output of
Europe at risk, Really the economic output of Europe at risk.
What about destroying people's access to affordable energy? What about

(38:28):
de industrializing everything by saying you can't have a factory,
you can't build anything, because you're going to make some
magic farts that are going to destroy the world. That
deindustrialization is the thing that is pushing the economic output
of Europe into the ground.

Speaker 6 (38:46):
You know, they're talking about water scarcity. You know, I've
seen lots of stuff. I don't know what the situation
is in Europe specifically, but I've seen lots of stuff about.
You know, these massive alfalfa farms done insert is it
alf elfa. It's one really thirsty plant that these Arab

(39:06):
farmers are well, you know, they own lots of land,
so they're called farmers. They own this stuff and they
grow massive amounts of this really thirsty plant that they
then ship back to their Arab countries where they aren't
allowed to grow it because it's so water intensive they
can't grow it there, but instead they grow it in
the desert in America and take the water from the
people in the US. You know, they have scarcely generated

(39:29):
by that for the communities around where they are.

Speaker 3 (39:32):
So well, the planet is mostly water and if they're
worried about flooding and drought at the same time, Look,
you can get water out of the you can have
desalinization plants, and you can get out of the ocean.
You can have condensation you know what they call them.
It's a you know, it's a device that basically takes

(39:54):
moisture out of the air. Because there's a lot of
moisture in the air everywhere, and so that's not really issue,
that's just a technological issue.

Speaker 6 (40:02):
But what I'm saying is that it's you know, these
problems that they've created and they're trying to make it.
The solution is, we need to do carbon sequestration. We
just need to cut down a whole bunch of trees.
Then you'll have more water.

Speaker 4 (40:15):
Yeah, that's right.

Speaker 3 (40:18):
Well, you know, and of course when you look at
all their grain stuff and then especially now the AI stuff,
you want to talk about water Lithium is one of
the thirstiest of the mining procedures that are out there.
They need to have massive amounts of water, and of
course artificial intelligence the water that they need for cooling.
Maybe we should call it, you know, artificial industrialization because

(40:42):
AI is not really industrializing anything, it's not really making anything,
but the stuff that they want, the batteries and the
AI and stuff like that, are the things that are
really thirsty for water. So maybe what they need to
do is to focus on how they can extract it instead.
What they're doing is they're trying to pull Sea two
out of the air instead of trying to pull water

(41:02):
moisture out and interestingly enough, water they say is the
biggest greenhouse effect, and so again that's a natural process.
They can't complain to us for releasing too much water,
which again tells you that it's not man made. The
problem is not man made. The problem is bureaucrat made.

(41:25):
So Gates described the US government's decision to cut climate
and clean energy programs to be a huge disappointment.

Speaker 4 (41:32):
That's the other thing.

Speaker 3 (41:34):
They're having trouble in the first administration with Trump getting
him to go along this climate stuff, and they're having
trouble a lot of trouble in this one as well.
So he's not on board with that. He's one hundred
percent on board or maybe one hundred and ten percent
on board with all the pandemic stuff, but he's not
on board with the climate stuff. So this is another
reason for them to pivot from climate to pandemic. Gates

(41:57):
set his views on the necessity of the Paris Climate
Agreement and the need for companies to lower their emissions
have not changed. I'm a climate activist, but I'm also
a child survival activist. Okay, so he's going to focus
on childhood vaccines right.

Speaker 4 (42:15):
Now.

Speaker 3 (42:15):
It's time to put human welfare at the center of
our climate strategies, which includes reducing the green premium to
zero and improving agriculture and health in poor countries, because
again he's the guy that now is when it's pourted out,
wants to cut down trees rather than to plant them.
Gates warned that the doomsday outlook had led climate advocates

(42:35):
to focus too narrowly on near term emissions. Well, that's
an understatement. Richard Dawkins is complaining about Nature magazine, saying
they have abandoned science for social justice. We've abandoned science
for every kind of purpose. I mean, all this trust
the science nonsense that we heard during the pandemic, that

(42:58):
is completely that meme has become a mockery of what
science is, and of course climate nonsense is a mockery
of science as well. These people don't want to show
you their data, They don't want to have anybody trying
to test their assumptions. It's not reproducible, et cetera, et cetera.

(43:18):
The same type of stuff as we talk about with
the viruses. They don't isolate the viruses, and they never
do that, and they never prove that they've actually got
a virus, and never actually do the scientific procedure that
would say this substance here. When it's here, people are sick.
When it's not here, people are not sick. They've never
done that with viruses. That's why I don't. That's why

(43:41):
I question the whole science quote unquote of virology. I
think it says hokey. As the so called science of
climate change, they don't actually follow scientific procedure.

Speaker 5 (43:51):
It's also not just virology or the climate change science.
Is Every single science, as far as I'm aware, has
a replicability christ when it comes to studies, I think
it's something like seventy percent of studies are unable to
be replicated. Someone goes out and it does a study,
They do a study, and it comes back with his conclusions.
You go, oh wow, that's incredible. And then a few

(44:12):
years later someone comes back and says, all right, well,
let's try to replicate it. Let's see if we can
actually get hard data and confirm this, and they can't.
But that information has been spread far and wide in
the journals, are on magazine covers, or you saw it
in a meme somewhere, and now it's basically confirmed as
fact and truth, despite the fact that it can't be replicated.

(44:32):
They don't know how they got those results, they don't
know what led to those results, and it's just out
there forever. Now, that's right.

Speaker 6 (44:41):
Like you said, when they say science, what they really
mean is the polar opposite of that. When Francis Bacon
first talked about the scientific method, he was comparing it
as a opposite to academia. He was saying that academia,
these dogmatic beliefs that the elites push forward without any
rigor study, is killing science. So you know, he created

(45:04):
the initial idea of the scientific method of testable, reservable, beatable,
et cetera. And it's an alternative to this. So it
should be they've abandoned academia, the opposite of science, which
is what they were always Well, no, they are still
pushing academy. It's just now changed slightly against what Richard
Dawkins typically likes.

Speaker 3 (45:25):
Well, as Fauci said, he is science, right. You know
what I say is science. It's just like whatever Trump
says is law.

Speaker 4 (45:33):
Right.

Speaker 3 (45:34):
So we have these dictators in place rather than the
rule of law, rather than the rule of science. These
people are the rulers. Well, we have Anna Krylov, who's
a professor of chemistry at a prestigious university, said she
was asked to do reviews for Nature magazine, and she said,

(45:55):
even though what they asked me to do is in
my field of expertise, and she's said, I would normally
welcome the opportunity, but because of the statements that have
been made by Nature magazine, she was reluctant to do it.
She said, is it because of my expertise in the
subject matter or is it because of my reproductive organs?
In other words, have you selected me simply because I

(46:17):
am a woman? And Richard Dawkins jumped in on that
with both feet, and he said Nature used to be
the world's most prestigious science journal, one of the most
prestigious of science journals, but claimed that is now among
many who place emphasis on the background of the authors

(46:39):
rather than only on the excellence of their science. And again,
we have just too much respect and on deference for
these academics and the so called science. And so it's
going to be kind of interesting to see what happens.
I really do think that Bill Gates is going to
focus one hundred percent on the quote unquote health issue

(47:01):
is continue down the vaccines and the pandemic stuff. Remember,
he is one of the heaviest funders of the World
Health Organization, more than most governments, and when Trump cut
funding to them, he made it up and made up
the difference in terms of that. Well, let's take a
look at the comments before we take a break here.

Speaker 5 (47:22):
That's right, the real Octo Spook says China has what
ninety nine percent of production of manufacturing worldwide. China's military
will soon become the best on earth as they have planned.
I have to wait and see, Steve evs Hey, the
new Leads ballroom will be as big as the rest
of the White House.

Speaker 3 (47:37):
Well, actually it's going to be bigger. There was the
White House, which is fifty five thousand square feet, and
then there was the East wing and the West Wing.
I don't know the square footage are those, but the
White House dwarfed those two. When you look at the plans,
fifty five thousand square feet, the ballroom is going to
be ninety five thousand square feet, So it's going to
be almost twice the size of the White House.

Speaker 4 (48:00):
Truly is amazing. We'll be talking about that here in
a moment as well.

Speaker 5 (48:03):
Monumental waste of space.

Speaker 3 (48:04):
Yeah, yeah, it is monumental to him. The Jeffrey Epstein
and Donald Trump White House ballroom, and of course the
Lincoln Project people did a great ad. We're going to
play that for you here in just a moment that
really trolled him on.

Speaker 5 (48:22):
That Guard Goldsmith says, Israel's logic to recover bodies from rubble,
stop heavy equipment from operating in Gaza than bomb and
kill people and create more rubble.

Speaker 4 (48:32):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (48:34):
Yeah, there's never any intention to have peace there. This
is just a gimmick. And the fact that Trump thinks
that he deserves the Peace Prize that he's thinks he's
going to get another one in with Ukraine and Russia.
The question is is he fooling himself? Is he's trying
to fool other people and he is fooling a lot
of other people. Maybe he's fooling himself as well.

Speaker 5 (48:56):
Maybe he's self deluded. Yeah, don't frag me, bro says
Bill Gates of Hell. No, hell nine thousand Watson. They
still let him get away with destroying people and the environment.
North American House. Hippoh, this is what pissed me off
about Pierre Canada's Conservative quote unquote leader. He gave hardcore speeches,

(49:18):
but then it always came back to accepting the premise
of climate change and supporting Yeah, they if you give
into someone's world, if you accept and argue from that perspective,
you've already lost.

Speaker 3 (49:29):
You have to just reject it. And again, like I said,
Trump did did push back. He had some good people
and for a short period of time in his first
administration that were against the environmental thing. The big Achilles
heel was that he treated the Parish Climate Accord as
if it was the law of the land. And it's
the only law that I've ever seen Trump respect. He

(49:50):
doesn't respect the Bill of Rights, he doesn't respect the Constitution.
If he respected the Constitution, he would know that that
was not a valid treaty. But he doesn't respect anything
other than this globalist accord that is actually a treaty
that was not ratified by the Senate. And so it
is kind of amazing that that's the only law that

(50:10):
he really cares about.

Speaker 4 (50:12):
That was just something I.

Speaker 5 (50:13):
Think Big brit is back again. Gates will turn his
attention on killing as many as possible with his jabs
and genetically altered insects. Yeah, you don't want your delicious
cricket past.

Speaker 3 (50:24):
Come on, I'm doing the name of helping your health.

Speaker 5 (50:26):
Yeah, soil it Goy. By their own rationale, we've already
crossed the dark side of the moon on climate change,
and we're totally doomed no matter what we do. That's
what they've been saying, you know. Yeah, for about twenty years,
they've been saying that we've got ten years to fix
this before we're all doomed. Soiling goy. According to the IPCC,
if we stopped all industry right now, it wouldn't make

(50:47):
it dent in solving the alleged global warming. That's right,
there's nothing to be done.

Speaker 4 (50:52):
We're doomed.

Speaker 5 (50:53):
Just might as well let it happen, so let's enjoy
ourselves there.

Speaker 6 (50:57):
It's power creep for their narrative. They have to keep
ramping it up to a point of absurdity because it
has to be worse than what they said before.

Speaker 5 (51:05):
Yeah, well no, not only is it going to get warm,
but the planet's going to explode too. Yeah, that's that
sounds bad.

Speaker 7 (51:11):
It's global boiling.

Speaker 4 (51:14):
That's what this global boiling is.

Speaker 5 (51:16):
Next, right, catch me out in Alaska with them King crabs, brother, big.

Speaker 3 (51:22):
Well, the whole retreat from the term global warming to
climate change was kind of telling, I think, And you know,
it's interesting to see how many different ways that they
have manipulated this thing. As I said, it started out
as an ice age, then it became global warming, that
eventually it became climate change. But if you look at
things like the EPA, the EPA originally began as a

(51:43):
pushback against pollution, pollution that you could see, pollution you
could smell, and then they went into this mission of
de industrialization, and so everything about this has been this
constantly morphing blob that just swallows up and glad to
see at least that mcguffin pail. We're still going to

(52:04):
have to fight this, Gates health mcguffin, the pandemic mcgoffn
that's going to be out there. Lets them do everything
that they could with the other one. The two of
them are there. But it'll be interesting to see what
happens with Europe. I think what happened is that they
moved quickly enough on this thing, shutting down de industrializing,

(52:25):
for instance the UK, but also Germany. People are starting
to see what's happening there, and I think Gates can
read the room and he can see that people basically
had it, having their ability to even heat their homes
taken away from them. They are not allowed to make anything,
to grow anything, and it's going to create a grassroots

(52:45):
movement in terms of revolution. But on the other hand,
as you were saying, Travis, the scare about boogeyman viruses
that they don't have to produce any evidence of that
worked perfectly, So it makes a lot of sense from
the pivot to that one hundred percent.

Speaker 5 (53:03):
Big brit Is back again, says the massive data AI
centers are stealing all the water.

Speaker 4 (53:08):
Yeah, I can be able to grow.

Speaker 5 (53:10):
Anything because we need to generate more nonsense. The real
Octo spook all. I see his Gates admitting he was
a criminal all along, and the majority of we the
people as usual, were right. They're doubling down in their
attacks while playing to be becoming benign.

Speaker 4 (53:25):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (53:25):
That's another thing, is he's saying it's not a disaster now,
So is he going to apologize for destroying economies in
the name of stopping this disaster?

Speaker 4 (53:33):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (53:34):
Yeah, there's no steel refinery left at all in the UK.
They shut down the last one of those, and they
they're not allowed to get the kind of coal that
they used to make steel, they're not allowed to have
the energy that they can use to make steel. And
Germany is shutting everything down as well. German car companies
are being mandated to go away because they've got to
have zero emission vehicles. There's not even good enough to

(53:56):
have a hybrid that's out there. You've got to have
zero emissions. And so with that declaration, what they did
was they erased the massive lead that European car companies,
German car companies, American car companies, the massive lead that
they had an engine technology that was then involved quite
a bit of evolution in terms of the technology involved,

(54:20):
and just clear the decks and start over again. And
that allowed the Chinese to not only be equal but
superior to them because they also have access to unlimited
cheap energy as well as resetting the board when it
comes to car technology.

Speaker 5 (54:39):
Niberu twenty twenty nine says, those alfalfa farms are also
a front for the aquifer water extraction that's being bottled
and shipped overseas by the millions of hectors. So look
at nineteen eighty collecting water from your roof gutter down
spouts and ACD humidifier drain lines can go a long
way to reduce dependency on municipal water usage in some areas.

(55:00):
Interesting and good advice from Solo Cat.

Speaker 3 (55:02):
Well, we're going to take a break and when we
come back, we're going to take a look at Trump
and his theatrics. That and this last week we've seen
a lot of theatrics about a third term, and we're
going to take a look at what both the left
and the right are saying about this. You got an
essay from Steve Watson saying, well, look at this. Trump

(55:26):
is just trolling these people and they're losing their mind
over this. Well, I don't know who's losing their mind
over it. Maybe we're losing the constitution.

Speaker 9 (55:42):
He is a little song I ought you might want
to here in your part.

Speaker 4 (55:48):
You know nothing and be happy.

Speaker 9 (55:55):
Ain't got no cash, ain't got no cam, not to empty,
four star shots in your arm, Own nothing.

Speaker 4 (56:05):
To be happy.

Speaker 9 (56:09):
You can't even buy it in the store because of
your lone social credit score. Own nothing, Be happy, You
will own nothing and be happy, Be happy and eat

(56:34):
a box.

Speaker 2 (57:28):
Joy. Listening to the David Knight.

Speaker 10 (57:30):
Show, Hello, it's me, Voladimir Zelenski. I'm so tired of
wearing these same T shirts everywhere for years. You'd think
with all the billions I've skimmed off America, I could
dress better. And I could if only David Knight would
send me one of his beautiful gray mcguffin hoodies or
a new black T shirt with the mcguffin logo in blue.

(57:55):
But he told me to get lost. Maybe one of
you American suckers can buy me some. At the Davidknightshow
dot com. You should be able to buy me several hundred.
Those amazing sand colored microphone hoodies are so beautiful, I'd
wear something other than green military cosplay to my various.

Speaker 7 (58:14):
Gallas and social events.

Speaker 10 (58:15):
If you want to save on shipping, just put it
in the next package of bombs and missiles coming from
the USA.

Speaker 11 (58:32):
Elvis the Beetle and the Sweet Sounds of Motown find
them on the Oldies channel at apsradio dot com.

Speaker 3 (58:43):
Well, welcome back, folks, and we do want to thank
Charlie and APS for carrying the program there and also
for supporting the program as well. Appreciate that. Thank you, Charlie. Also,
Karen brought in the list of people who are paid
and have supported us with checks, and she said, I
hadn't read the second week of October yet, so let

(59:04):
me catch up on that. I want to thank Helen T.
Aaron W. Fred and Jackie U, Stephanie K, jack H,
David and Ann Marie N, Melda D, Mike M, Christina J.
David and Deborah W. Ronald C. Gonzalo and Susan M.

(59:26):
Greg R, Aaron F. Meg J and the Sellers family
Monica especially thank you all of you for your support
and that gets us caught up on the checks for October.

Speaker 5 (59:39):
And now I gotta thank g Talent sixty says, good job, guys,
thank you, thank you hereming me, I really do appreciate it.
And to all of you out there, if you find
value in the show, if you like watching it, it's
your support that keeps us on the air. We really
cannot thank you all enough. And you can find ways
to support the show at Davidknight dot news if you
do find value in it. There there's tons of links there,

(01:00:01):
whether it's the cash app, zell, subscribe star, Bitcoin or
the mailing address. We can't thank you all enough. As
I keep stating, we really do appreciate.

Speaker 3 (01:00:10):
It, Yes, and Brandon grateful Baptist, He says, please continue
to pray for me about getting off of opioid medication.
I've only been able to lower my dose. I'm really
in a battle, but it's victory to even lower the dose,
and we will be praying for you. Brandon. I'm sorry
to see that. That's one of the great tragedies of
this opioid thing, and that is the fact that a

(01:00:33):
lot of people, so many people got hooked on this
because of the doctors that were out there. I remember
the story from Chris Christy when people asked him about marijuana,
he pivoted to the opioid thing. Talk about a total
non sequitor. They're completely different. The opioids are much more
addictive and it is a choice that people made.

Speaker 4 (01:00:56):
He said.

Speaker 3 (01:00:58):
I had a friend who did from law school. He
said he's a very successful partner in a law firm,
and he was jogging, unlike Chris Christie or myself, I
don't jog, and he said he injured his back and
he said they gave him opioids. He got addicted to them,
that pain medication, and he said it cost him his

(01:01:22):
job as a lawyer. It cost him his marriage and
eventually he took his life because it was so difficult
to get off of that. So Brandon will be praying
for you. Don't do anything rash. God can change things.
But then he pivoted Chris Christy did to marijuana, which
is a complete non sequitur. And if you want to

(01:01:43):
prohibit stuff, maybe you should start looking at some of
the things that the pharmaceutical companies are doing, because they're
harming people without fully informing them what is involved in this.
I remember when ram Paul got tackled by his neighbor
and broke several ribs and he was in a great
deal of pain, and he said, I'm not taking any

(01:02:04):
opioids at all. He was informed about it. But you know,
if you don't know about this stuff, it's very easy.
All of us, at one point or the other, have
been blindsided by the medical community. So we'll be praying
for you, Brandon. I want to talk a little bit
about Trump and his theatrics, and you know, when you
look at all this back and forth about a third

(01:02:25):
term and what Steve Bannon is doing, these people are liars,
their grifters, they're thesbians. Hey, that's what they should have
for the LGBT, right, thesbians, it's transgenders, and so on CNN,
they kind of one person who used to work for

(01:02:47):
the Pentagon as a spokesperson, Sabrina Singh kind of laughed
it off and said, this is a hell of a
drug for Trump, isn't it to troll people all the
time so that he can grab headlines? And so you've
got a lot of mainstream media are talking about it
because of Steve Bannon, who's also another grifter and theatric

(01:03:09):
headline grabber. So she said he's telling people about running
for a third term. Sabrina, seeing former Pentagon spokesperson, said
her comments came after Steve Bannon said during an interview
with The Economist that there is a plan quote unquote
in place. Trust this plan right to make sure that

(01:03:31):
Trump is president in twenty twenty eight and beyond to
infinity and beyond. He should should have run in both
light year. He may really be seeking relevance instead of
another term as president, said Sabrina. So, I think relevancy
is one hell of a drug, and I think he
likes to stay relevant. In other words, he wants to

(01:03:53):
grab all the headlines he can, and he also wants
to strike people from the other things that he's doing.
You know, he put out a video that old people
about the fact that he was never going to leave.
He should think about whether he's going to live that long.
You know, when you look at what happened with the
mri I, you know, he's getting his well passed life

(01:04:14):
expectancy for men in America, and none of us has
tomorrow guaranteed for us. Most Americans disapprove by the way
of Trump's AI videos. Most people are not a fan
of what he did with that trolling of the King

(01:04:35):
no King's protest last week.

Speaker 4 (01:04:37):
What you mean.

Speaker 6 (01:04:38):
Americans don't like seeing their president dumping fake extrement on
all of America.

Speaker 3 (01:04:44):
That's right, Yeah, they said. Sixty one percent of respondents
strongly disapproved, another nine percent somewhat disapproved. Well, on that
is seventy percent. That's more than two thirds of people
didn't like it. You wouldn't know that to look at
social media, to look at X, you would think that
everybody loves us. That's just how dominated it is by

(01:05:05):
the Make America Gangster Again Crown. Sixty percent of poll
respondents called the video unpresidential. More than half described it
as disturbing or offensive. Only a small share viewed it positively,
with fifteen percent finding it entertaining and only nine percent
saying that it was clever. So again, CNN is fear mongering,

(01:05:32):
says Steve Watson. I just told you what the one
analyst said said laughed it off and said, you can't
possibly be serious about this. It isn't going to happen.
He's just trying to grab the headlines and pretend that
he's got this. You know, he's addicted to being relevant,
to being in the headlines. But Steve Watson attacks CNN

(01:05:53):
rather than Trump. He says, CNN's fear mongering. The fearmongers
Trump's despot talk of a third term. They think that
it's a serious threat. Let me just say this, Steve,
we have a thing. I know you don't have it
in the UK, but we have this thing called the Constitution,
and these people don't have any legal authority if they

(01:06:14):
ignore the Constitution. That's the key issue with what Trump
and Steve Bannon are saying. They don't care about the Constitution.
They actively and publicly hate it and do everything they
can to undermine it. That is the issue, just like
the issue and his anger about the Canadian commercial playing.

(01:06:34):
What Reagan was saying the issue was that Trump was
a lying and that b he was a temperamental tyrant
who immediately imposed a ten percent tariff, and that I
hope is going to come back to really haunt him
when he goes before the Supreme Court. He wants to
claim it's an emergency, and yet he just showed that
it's based on his own personal, capricious, arbitrary whims, what

(01:06:59):
level of tax a he puts on and who he
puts it on. And so those are the real issues.
The fact that Trump doesn't want to debate the issue.
It doesn't matter what you think about the tariffs economically,
he doesn't want to debate Ronald Reagan, and he doesn't
want to debate anybody, and he doesn't want people to
have free speech. And if it's something negative about him,

(01:07:21):
he immediately came back out the next day he said,
these polls that are out there, we need to ban them.
If they're negative about me. They shouldn't be allowed to
run ads with polls that I don't agree with, and
they should be banned. And he's trying to ban ads
in foreign countries by throwing TIFFs at them as well.
That's the real issue that's involved there. That's the bigger

(01:07:44):
issue than the terriffs. So Trump responded to reporter who
asked about Steve Bannon's remarks. The President largely dismissed the
notion sos Steve Watson, saying that he wouldn't run his
vice president and then have the new president up aside
because the American people quote wouldn't like it. He doesn't

(01:08:04):
say I wouldn't do it because the constitution doesn't allow it.
You know, we have a specific amendment that doesn't allow that.
But of course he didn't care about the Second Amendment.
He decided that he had the power to ban whatever
he wanted to by decree, and he did. And he
said a precedent that Biden continued on with. He says,

(01:08:26):
calling a third term is something that Washington in his
farewell address would have called something different. He called it
a despot. But you know, something like despot's dictator monarch,
that's not going to poll well with focus groups, said Coe,
who wrote for The New York Times. So Eric Doughtry

(01:08:49):
quoted CNN and said, we have to take this quite seriously.

Speaker 4 (01:08:51):
It's a threat. It is a threat.

Speaker 3 (01:08:53):
It's a threat to the constitution. Nearly everything that Trump
does is a threat to some aspect the Constitution. And
he is a despot, and he is desperate for relevancy,
for attention, and to divert people's attention from serious things
to the nonsense that he puts out there. So co
at the New York Times said, I think I think

(01:09:17):
there are as Bannon threatened. I would like to say
that we do have to take this quite seriously. We
should view it as a threat. And so Steve Watson
is saying, well, absolutely not. But it is a threat
to the rule of law. And we played this for
you the other day. I want to play it again.
This is what Steve Bannon actually said, and left the

(01:09:38):
economist reporters from the UK actually amazed that he was
saying that he's just going to ignore the Constitution or
they'll find some way to get around what he knows
the constitution says. We'll get around it, right, I know
that it says we can't have a third term. We'll
find some way to wiggle around the constitution and the law. Yep,
that's the wrong one. Let's see we got the wrong

(01:10:01):
clip in there from that. Do you have the banding
clip that you can play?

Speaker 7 (01:10:06):
Yeah, let me just find it here.

Speaker 12 (01:10:07):
Okay, he's going to get a third term, so Trump
twenty eight. Trump is going to be president in twenty eight.
And people just thought to get.

Speaker 4 (01:10:13):
Well, yeah, you will be president twenty eight.

Speaker 13 (01:10:15):
Second Amendment.

Speaker 4 (01:10:16):
The president doesn't come until.

Speaker 12 (01:10:18):
Many different alternatives at the appropriate time will lay out
what the plan is. But there's a plan, and President
Trump will be the president in twenty eight. We had
longer odds in sixteen and longer odds in twenty four
than we got in twenty eight. And President Trump will
be the president United States.

Speaker 3 (01:10:32):
What a lyne grift thing, fraud he is. He belongs
in prison.

Speaker 14 (01:10:36):
Finish what we started.

Speaker 4 (01:10:38):
It's the wall.

Speaker 12 (01:10:39):
Finish it to Trump. Trump is a vehicle. I know
this will drive you guys crazy, but he's a vehicle
of divine prophetence. He's an instrument. He's very imperfect, he's
not churchy, not particularly religious, but he's an instrument of
divine will. And you can tell this of how we've
how he's pulled this off. We need him for at
least one guy is an unbelievable.

Speaker 15 (01:11:00):
You'll get that in twenty.

Speaker 16 (01:11:00):
Eight You're not driving me crazy.

Speaker 3 (01:11:02):
We we we You're not in the administration, Bannon, You're
not an insider to this.

Speaker 13 (01:11:06):
The things you've just told me in the last few minutes.
On the one hand, you've said the Constitution is fit
for purpose. Secondly, you've said that President Trump needs another term,
even though the twenty second Amendment makes pretty clear that
he cannot have a second another time. Why does it
make that clear because he's on his second term already.

Speaker 12 (01:11:22):
At some point in time, we will make sure we
go through zanny and define all those terms.

Speaker 16 (01:11:28):
But even if you wait to undermine the you will
be undermining the spirit of that amendment, even if you
find some way around it and to those.

Speaker 4 (01:11:38):
The American people.

Speaker 12 (01:11:39):
Can the American people if the American people, with the
mechanims we have put Trump back in office, are the
American people tearing up the Constitution? Would that be turning
over with that would be would the American people be
going against the spirit of the company.

Speaker 4 (01:11:53):
We have a republic, not a mobocracy.

Speaker 16 (01:11:56):
Actually, because I think what you are going to do,
what you will end up with saying pureess justification for.

Speaker 4 (01:12:02):
A quasite demagogue. That's not true at all.

Speaker 12 (01:12:05):
What it sounds like Trump is a dictatorship. Did you
just see the compromises he had to make on the
big beautiful bill.

Speaker 4 (01:12:12):
You see the.

Speaker 12 (01:12:12):
Compromises he has to do on everything, on accommodating Zelenski,
on what on what Trump proce. Trump is nothing but
a series of negotiations to kind of keep this thing
rolling forward, where he's having trade offs all the time.

Speaker 16 (01:12:26):
Last Tyntes telling me, we have to smash the other side.
There's no room for debate, there's no room for compromise.
We must smash them. And now you're telling me this
is a negotiations.

Speaker 4 (01:12:35):
Are you interviewing this guy anyway? He's obviously just allging grifts.

Speaker 12 (01:12:40):
In twenty twenty eight and continues to stay in office.
Is by the will of the American people, okay, And
the will of the American people is what the Constitution
and bodies. And so I think we're gonna be We're
going to be in good hands there. We need to
finish what we started, and President Trump is the instrument,

(01:13:00):
a providential instrument, to finish that.

Speaker 4 (01:13:02):
To finish this.

Speaker 3 (01:13:02):
Job, He's going to wrap himself in God Okay, providential.
This guy is such a crook, I can't He belongs
back in jail. Remember he grifted all of the MAGA
people about the we build the Wall thing, and he
went to jail, and it was Trump who let him out.
But he's not on the inside all this we we

(01:13:23):
we stuff, this royal we Bannon is not a part
of this administration. He doesn't have any influence except with
the MAGA people. And he's got influence with them because
people like the economists come in to talk to him,
and of course he gets a lot of attention, and
so they do that for the same reason that Trump
does this nonsense, and the same reason that Bannon does

(01:13:43):
this nonsense. But Bannon is selling some very dangerous ideas.
We don't have a democracy. We don't want a democracy.
A democracy is a mob. We want the rule of law,
We want a constitutional republic. And everything that Bannon and
Trump and all the rest of these Maga jerks have

(01:14:04):
done is to undermine and destroy the Constitution. And he's
openly talking about we'll find some way to undermine the
twenty second Amendment, just as they found ways to undermine
the rest of the Bill of the amendments in the Constitution.

Speaker 5 (01:14:16):
I mentioned this before, but he is going about this
in the worst possible way. He could. You know, if
you're going to have a strong and if you're gonna
have someone that comes in and seizes power and says,
all right, I'm a dictator now, but I'm going to
do everything that the right wing wants, you could potentially
make an argument that all right, you know, eventually it'll

(01:14:37):
be bad, but for however long this guy lives, he's
going to give us exactly what we want. So there's
you know, there's root, there's something to gain there. He's
assuming all this power and then he's immediately going to
divest it of himself and hand it to people that
hate you, people that want to utilize it to bring
the hammer down on you.

Speaker 3 (01:14:55):
Yeah, he is the powers that you're giving to the
next Democrat president.

Speaker 5 (01:14:59):
And there is going to be one. Yeah, he's setting
it all up and he is pissing them all off
to the point where no one is going to be
able to fill his shoes.

Speaker 3 (01:15:07):
Well, that's my point. The maga ba I'm doing, and
what Bannon is cheering is the destruction of a constitutional republic.
He wants a dictatorship. He wants a mob that is
going to be out there. He hates the Constitution. This
guy should be in jail. He is nothing but a grifter,
grifting and deceiving these maga people who don't know any better.

Speaker 5 (01:15:27):
If anything, he's making it extremely easy for the next
Democrat to come in and say, we saw what those
Republicans did, We saw how they almost ran for a
third time. Who knows, maybe next time they get in
they'll just do away with it. So maybe we have
to do away with it now.

Speaker 4 (01:15:41):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:15:42):
So this woman, who again I can't understand why anybody
would care a whit about what this lying crook Steve
Mannon says. She said, I think actually that you what
you will end up with is a populist justification for
a quasi dictatorship. Course, and Bannon says, well, the will

(01:16:03):
of the American people is what the Constitution embodies, absolutely wrong.

Speaker 4 (01:16:09):
The law is what it says.

Speaker 3 (01:16:13):
This is the Republican slash conservative version of the Constitution
as a living document, which is the fiction that the
left created a long time ago to basically overthrow the Constitution.
It's a living document. It is what we say it is,
it is what we want it to be at this
point in time, We're not going to be bound by

(01:16:34):
the actual text of the Constitution. We're not going to
be bound by the law. It is what we aspire
for it to be. It is what the President says
it is, or what the Supreme Court says that it is.
Bannon's tone suggests a more serious movement may be forming
around the idea. Well, let's hope not, because these people

(01:16:56):
are bad enough. Trump is not ruling out a third term,
claims to reporters, I've saved the lives of millions of people. Well,
he's actually a mass murderer, and he's proud of being
a mass murderer, and he's proud of killing people in boats.
But he also boast about killing people with his jab.
You know, he he keeps pushing that jab and he

(01:17:18):
loves the mRNA stuff. That's what's so dangerous about Bill
Gates pivoting in this direction. Bill Gates has hung out
now with Trump on several occasions since Trump has come
back in at the second time. And Bill Gates knows
he's not going to get anywhere with the climate mcguffin,
but he can get everywhere with the pharmaceutical mcguffin and
the pandemic mcguffin.

Speaker 5 (01:17:40):
It's truly amazing how full of himself and self obsessed
Trump is continually being like, I've saved millions of people?

Speaker 4 (01:17:50):
How many I deserve the nobel people.

Speaker 5 (01:17:52):
Can you imagine someone like Audie Murphy coming in and
just bragging it, I saved so many men, I save people.
Real heroes don't do that. Real heroes don't come in
and start beating their chest and making sure you know
how great they are.

Speaker 4 (01:18:08):
Yeah, start at york Er.

Speaker 5 (01:18:09):
Yeah, they're not out there continually reminding you look at
all these medals I got, look at what I did,
Look at how great I am. It's the exact opposite
type of character.

Speaker 3 (01:18:21):
Yeah, that's rally So again, you know many Trump's gonna
be president at twenty twenty eight? Yeah, Steve, you know
so much about all this stuff. You do realize, of course,
that twenty twenty eight is the election year, and that
the new president is not sworn in until January of
twenty twenty. Did you know that, Steve? Maybe you should
go back and just look at the calendar or the

(01:18:42):
schedule here, since you don't want to read the constitution,
Maybe you could inform yourself at least that much what
a boasting a hole this man is and a criminal
to boot, he deserves to be back in jail. So again,
you had reporters because of the ban and interview, because
the economists gave this guy a platform. You got all

(01:19:05):
these reporters peppering Trump, and of course Trump is going
to be intentionally invasive and vague and all the rest
of this stuff. He says, So, do you think you
could run as vice president? Yeah, I'd be allowed to
do that. Do you think the White House or the
White House Council is in an a legal position like this?
And by the way, he would not be allowed to
run as vice president because the vice president has to

(01:19:26):
be somebody who is qualified to be president, and he
is not qualified to be president a third time because
of the twenty second Amendment. So Trump says, no, you're
allowed to do that, but I wouldn't want I wouldn't
want to do.

Speaker 4 (01:19:37):
That because it's a little bit too cute. He's a
little bit too cute. So you're ruling that out.

Speaker 3 (01:19:44):
Yeah, I wouldn't rule that out because it's too cute.
I think the people wouldn't like that, it's too cute.
It's not it wouldn't be right. And so what he's
saying is just like Bannon, and this is what makes
it dangerous. He doesn't care for about what the constitution says.
It's just what he can get away with and what

(01:20:05):
the people will like. In other words, it's just pure demagoguery. Meanwhile,
he posts a picture thanking himself for saving the country
that doesn't appreciate him. Pull that up Lance. In that article,
you can see the meme that he actually put up.
On Sunday night, he posted a picture of himself to
the social media that's saying his praises for quote, working

(01:20:27):
like a dog for no money in order to save
a country that doesn't appreciate his sacrifice. That's the article
that has headline. Trump posts a picture thinking himself. Can
you show the picture that he posted? So in that picture,
I'll just describe it to you, he has his ties
off and hanging on his neck, and he's got his

(01:20:48):
Maga red cap in his hands. So he's really tired.
He's had a hard day of talking. So yeah, I
want to thank Donald Trump for working like a dog
for no money to save a country that doesn't appreciate
his sacrifice, thank you, mister president. Well, he's just about
to write himself a check for two hundred and thirty
million dollars, of course, and that's compensation for the unjust attacks,

(01:21:12):
and I believe they were unjust, the Russia Gate attacks
and the money that he had to pay to defend himself.
Mister Trump, why don't you give some compensation to the
j six people. You rip them off for two hundred
and fifty million dollars with your Save America stuff, and
Alex Jones ripped him off of Stop the Steal. You
didn't give them any of their money back. You kept

(01:21:32):
all their money, and then they had to defend themselves.
Some of them went to jail, some of them for
years under horrible circumstances. And you're not going to give
them any compensation. The two hundred and thirty million dollars
that you're going to pay yourself for legal fees, you
ought to consider that to be your campaign contributions, because
it was the attacks from the Democrats that made you president,

(01:21:56):
not your record that allowed him to escape his record.
And so another busy week for the president. Trump increased
tariffs on Canada there's the meme right there. Increased tarris
on Canada by another ten percent on Saturday, I ford
temper tantrum. And so he's been talking about his new

(01:22:18):
three hundred million dollar ballroom. Yeah, let's talk a little
bit about that. This is the Lincoln Project, which has
always been against Trump. This is the Trump Epstein Ballroom.
Add that they've put out that's pretty much going viraling.
Maybe you've seen it.

Speaker 17 (01:22:33):
Looking for Washington, DC's most glamorous entertainment venue, look no
further than Donald Trump's Jeffrey Epstein Memorial Ballroom. At the
Jeffrey Epstein Memorial Ballroom, we specialize in middle school dances,
sweet sixteen parties, keen saniras, beauty pageants, foam parties, and
so much more. The Epstein Ballroom is Washington's beautiful secret.

(01:22:56):
Ninety thousand square feet of bold, glitter and flags. Make
your event magical with the Epstein Ballrooms. Diddy Baby Oil
Flume joined DJDJTJ as he DJ's All Ages shows, and
this Christmas season, you can sit on Santa Donnie's lap,
say goodbye to one hundred and twenty three years of history,
and say hello to the Donald Trump Epstein Memorial Ballroom

(01:23:20):
at the Donald Trump Jeffrey Epstein Memorial Ballroom.

Speaker 18 (01:23:23):
Every day is a wonderful secret.

Speaker 4 (01:23:28):
Every day is a wonderful secret.

Speaker 3 (01:23:30):
Well, some of the secrets are going to be coming
out because I told you earlier this week, author Michael
Wolf is going to be suing the Trumps, and there's
going to be a discovery process, and that I think
he's going to get more information than the Congress will
ever release. And he had an interview with Young Turks
where he talked about Trump and Epstein and what broke

(01:23:52):
up this wonderful friendship of fifteen years.

Speaker 15 (01:23:55):
In two thousand and four, Epstein believed him self to
be the high bidder on a piece of real estate
in Palm Beach.

Speaker 2 (01:24:04):
A house.

Speaker 15 (01:24:05):
Thirty six million dollars was his bid. He took his
friend Trump around to see the house to advise him
on how to move the swimming pool. Trump thereupon went
around Epstein's back and bid forty million dollars for the
house and got the property. Epstein, who was well acquainted,

(01:24:32):
in fact deeply involved with Trump's scattered finances, understood that
he didn't have forty million dollars to pay for this house.

Speaker 5 (01:24:44):
Now If that was the.

Speaker 15 (01:24:45):
Case, it was someone else's forty million dollars. At the time,
Epstein believed this to be the forty million dollars of
a Russian oligarch by the name of ribal Out. Less
than two years later, this same house that Trump had

(01:25:07):
bought for forty million dollars was sold for ninety five
million dollars, and it was in fact sold to mister Ribleev.
This is all a red flag of money laundering what
Epstein did, and he was furious about losing this house.

(01:25:30):
I mean, there's something about these these these guys that
nothing rouses them so much as a real estate betrayal. Epstein.
After this, this the sale of this house, after Trump,
Trump went around his back got this house, Epstein began

(01:25:51):
to threaten him. He began to threaten him with with lawsuits.
He began to threaten him with going to the press
and saying that that Trump was a front man for
a money laundering deal. Trump panicks at this point, and

(01:26:13):
Epstein believed, and he believed to his dying day, that
it was Trump who went to the police. Trump who
was fully acquainted with what was going on at Epstein's house,
fully acquainted for many years, Trump went to the police and,

(01:26:35):
as Epstein said, dropped the dime on him, that is
to say, informed informed the police of what was going on.

Speaker 3 (01:26:43):
And Mike Johnathan has said he was an informer.

Speaker 15 (01:26:46):
Began and all of Epstein's legal problems for the next
fifteen years began to unfold. This story about about this
piece of real estate and their fall out was first
published in June twenty nineteen. Was published actually in my

(01:27:08):
book Siege, the second book I had written about the
Trump White House. Epstein had recounted this story to me.
I put it in this book. Epstein, at that moment,
was in Paris. He read the book. He called me
with some alarm and he said said said he was

(01:27:29):
He was afraid he might have said too much. Three
weeks later he returned to the United States from Paris
and was arrested on the tarmac of Teeterborough Airport in
New Jersey when his plane land in the White House.

Speaker 4 (01:27:52):
They believe that the.

Speaker 15 (01:27:56):
That the story in the Wall Street Journal about the
the birthday greeting that Donald Trump, the salacious birthday greeting
that Donald Trump sent Jeffrey Epstein in two thousand and three,
on the occasion of his fiftieth birthday was a leak
from the Maxwell family and in the White House they

(01:28:20):
regarded this as quote, a shot across the bow, so
a threat, you know, if that Glaine had damaging material
on Donald Trump. So Donald Trump's lawyer went down and
I expect to try to figure out exactly what Gallaine

(01:28:42):
Maxwell had.

Speaker 3 (01:28:45):
Yeah, And it's kind of interesting, I believe because of
the timing and because people talked about the fact that
what broke up their friendship was that real estate fight
over that one house they're both trying to get, and
the fact that Trump got it. And it was shortly
after that that somebody anonymously blew the whistle on Jeffrey Epstein.

(01:29:07):
And I said long before Mike Johnson said that Trump
was an informant. I believe that it was Trump who
did it, and out of spite, but from what Michael
Wolfe is saying, it was out of fear because Epstein
was talking about the money laundering thing. That was an angle.
I didn't know about the Russian money laundering thing. Whether

(01:29:28):
that's true or not, I still believe that it was Trump,
and I believe that that was validated in a sense
by Mike Johnson. He said, well, Trump was actually an informant,
and of course that begs the issue as to how
much Trump knew. And of course we know that Trump
knew everything that was being done by Jeffrey Epstein because

(01:29:49):
they were such close friends for fifteen years, and that's
why he was an informant. And the whole thing that
kicked all this off was that real estate fight. And
so you know, Trump is looking at his new ballroom.
He's helping Argentina while the USDA and FEMA is ignoring
Americans and American farmers, and he's throwing timber tensions about

(01:30:13):
negative ads that he doesn't like, whether they're true or not,
whether or not the poll is true, and whether or
not what Reagan had to say is true. That was
truly what Reagan had to say. And folks, it was
I played the ad for I read you the transcript.
It is exactly what Reagan said. We all know that
Reagan was open trade, low taxes, and it is completely

(01:30:37):
consistent with everything that he did, and the people who
are misrepresenting him and spending his words, or the Trump
people and the MAGA media that is trying to cover
for the dictator. So it is absolutely reprehensible. It's his
attack on the First Amendment, as he has shown complete

(01:30:57):
contempt for the entire bill rights as well as the Constitution.
He's escalating the ice raids, and now you've got local
community defense networks are growing. This is an article from
a Free Thought project about one pushback in Richmond, Virginia.
But it's not just that he is energizing the left

(01:31:17):
in a way that they've not been energized before. You know,
we saw Obama energizing many people on the right. It
was still small but growing minority on the right, but
this is getting really big. And I think the Republicans
just don't realize how much they are energizing people in
opposition to them. And I hate to see that happen
because I don't want the policies that the Democrats want.

(01:31:41):
I want the policies that the Republicans claim to want,
but they work against actually in practice. But the things
that they run on, the things that they say they want,
are the things that I would like to see happen.
And of course you can always hold that against them
if they say that that's what they want to if
they've got a constituency that's built on those policies and
they betrayed that constituency. That constituency can speak out, but

(01:32:05):
the Democrats win. It's going to be well, we got
a mandate to take you into full socialism and Marxison
want lance.

Speaker 6 (01:32:11):
A lot of the cult of Trump started from Obama
energizing the right to push back. In some way, it
got subverted by Trump, but it was a desire to
actually change something for good.

Speaker 3 (01:32:26):
That's right, absolutely right. Well, we have a couple of
comments here. Use her name zero one, two, three, seventy
eight nine says the troll in Chief. Yeah, that's right.
Maybe we call him the troll on the shelf or
Christmas time, that's what we should make a little Trump
elf doll, the troll on the shelf. Let's hope they
get put on the shelf.

Speaker 5 (01:32:47):
I'll have to get a few more years at least. Sadly,
Steve ev says Trump will finished the job. I agree,
but what's the job?

Speaker 4 (01:32:56):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (01:32:56):
I think we saw the job in twenty twenty. I
think that was his work assignment agenda. Yeah, the Manchurian
agenda that he's got there not worth doing.

Speaker 4 (01:33:08):
That's right. Well, we're going to take a quick break folks, and.

Speaker 5 (01:33:12):
Quickly though, before we do, I want to remind everyone
wherever you're watching or listening to the show, please drop
a like on it. If you do like the show,
please share it. That's a great way to help us
get the word out there. We appreciate everyone, whether you're donating,
whether you're sending in money, or whether you're just sharing
the show or watching it. We cannot thank you well enough.
It's because of people like you that the show continues to.

Speaker 4 (01:33:32):
Go on and tell people about the juniper sapp.

Speaker 5 (01:33:35):
That's right at Homestead Products dot shop. They're having a
sale on there at Juniper Berry Salve. It's good for
your skin, it's antimicrobial, it's gotten all kinds of different properties.
So if you want to help your skin, go to
Homestead Products dot shop and get their juniper berry salve
and you can use promo codeite for ten percent off
everything on the site. So Homestead Products Dot Shop, Juniper

(01:33:58):
Berry salve. It's good for your skin. And of course
the skin is very important, yes, the largest organ It's
what everyone sees first. So if you look like a zombie,
people are gonna worry, So get yourself method.

Speaker 3 (01:34:12):
Yeah, hopefully we don't have your methadics out there.

Speaker 5 (01:34:15):
I don't imagine that David Knightshew is too popular in
the methaddics circle. If you're a methaddict, drop your common
in jat.

Speaker 3 (01:34:24):
But anyway, it's good whatever your skin condition is. So yeah,
it's good to have some natural ingredients. I really do
like the products that they have there.

Speaker 5 (01:34:32):
It's only three. It's avocado oil, bees wax, juniper barry.
That's it.

Speaker 4 (01:34:36):
That's right that We'll take a quick break. Folks will
be right back.

Speaker 19 (01:34:39):
Unlike most revolutions, whether people rise against the real economic oppression,
in our case, here in Boston, we are fighting for
purely an abstract principle. It is, however, not nearly so
abstract as a young gentleman supposes. The issue involved here
is one of monopoly. Today, the British government will monopolize

(01:35:05):
the sale of tea in our country.

Speaker 14 (01:35:07):
Tomorrow it will be something else, liberty.

Speaker 2 (01:36:00):
It's your move. You are listening to the David Knight Show.

Speaker 8 (01:36:10):
Whether you're feeling like the booze or bluegrass. APS Radio
has you covered. Check out a wide variety of channels
on our app at apsradio dot com.

Speaker 3 (01:36:23):
Well, welcome back, David Ramsey twenty three, twenty eight. I
guess regarding the Constitution, says David, who cares if they
tear it up? We didn't sign it, I know. Only
Sander Spooner said that. He said, the Constitution is a
document in which I cannot find my signature. The difference is,
and why this is important, is because you and I
did not sign this. These people swore to uphold it

(01:36:45):
as a condition of their office. It is an restraint
that is external to them. They have to have some
sort of external restraint, and of course it's not going
to enforce itself. But when they violate it, they have
shown that they have no authority, and I think that's
why it's important. I also think that's a pretty good

(01:37:06):
form for government. I think it served us well for
a very long time until it was destroyed by Lincoln.
And then, of course we had another fourth turning president,
FDR who also did his took his acts to the Constitution,
and now we got another fourth turning president doing the
same thing. So I think the Constitution is important. I
think it's a good outline, good document that Bill wrights

(01:37:29):
is very important, and it's mostly important because they swore
to uphold it, and it shows that they're liars, thieves
and crooks when they violate it, and it shows that
they have no legitimate authority. You want to talk about
a divine purpose when you guys don't follow the constitution, Well.

Speaker 5 (01:37:46):
Real quickly, I understand. You know, there's a lot of
people out there. You know, Guard specifically like he's an
anarcho capitalist, really believes in free association and that sort
of thing. I think he's put a lot of thought
into it. I personally, I'm not that far into the
anarcho capitalist world. I think hierarchy tends to naturally develop

(01:38:06):
and people, the majority of people are followers. They want
to follow someone, and so you have to have a
structured system in place for who you are going to
put in charge. Otherwise the mob just gets together and says, well,
that guy's the biggest, strongest, toughest looking guy. That guy's
promising me more stuff, and it becomes this free for
all of who is going to give the mob what

(01:38:29):
they want? So you have to have systems and structures
in place that dictate who can wield power, who's fit
to wield power, or the mob just chooses.

Speaker 3 (01:38:38):
Well, I think it was Madison who said, because men
are not angels, we need to have government. But because
the government is composed of men, how do we keep
this under control? I would say that the alternative is
you're saying, Travis, to having a government a structure, a
system of agreed upon laws that are not dictates coming
out of somebody's mouth, but a system that they agree

(01:39:01):
to abide by as a condition of being allowed to
do their job. That the power that they're being handed to,
they're being handed that power on condition. And I think
that is an alternative, not so much to individuals who
are bad, but to the mob, the mob mentality that's
out there. I think the alternative to a constitutional republic

(01:39:24):
is a mob. And that's exactly what Steve Bannon is pushing.
That's why it bothers me so much.

Speaker 5 (01:39:30):
Oh. Also, Owen sixty one in chat says, I do
meths so I can watch the David Night Show twenty
four to seven, three and sixty five days of the year. Well,
we have had our most dedicated fan a good.

Speaker 7 (01:39:42):
Reason to do meth.

Speaker 4 (01:39:43):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:39:44):
Well, a Michigan school says that a seven year old
boy cannot walk home from the bus stop. I mean
this is the extreme position that we've gotten to with
all this helicopter parenting. People don't want to let their
kids be kids. And of course I'm not going to
go through this thing that I walked ten miles to
the snow to get this school every day. I lived

(01:40:05):
in Florida, so that wasn't It was actually worse than that.
I had to carry a large musical instrument back and
forth to school in the heat, but it wasn't that far.
This kid, it's just a couple of blocks. It's a
three minute walk for this kid. And this kid has
already done one year of this in kindergarten and walking
to walking home from school, which again it's just a

(01:40:27):
couple of blocks. The walk takes three and a half minutes,
and he did it when he was six years old.
But now that he's seven, they've got a new rule
that says that the school will not let him do
that it's too risky. So it's newly enforcing a rule
that says that a parent or other adult must be

(01:40:48):
waiting at the bus stop to escort anyone in kindergarten
or first grade. And of course he did it when
he was in kindergarten, but now he's in first grade,
they won't let him. So his mother believes that Emmitt
can walk home by himself. He's done it for a year,
but that doesn't move the bureaucrats at all. She even

(01:41:08):
points out other districts have less strict rules, and this
wasn't the rule last year. Suddenly now it's not acceptable.
Michigan has not yet passed a reasonable childhood independence law,
unlike eleven other states. If your state doesn't have this,
that means that if a child is out doing the
kinds of normal things that we would do. It wasn't

(01:41:30):
so much us going back and forth to school, but
it was. Perhaps it was that way when you grew up.
We had playtime. We got finished with whatever we needed
to do, chores or schoolwork or whatever. We were gone
for hours at a time, and I would go on
long bike rides, or I would hang out with other
guys in the neighborhood, would build forts in the woods,

(01:41:52):
and we had parents would have Some of them had
a large bell that was like a dinner bell. I
mean it was up on a pole and they would
ring that thing and the kids say, oh, that's my parents.
I got to go and because they didn't have cell phones,
but you know it was you weren't confined with that.
But we've had this scare that has gone on thanks

(01:42:12):
to media, and especially these media conglomerates that have all
these different affiliate stations that they own, and they're passing
the news from one to the other. So whenever anything
happens in anywhere in the United States, it's reported to
you as if it happened in your own neighborhood. And
that's the way people sublimally began to see it. I
saw it happen with my sister, getting really paranoid about

(01:42:34):
stuff like that when I was a kid. But here's
the truth, they said. This is reason they said. The
mother even referenced one of my favorite stats. That's the
writer's favorite stats. A child is about five times more
likely to be born with a conjoined twin than to

(01:42:55):
be kidnapped by a stranger. Our fear of rare events
vents inhibiting our children from developing the resilience that they
need to thrive. Walking home for three minutes is not
something you should fear. And the request of the writer
for reason, she actually took pictures of the neighborhood. You

(01:43:16):
can show that in the article there this is the
very dangerous neighborhood that he's in. And of course the
thing that really surprises it's such a strange thing. We're
out driving, Karen and Ile even remark, look, there's somebody
outside of their house. You know, if you hardly ever
see anybody outside the house. If you do, they're usually
on a writer more. But to just see somebody, especially kids,

(01:43:38):
even playing in the front yard of their house, it's
something you just don't see anymore. We've had the media
has completely scared us to death. That's why the pandemic
type of thing worked so well. Look at what they've
been able to do to you know, five times more
likely to be born with a conjoined twin than to
be abducted by a stranger. Most of the abductions are

(01:43:58):
done because there's a dispute between husband and wife or
something like that. So parents, i'd be able to decide
when their children are ready to take on more independence.
They should never have to worry that the state is
going to punish them or take away their children for
letting them do regular childhood activities like going to the
park or walking home from school. One hundred percent degree,

(01:44:22):
so the lawyer representing her said the school is misinterpreting
Michigan's liability laws. School administrators are severely limiting this family's
choice based on a misunderstanding that the district might be
liable if the child were harmed. In fact, Michigan provides
broad immunity for schools even in cases of clear neglect.

(01:44:46):
Letting a child walk a few yards at the request
of their parents simply does not put the school district
at risk. As a matter of fact, they put your
kids in a bus that doesn't have appropriate padding, doesn't
even have seat belts, but it's fine because it's protected
by laws and yellow paint.

Speaker 4 (01:45:05):
So these school buses pitching the school buses with those
seat belts.

Speaker 3 (01:45:09):
But if you're in your family car and you don't
have a seat belt and you're an accident, they come
after the parents and charge them with whatever happened to you.
It's kind of interesting to see this article here. This
is on Expose, a news out of the UK, and
it kind of filled in some gaps for me with

(01:45:31):
what General Finn has been doing at these Reawakened America tours.
I've played for you several times the the prayer that
he plagiarized from Elizabeth Claire prophet, and this is a
prayer that she put together to ascended masters and the
sevenfold arrays of Light and all the rest of you know,

(01:45:54):
that stuff comes from that comes from Bailey. Bailey a
theosophist and an occultist who was very much involved with
the Leucist Trust that is very much involved with the
United Nations. And so this is an article from expos
A News. Audio recordings of the Lusist Trust meeting capture

(01:46:16):
key figures who are discussing quote, the reappearance of Christ.
According to their exoteric teachings, the year twenty twenty five
represents a pivotal moment and spiritual evolution. How such, they've
been preparing for the externalization of the hierarchy, as they
point out the emergence of these hidden masters spiritual hierarchy

(01:46:38):
into public work. And so again this calls in the question, really,
who is General fled and where is he coming from?
Is he a part of this stuff as well? This
shadowy figure who hung out in the Intelligence agency, this
guy who was pushing from its very inception Pride Month
and transgenderism. And then he goes around to the reawakened

(01:47:02):
America crowd. He wraps himself in the Cross of Christ
and then leads people in these prayers to ascended masters.
The Lusist Trust is an organization founded in the early
twentieth century by Alice Bailey, theosophist, occultist and prominent figure
in the New Age movement. Originally it was named the

(01:47:23):
Lucifer Publishing Company, later renamed the Lusist Trust, and of course,
Lucifer and Lusis are words that mean light or bringer
of light. It's known for publishing spiritual texts. Gary Wayne
summarized the origins of Lusist Trust and Bailey's beliefs in
his book The Genesis six Conspiracy. Bailey founded the Lusist Trust,

(01:47:45):
originally known as Lucifer's Press, as an offshoot of the
Theosophical Society, designed to publish the teachings of her spirit guides,
again more of the language that General Flinn had people
residing in church buildings. She founded the Theosophical Network in

(01:48:06):
nineteen sixty one, which established arcane schools and organizations such
as World Goodwill, another occultist organization called World Union, all
dedicated to implementing world government. Perhaps this is the secret
agenda of Michael Flynn, who knows Bailey's arcane schools teach

(01:48:26):
occult philosophy received by Bailey, She said from her purported
spirit guides that are Tibetan in order to initiate a
new group of world servers to assist the masters of
the Great White Lodge. The White Lodge and Theosophists and
occultic systems, is a secret snake brotherhood of advanced souls

(01:48:48):
that formed the Hidden World Government. This alleged extremely powerful
organizations further known and Occultism to be the Great White Brotherhood.
So these groups are directly linked to the World Constitution
Parliament Association. But there's more connections to the prayers that
you got General Flynn leading the Maga cult. In twenty eleven,

(01:49:12):
Walter Veith gave a lecture at the UN during which
he exposed the real motives behind the UN's New World Order,
the creation of a global religious political system. The aim
is that the world is going to move towards a
unified universal world religion, he explained, and quoted a letter
published in World Goodwill in nineteen ninety three. The letter

(01:49:34):
said the universal world religion will neither be Christian nor Heathen,
neither junior nor gentile, but simply is that it. Did
you find the speech that he had?

Speaker 7 (01:49:44):
Yes? Sorry, I was trying to put good.

Speaker 3 (01:49:45):
Good, Yeah, pull that up. That'd be great to play
that when I get a little bit further along here.

Speaker 4 (01:49:50):
He says.

Speaker 3 (01:49:50):
They will accept the truth, they will recognize divine sonship,
and they will seek unitedly to cooperate with the Divine.
According to Bailey, a general Assembly of the hierarchy has
been occurring every one hundred years since fourteen twenty five
to determine the spiritual and political direction of humanity for
the next century. The twenty fifth year of each century

(01:50:12):
is when the hidden spiritual hierarchy meets in conclave to
advance a divine plan for evolution. Maybe this is the
plan they're talking about. Who knows, right? Alice Bailey taught
that a spiritual hierarchy of enlightened beings, sometimes called the
ascended Masters, guides humanities evolution through the scenes. Hierarchy, she said,

(01:50:34):
consists of an advanced spiritual entities, many having once been human,
who work on inner spiritual planes to carry out the
supposed plan of God on Earth. Now, I don't believe
any of this stuff. But the issue is that a
lot of these globalists do. And the question is does
Michael Flynn and is this really where he's going. Is

(01:50:56):
he's trying to come up with some kind of religious
political movement or deception in order to push world government.
According to Bailey's Externalization of the Hierarchy, published in nineteen
fifty seven, they meet in a General Assembly of the
Hierarchy once every one hundred years, precisely in the twenty

(01:51:16):
fifth year of each century. The most recent one was
held in nineteen twenty five, and they scheduled one for
twenty twenty five. I think it's already been held this year. Yeah,
it was in June this year, because they do it
of course at the summer solstice various key spiritual observances,
including the World Invocation Day on the eleventh of June

(01:51:38):
twenty twenty five. So they said the revelatory period ahead
of the anticipated reappearance of Christ with major spiritual observations
like the Seven Rays Conference and the World Invocation Day
scheduled in June. So again, this is ticking a lot

(01:52:02):
of box boxes that are inside this speech by this
plagiarized prayer. I should say that John Flynn had people
praying the Reawaken conference. Let's go ahead and play that lance,
and you'll hear a lot of these terms I was
just talking about, and that sevenfold rays and so forth.

Speaker 8 (01:52:24):
You are your instrument will, those sevenfold rays and all
your archangels, all of them.

Speaker 20 (01:52:30):
I am here, Oh God, and I am the instrument
of those seven cold Ay's and arkangels.

Speaker 14 (01:52:37):
We will not retreat.

Speaker 7 (01:52:40):
We will not retreat.

Speaker 18 (01:52:42):
We will stand our ground, and.

Speaker 20 (01:52:45):
I will not retreat. I will take my stand.

Speaker 7 (01:52:48):
Well, we will not fear to speak.

Speaker 17 (01:52:54):
We will be the instrument of your will, whatever where
it is, I.

Speaker 20 (01:53:01):
Will not there to speak, and I will be the
instrument of God's will whatever it is.

Speaker 18 (01:53:06):
In your name and the name of your legions.

Speaker 20 (01:53:10):
Here I am so help me God, in the name
of our kangel, Michael Lenny's legions.

Speaker 14 (01:53:16):
We are freeborn, and we shall remain freeborn.

Speaker 20 (01:53:20):
I am preborn, and I shall remain freeborn.

Speaker 18 (01:53:25):
And we shall not be enslaved.

Speaker 15 (01:53:30):
By any foe within or without.

Speaker 20 (01:53:35):
And I shall not be enslaved by any foe within
or without.

Speaker 4 (01:53:41):
Well, there you go, you know, So what is happening
with this? What is he up to?

Speaker 3 (01:53:45):
What is reawaken America tour up to what is the
MAGA cult up to? In this article from xos A News,
they quoted one individual who'd listened to the audio and
he said, they use a lot of language that is
happening in the churches today, and he's not meaning this
reawaken tour that did happen in a church building. He said,

(01:54:05):
primarily based on love and light and not being separate,
but having this e communical experience. This is very important
to understand that this is coming from an outwardly open
Luciferian organization. So I want people to have their ears
tuned to that because there's a lot that sounds biblically accurate.
That's how the deception works.

Speaker 4 (01:54:27):
They've got to.

Speaker 3 (01:54:27):
Look again at what Alice Bailey says, got to look
again at what Elizabeth Claire Prophet said, Look again at
what General Flynn is getting these people to repeat. It's
just amazing.

Speaker 6 (01:54:38):
It also makes me wonder about Peter Thiel's constantly talking
about the Antichrist, but fits in pretty well with all
this stuff.

Speaker 3 (01:54:47):
Yeah yeah, Well, of course they've all got the different
agenda and they'll all come in with they'll all pull
in a twisted version of Christianity to accomplish their purposes,
which brings us to Zion as the next thing on
my list there. This is an interesting bit of research
done by J. D. Hall about what the Israeli government

(01:55:09):
is doing in terms of lobbying. They have actually created
recently three different organizations that are going to be lobbying
for the political Israeli government's position on the biggest Christian
radio network that's out there, Salem News. And one of
these organizations is run by Brad Parskal, who was the

(01:55:33):
very talented individual in terms of manipulating the public for
Donald Trump. That name sounds familiar, that's where you've heard
it before in his first administration. The organization Show Faith
by Works LLC has registered as a foreign agent. You know,
people have said, well, APAC needs to register under the

(01:55:55):
fair requirements a Foreign Agent Registration Act. These organizations did,
and that's how JD. Hall found out about it. Israel's
Ministry of Foreign Affairs registered this group called Show Faith
by Works. Within nine days, you had three of these

(01:56:16):
organizations registered by the Israeli government and they're all very
heavily connected with each other and heavily connected with the
largest Christian radio network there is out there. Salem Radio,
clock Tower, X Bridges, Partners, and Show Faith by Works
all entered the federal ledger within nine days. They all

(01:56:39):
filed the same registration on behalf of Foreign Ministry and
that is the Israeli Foreign Ministry of Foreign Affairs. That
alone would be an extraordinary story. A foreign government hired
a private American outfit to target worshippers on Sunday mornings
and during chapel hours and to pretty much all of

(01:57:00):
these big evangelistic organizations that have very popular preachers or whatever.
They've all got programs on Salem Radio. And so the
firm then rolled a mobile museum across church parking lots
that lobbied for more dead babies than Gaza in the
name of Christian loyalty to Israel, and pastors then received

(01:57:21):
resource kits as well. Attendees received ads, everyone received a narrative.
Yet Show by Faith is not an anomaly. It's just
a spoke in the larger wheel that is out there.
So the one that is involving Brad Parscale is clock

(01:57:44):
Tower at the top of the stack. It's a multimillion
dollar scope to deliver strategic communications and media services for
Israel's campaign inside the United States, and it is integrated
very heavily with Salem Media.

Speaker 4 (01:58:00):
And so.

Speaker 3 (01:58:02):
The structure of all this again, Brad Parskal, the analytics
brain behind Trump's digital machine, operated the data mining arm
known as Cambridge Analytico, remember that from the first from
the first Trump administration, well as soon as Trump was
out of office, he went into private consultation and got

(01:58:24):
involved in this kind of thing. He's a numbers savant
who turned behavioral science into a persuasion model, tracking moods,
testing phrases, mapping emotional circuitry of entire demographics. His genius
and his danger lay in understanding how digital ecosystems could
be engineered to steer opinion, not just to measure it.

(01:58:48):
When a man like that resurfaces in Christian broadcasting, it
isn't marketing as psychological architecture wearing a cross. And so
his company is clock Tower X, and they filed their
fare registration the same month that he joined with Salem,
and so he's kind of the connecting point of connection

(01:59:09):
between clock Tower X and Salem and Salem Radio Network
is where this is all going to be running through.
So It is very very technological. They're using artificial intelligence,
they're using other ways to propagandize people and to tell
them that they need to do whatever is necessary for

(01:59:34):
the survival of Israel. And this is the issue that
I have with dispensationalism. They talk about people, I say, well,
you think that Israel's been replaced by the Church. I
don't think that replacement is the right word. I think
we're talking about enlargement. What used to be targeted towards
one ethnic group. Christ came to take at every nation

(01:59:56):
on Earth, and through Christ, all nations will be bless
not through some race or ethnic group descended from Abraham,
because there's many different races in groups and nations that
were descended from Abraham. But through Christ, every nation will
be blessed. And there's no longer a Jew or Greek
male or female. Those walls have been torn down, and

(02:00:17):
yet you've got people like John Hagey who are always
out there trying to rebuild those walls and telling us
that God is only concerned about Israel, and it is
an anti christ message. Christ doesn't matter in their theology.
What matters is your ethnicity. It is a form of
racism and what happens when you tell people that they

(02:00:39):
are part of a superior race. Well, we saw what
happened in Nazi Germany, and we see that the Israelis
have become what they fought in Nazi Germany because of
this idea of racial superiority. That means that the other
people that aren't you, that aren't like you, are subhuman.

(02:00:59):
And that is always the first thing that people do
in order to justify an attack on a group of people,
which we usually call genocide. Right, And that's where all
this stuff ties together. And the problem is is that
they are politicizing and weaponizing these politics, mixing it together

(02:01:20):
with Christ in the same way, similar but in a
different way than what the theosophists and the people like
Michael Flynn are doing. We have these different different approaches
that all have a kind of a confluence at this
point in time. So think about what you're seeing there,
have some discernment about this. Understand these threads that are

(02:01:43):
coming at you and where they're coming from, and the
purpose that they have. As Christ said, by their fruit
you will know him. And he was talking about false teachings.
So we're going to take a quick break and we're
going to be joined with our guess you want to say.

Speaker 5 (02:01:57):
Something real quick. Got to read these comments before we
go out. We can scroll them up, said sixty one says,
and thank you very much. On I never feel dumber
after a presentation by David Knight maybe too. I appreciate that,
and thank you for supportive. That's not just the meth talking.

(02:02:18):
You know, no, he doesn't really do meth. Let me
clarify that in case the sarcasm isn't coming through North
American house. Hippo, thank you very much. Does that ever
tell you about the time I met a space alien
came up to me and said, take me to your leader.
So he came home with me and met my wife.
The reply we've got peasidentt Ofvante seventeen seventy six is

(02:02:40):
can't walk to school, but can genitally mutilate The Syrian
girl says, what they need transportation to the slaughterhouse.

Speaker 3 (02:02:48):
That's right, it's been amazing. You know, there's all these
things that they don't have kids to be able to do.
But they can decide that they're in the wrong body,
and they can decide that they want to be irreparably mutile.
And that's the most insane thing. I saw a clip
where was it John Stewart was hectoring some guy who
was a Christian over that. I goes, so, what's the

(02:03:10):
problem with a drag queen story hour and all the
rest of this stuff? You have a problem with that?

Speaker 5 (02:03:14):
This is the part where you just disengage if someone
doesn't intrinsically understand why this is wrong.

Speaker 4 (02:03:20):
So has a problem with Jeffrey Epstein after all, right,
I mean, you know.

Speaker 5 (02:03:23):
Come on, that's where you just walk away and say,
I'm not going to argue with you on this. It's
it's obviously ontologically evil. If you can't see that, nothing
I can say will change your mind. Disengage.

Speaker 3 (02:03:36):
Well, we have an interesting interview coming up. This is
a book that's been written by Jeffrey Rogan Rosen, I'm sorry,
who is the CEO and president of National Constitution Center.
And this is the Pursuit of Liberty. And what's interesting
about it is it contrasts Hamilton and Jefferson is the

(02:04:00):
two polls in the American Revolution, and there are two
approaches to American government. And he goes through and looks
at how America has been pulled towards one poll or
the other throughout history, through different time periods. You know,
might be I think we live in a thoroughly Hamiltonian
world right now. But as one person said, it's thoroughly

(02:04:21):
Hamiltonian world with a thin veneer of Jeffersonianism. And I
kind of think that's where we are. But I think
the Jeffersonianism venier has worn off at this point. I
don't think it's even there anymore. I think it's just
thoroughly Hamiltonian.

Speaker 4 (02:04:33):
But we'll see what he has to say.

Speaker 3 (02:04:34):
He's made a study of this and he's published the
book which just came out October the twenty first. So
we can take a quick break and we come back.
We're going to talk to Jeffrey Rosen. We'll be right.

Speaker 1 (02:04:46):
Back making sense common again. You're listening to the David

(02:06:25):
Knight Show.

Speaker 3 (02:06:33):
Welcome back, and our guest now is Jeffrey Rosen. The
book which just came out about a week or so ago,
The Pursuit of Liberty, How Hamilton Versus Jefferson ignited the
lasting battle over power in America. And in his book
he traces this over different time periods. A couple of
decades each of these things, and how people's viewpoint and

(02:06:57):
our viewpoint of government has shifted between these two polls,
I guess in terms of looking at how power should
be structured here in the United States, between Hamilton and Jefferson.
But you have an interesting anecdote about Hamilton and Jefferson
and what happened what Jefferson did after Hamilton died.

Speaker 4 (02:07:17):
Tell us a little bit about that.

Speaker 18 (02:07:19):
It's so moving that Hamilton and Jefferson's battles define our
early debates and in fact all debates ever since about
national power versus states rights, or a strong executive versus
a strong judiciary, or liberal versus strict construction of the Constitution,
and their battles over the Bank of the United States
and the Aliens Edition Acts lead to the formation of

(02:07:41):
America's first political parties. But despite all of those classes,
at the end of his life, after Hamilton dies in
the duel, because they're both united in believing that Aaron
Burr is a traitor who's trying to raise an insurrection
in Spanish Louisiana and set himself up as a dictator,
they both united against Spurr. Jefferson places a bust of

(02:08:03):
Hamilton across from his own in the central entrance Hall
of Monticello. You can see it there today if you
go there. And he passed it. Jefferson would say, opposed
in life as in death, and he viewed Hamilton not
as a hated enemy to be destroyed, but a respected
adversary to be engaged with. And that spirit of civil
dialogue and learning how to listen to the other side

(02:08:26):
and disagreeing without being disagreeable is one that we've virgently
got to get back today.

Speaker 3 (02:08:31):
Oh yes, we do talk about that almost every day.
So what has happened with that? Let's start with the introduction.
You say, the greatest man that ever lived was Julius
Caesar quote unquote, and the dinner party that defined America.
Tell us a little aboutout what that is about. What's
that dinner party about?

Speaker 18 (02:08:48):
It's amazing how relevant it is to our current debates.
So this is a dinner party in the room where
it happened, not the one where they moved the capital
from New York to Washington, DC in exchange for assuming
the national death, the one in the Hamilton musical. This
is a year later, and Washington's away. The whole cabinet
has gathered. At some point, Hamilton says to Jefferson, who

(02:09:10):
are those three guys on the wall? And Jefferson says,
those are my three portraits of the three greatest men
in history, John Locke, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton. And
Hamilton pauses for a long time and then he blurts
out the greatest man that ever lived was Julius Caesar
and convinces Jefferson. He works in his diary that Hamilton
is for a monarchy bottomed on corruption, and he proceeds

(02:09:34):
to found the Democratic Republican Party in order to resist
the alleged dictatorial ambitions of Hamilton and the Federalists. And
Jefferson's convinced from his studies of history that all elective
monarchies and with popular leaders like Caesar converting themselves into
hereditary despots. And that's why Jefferson wants a one year

(02:09:54):
termlament for the president. When he gets a copy of
the Constitution, he writes to Madison that a future president
might refuse to leave office, so we need a one
year term limit. Now, the anecdote is so interesting because,
as Ron Churno, the great Hamilton historian, notes when Hamilton
praised Julius Caesar, he must have been joking. He insisted
throughout his career that the greatest threat to America was

(02:10:16):
an authoritarian demagogue like Caesar, who could overthrow popular elections
and consolidate power in his own hands. Hamilton's solution, amazingly,
is a life term for the president. Basically, if the
president's elect height, he says he won't be tempted to
extend his term, and that's too much of the constitutional convention.
But amazingly, James Madison and a gouvernor Morris at some

(02:10:38):
point support a version of a life term, so Hamilton
wasn't totally off on his own. Nevertheless, you know, the
Constitution chooses no term limits. And then Jefferson establishes the
tradition of stepping down after two terms. Washington, of course,
famously gave up the office like Cincinnati, returning to his farm. Yes,
but it was Jefferson who, by reaffirming that tradition, establishes it.

(02:11:04):
And you know, I've just been looking into it in
light of the recent question about whether or not President
Trump can run for a third term. That Jefferson tradition
holds until Grant who actually does want to run for
a third term, but Congress subjects and he kind of
pushes back. The first president who's nominated and runs for
a third term, of courses, Theodore Roosevelt on the third

(02:11:24):
party ticket. He promised not to run again, and then
he breaks that promise, and then Franklin Roosevelt and NFDR
is such a great example of the kind of Julius
Caesar because he's attacked throughout his term as a would
be Caesar, and he dresses up in nineteen thirty four
like Caesar. He has a Caesar themed birthday party, and
Eleanor dresses like a Roman matron. He in the middle,

(02:11:48):
but it's in the middle of World War two, so
he arranges to be drafted by the Democratic Convention. He
runs for a third term, and then he wins a fourth.
He dies after eighty two days after his election as
the fourth term, and then Republicans in Congress just think,
we this cannot happen again a president who keeps running.
So in nineteen forty seven, Congress, which has been retaken

(02:12:13):
by the Republicans, proposes the twenty second Amendment, which says
you can't be elected to the office of president more
than twice. It's ratified in nineteen fifty one, and ever
since then that's pretty well stuck. I mean sometimes Ronald
Reagan wanted to repeal the twenty second Amendment after he
left office, but there haven't been any real efforts to

(02:12:33):
do it. It's relatively popular, and that brings it to
our current debates. The President Trump had noted that his
staff had discussed this potential loophole where you could run
as a vice president, be elected, and then the elected
president could resign and you could succeed that way. President
Trump called that probably too cute, and I saw that

(02:12:55):
just this morning. He seemed to acknowledge that the amendment
clearly forbids third term. He'd say, I'd say, if you
read that, it's pretty clear I'm not allowed to run.
But the debate is so interesting because it goes back
to Hamilton and Jefferson, to that dinner party to define America.
And the point is that all of the Framers are
very concerned about presidents extending their power through dictatorial means.
All the ancient republics of Greece and Rome had fallen

(02:13:18):
because the virtue of the citizens hadn't led citizens to
protect liberty and had made them succumb to these demagogic leaders.
And that's why, although we've debated exactly how to impose
term limits, I think Harry Truman put it best when
he in nineteen fifty said he I think he said,
I know I could be elected and continue to break
the old president, but it shouldn't be done. The president

(02:13:41):
should continue to be limited by custom based on the
honor of the man in the office. And I think
that's a great win.

Speaker 3 (02:13:49):
I agree, And you know that one is so dangerous
about that dinner. Of course, certainly, at least in Jefferson's estimation,
you had Hamilton crossing the rubicon. That's like, oh, that's that.
You know, this guy was a lifetime president. He thinks
Julius Caesar was it. But you know, it's something that
has really bothered me when people talk about this guy

(02:14:10):
being the drugs are I think is William Bennett and
he accepted that term, and it's like, well, you know,
Czar is Caesar, right, that's the same thing. And we
see this over and over again. We got a Czar
for this and Azar for that. So we have this
trend towards a kind of authoritarian dictatorship, leader, strongman, whatever
you want to call it. I think it's a very
dangerous trend. And the thing that concerned me is I

(02:14:32):
said earlier in the program, you know, if we don't
understand the history, if we don't understand the constitution and
how we got there, you know, we're still having these
same arguments. As you point out, this whole purpose of
your book is the point out how this has gone
back and forth, and we have these two polls that
were drawn to and we don't understand history. We don't
really see human nature and how human nature is continually

(02:14:56):
going back to these types of things over and over again,
so we don't have a context for it. But I
think that's what's really important about your book, and about
studying history and looking at these different philosophies that are
there towards government, I think is very important. Now so
we have that was the introduction to your book, and
then you're talking about how the will of the majority

(02:15:20):
should always prevail Thomas Jefferson's declaration. Those one of the
things that Steve Bannon was saying. He said, well, the
will of the people as a constitution, and I'm like, well, no,
I believe that the Constitution is a written document, and
I think it's very important to have an established standard
that is out there that is external to the people.
I think you have to have some kind of an

(02:15:40):
external standard so that you don't wind up with a dictator,
or so that you know that you've got a dictator
if they ignore that standard that's there. As someone who
is working with the constitutional issues all the time with
your organization, what do you think about that?

Speaker 18 (02:15:57):
Well, you're absolutely right that that's a central debate that
goes back to the founding, the balance between democracy and
rule by elites. How can we empower majorities while resisting
the mob? And that's the central reason the Constitutional Convention
was called. Hamilton and Madison and the other federalists are
afraid of Shay's rebellion in western Massachusetts, where debtors are

(02:16:18):
mobbing the courthouses and the Federal Armory, and Hamilton says,
imagine that Cha's rebellion had been led by a Caesar
or a Cataline, he would have begun a demagogue and
turned tyrant. So so much of the Constitution is designed
to slow down deliberation, to prevent mobs from formalizing, to
put on checks on direct democracy. At the same time,

(02:16:40):
the will of the people must ultimately prevail. And that's
why Jefferson's great vision was that the will of the
majority should always ultimately prevail. He wanted to, believe it
or not, a constitutional convention every nineteen years, so that
the people could decide whether they still supported it. Hamilton
thought it was a disastrous idea because they would, you know, miracle,
the first convention had succeeded. But that balance between democracy

(02:17:04):
and rule bio leeds is central. FDR is really amazing here.
And you're so right about the importance, the urgent importance
of studying history. I was so struck by how presidents
throughout history have actually invoked the Hamilton and Jefferson debate
to structure our understanding history. I was inspired to write
the book when I saw that John Quincy Adams traced
the entire development of America's political parties back to the

(02:17:26):
initial debate between Hamilton and Jefferson about democracy versus aristocracy,
which is the question we're talking about now. And that
kind of Hamilton and Jefferson go up and down throughout
the nineteenth and twentieth century. And Lincoln says that he's
a Jeffersonian even as he's extending the powers of Congress dramatically.
During the Civil War, Theodore Roosevelt leads a Hamiltonian revival

(02:17:50):
when a historian called Herbert Crowley calls on him to
deploy Hamiltonian means for Jeffersonian ends. In other words, the
Hamiltonians of strong federal power the Jeffersonian ends of democracy
in curbing the corporations. But the most amazing turn Hamilton
stock crashes. After the stock market crash in nineteen twenty nine,
no one likes Hamilton. Franklin Roosevelt in nineteen thirty two

(02:18:13):
reinvents the Democratic Party as the party of Jeffersonian democracy
rather than limited government, and he makes Jefferson the patron
saint of the New Deal. Now this takes incredible Franklin
Roosevelt's expanding government more than any other president in history.
But he puts Jefferson on the nickel, and he builds
the Jefferson Memorial, and he reinvents himself as the patron

(02:18:34):
saint of Jeffersonian democracy. So this just shows how protean,
how malleable Hamilton and Jefferson are. Both sides are often
invoking them for both purposes. But then to close this
part of the story, Ronald Reagan said that he left
the Democratic Party in nineteen sixty because it had abandoned
the principles of Jefferson and limited government, and he proposed
to reinvent the Republican Party as the libertarian Jefferson rather

(02:18:57):
than the Jefferson who hated the banks and the pacers,
and it a new deal. And that really does bring
us to today, where as you suggested, the sides are
so scrambled, and in some sense both sides will still
invoke both folks. President Trump said that he was running

(02:19:19):
for office in twenty twenty because Democrats wanted to take
down statues of Thomas Jefferson, and he was defending, you know,
the founding ideals, although he's certainly using executive power in
ways that Jefferson would have questioned. Whereas Joe Biden and
the Democrats, you know, everyone's a Hamiltonian after the musical
and President Obama at the White House and stuff, but

(02:19:41):
they're hardly fans of Hamilton's fiscal responsibility or his principles,
you know, of capitalism in the free market. So we're
very much as always debating the legacy of these men.
But that basic tension you just identified between democracy and
rule by elites is sent in American history.

Speaker 3 (02:20:01):
And of course Jefferson was really well loved by the people.
Who's so linked to liberty you're talking about, you know,
the libertarian streak of it, but he was linked to
liberty and the minds of the American people. We got
towns and counties all across America that are named after Jefferson.
Everybody wants to claim that he is with them on
their political journey. Of course, the Democrats for the longest

(02:20:23):
time had the Jefferson Jackson dinners that they had there,
and yet you know, they're pushing for a central bank,
which not of them liked, and so, you know, it's
it's kind of interesting to me, Like I said, you know,
we have this increasingly centralized, all powerful government like Hamilton
wanted to have, and yet everybody wants to pretend that

(02:20:45):
they're Jefferson. At the same time, that's this this veneer
of Jefferson that's there. Maybe with us musical Hamilton, they're
going to change that and finally own what is really there.
By the time you get to the third chapter, you
talk about the struggle of the bank. Let's talk a
little bit about that, because both of them are on

(02:21:06):
different sides in terms of the bank. The Central Bank
likes Hamilton. They put him on the ten dollar bill,
but Jefferson they put him on a short lived two
dollar bill. But talk a little bit about the struggle
over the Central Bank and the national bank.

Speaker 18 (02:21:20):
It's amazing. This is the central debate in American constitutional history,
and it resonates for the next two hundred years. The
question is whether Congress can set up a bank. It's
the centerpiece of Hamilton's financial plan. He wants to assume
the state debts and create reliable credit. But the problem
is that Jefferson says it's unconstitutional. So Washington asked for

(02:21:41):
memos from Jefferson and Hamilton, and he's become some of
the most important constitutional memos in American history. Jefferson says
that it's unconstitutional to create a bank because the Constitution
allows Congress to create all means necessary and proper for
promoting its enumerated ends. And although Congress has the to
tax and to promote the general welfare, creating a bank

(02:22:03):
isn't absolutely or indispensably necessary to promoting the general welfare
or raising taxes. Hamilton responds, and see what he pulls
on all nighter. He writes fourteen thousand words, and he said,
you should interpret the Necessary and Proper clause liberally rather
than strictly. And as long as a chosen means is
conducive or appropriate or useful for carrying out an enumerated end,

(02:22:29):
then it's consistent with the Constitution. And since it might
be useful to have a bank because that would promote credit,
then the bank should be permissible. Washington sides with Hamilton
rather than Jefferson. Then it goes up to the Supreme
Court a few years later, and John Marshall, in one
of the most important Supreme Court opinions ever called McCullough
versus Maryland, sides with Hamilton over Jefferson. Marshall views himself

(02:22:51):
as Hamilton's successor. He's writing Washington's biography. He has next
to his desk Washington's papers given him by Bushrod Washington,
Washington's nephew, and he reads in washington papers Hamilton's memo
about the bank. He paraphrases it almost word for word
in McCulloch versus Maryland, and in one of the most
famous sentences in constitutional history. Marshall says, let the end

(02:23:12):
be legitimate. If the means are appropriate, then it's consistent
with the Constitution, almost a direct paraphrase of Hamilton. And
then for the next of the one hundred years, the
constitutionality of the bank is still alive. Andrew Jackson resolves
to kill the bank. He seizes Martin van Buren's hand
and says, the bank is trying to kill me, but

(02:23:32):
I won't kill it, you know. He lets it expire.
James Madison eventually and having initially thought the bank was unconstitutional,
changes his mind because he thinks the people have come
to accept it, showing that he has a kind of
evolving version of the Constitution. And this question of the
ability of Congress to print paper money is central in
the Civil War, and Lincoln actually appoints Supreme Court justices

(02:23:55):
to try to uphold his power to print paper money.
And then I won't take through the rest of American
history right now, but when you think about the biggest
disputes in American constitution constitutional history, including the constitutionality of
the Missouri Compromise which led to the Civil War, the
constitutionality of the post restruction reconstruction, Civil Rights Act, all

(02:24:16):
the way up to the constitutionality of healthcare reform. It
all goes back to liberal versus strict construction. What's necessary,
what's conducive, what's appropriate. And just last week or so,
the Supreme Court is debating the constitutionality of the Voting
Rights Act, and it all goes back to that same debate.
So I was really struck how central this is. And
the main debate in constitutional history is not between originalism

(02:24:38):
and non originalism. It's between liberal and strict construction of
the constitution.

Speaker 4 (02:24:43):
Yes, whether or not we take the.

Speaker 3 (02:24:46):
Tenth Amendment very literally to say, well, if you don't
have it listed there, you don't have those powers and so,
but they won't always infer it in terms of the
supremacy clause or the general Welfare clause, or the clause
or something like that. Now you know that that chapter
where that was. You've got dates on many of these
things as well. That was the debate in seventeen ninety

(02:25:09):
seventeen ninety one. And then we move on to the
nullification debate and whether or not that is the rightful remedy.
That's you've got that date as seventeen ninety two to
seventeen eighty. Let's talk a little bit about that, because
of course nullification comes back in in the eighteen thirties
and we nearly had a secession, and during the nullification

(02:25:32):
crisis and the tariffs of abomination that happened. I've talked
about that many times because you know, it's kind of
the situation where they reached a compromise and they were
able to defuse it without having a full blown secession,
which happened like thirty years later. And I've looked at
it kind of from the standpoint of the fourth Turning

(02:25:52):
thesis of Strauss and how and how they're looking at
about every eighty years you have this major restructuring.

Speaker 4 (02:25:59):
I said, yeah, yea.

Speaker 3 (02:26:00):
It just it was like the society wasn't really primed
for it at that point. But the timing was right
thirty years later. But nulflication was always a big issue.
Talk a little bit about that back in seventeen ninety
two to seventeen eighty. What was going on with nulflication
at that point in time.

Speaker 18 (02:26:16):
Absolutely, you really well described the debate, and it goes
right back to Hamilton and Jefferson's debate over the alien
and sedition acts. So in seventeen ninety eight, the Federalists,
led by John Adams, passed this law, and it's the
greatest assault on free speech in American history. It makes
it a crime to criticize the Federalist President John Adams,
but not the Republican Vice President Thomas Jefferson. It's a

(02:26:38):
pure political hatchet job, basically. So Jefferson and Madison object
and they write the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions claiming that
these laws are unconstitutional. Madison always takes a moderate and
middle position between Hamilton and Jefferson. Sometimes it's so complicated

(02:26:59):
that only he could understands it, and he says, if
states don't think that a law is constitutional, they can
interpose an objection. No one knows what this means, except
maybe like sending a stern letter saying that they don't
like it. But Jefferson goes further, and in the Kentucky resolution,
he says, if a state doesn't think that a federal
law is constitutional, it can nullify or refuse to obey it.

(02:27:21):
That's too much from Madison. He thinks that would lead
to secession, and indeed it does. As the Civil War
approaches Southern opponents of federal power invoke Jefferson's Kentucky Resolution
for the principle that states can refuse to carry out
federal laws that they disagree with. And it comes to
a head first, as you said, in the nullification controversy

(02:27:43):
arising out of the Tariff of Abominations in eighteen twenty eight,
when South Carolina objects that this northern tariff is going
to hurt its commerce, and John Calhoun says, who's Andrew
Jackson's vice president says that South Carolina can refuse to
carry out the tariff. It's an incredible moment of testing
for Andrew Jackson. After all, he's a Jeffersonian who generally

(02:28:06):
likes limited government. But in this noble decision to favor
union over secession, Jackson gives a toast. He says liberty
and union they must be preserved, and he insists on
enforcing federal law and not allow South Carolina to nullify.
So that is the first great statement of nationalism in

(02:28:27):
this period. But nevertheless, Calhoun and the Southern Secession has
continued to invoke Jefferson and finally, right before the Civil War,
they claim that the South can secede from the Union
because we are a compact of states and federal law
is not supreme. Once again, Madison disagrees with that. He
thinks that once states agreed to form the Union, they

(02:28:47):
can't unilaterally secede. Abraham Lincoln cites Madison and John Marshall
and James Wilson, all nationalists, when he denies the South's
power to secede. And that's one of the precipitents of
the Civil War, the constitutionality of secession. And it takes
the Civil War, and the war came, as Lincoln said,

(02:29:08):
and all the blood and tragic laws that resulted from
that to establish the proposition that we, the people of
the United States, are sovereign, that states can't unilaterally secede
for the Union, and that nullification is un constitutional.

Speaker 3 (02:29:23):
And of course, Jefferson, in terms of the issue point I,
he went to have frequent constitutional conventions because he was
so heavily involved in the idea of self governance and
that people be able to make that determination. And the
nation had been born by declaring its independence from Great Britain,
and so in a sense, you know, as the writer

(02:29:44):
of the Declaration of Independence, he's looking at this and saying,
you know, we were born out of secession, and we
have the right of self determination to determine what we're
going to be. It's interesting that today, of course, we're
still seeing echoes of this, especially with what's happening with
immigration and other issues. And we've had another aspect of

(02:30:04):
this it's been added, which of course is the non
commandeering thing, saying that you can't force a state to
work along with with the federal government on its agenda
if the state doesn't agree with it. I think one
of the things that's kind of been the way that
they have moved to have a direct confrontation is kind

(02:30:27):
of the oblique method of saying, well, we will pay
you money or will with whole funds depending on whether
or not you do what we tell you to do
from the federal government. And so that method of I
call it bribery or blackmail financially, that has kind of
kept this issue from coming to a head up to
this point, and we still see aspects of it. When

(02:30:50):
California wants to go their own way on immigration, they
threaten them with removing funds, just as they do on
issues about bathrooms and gender and things like that.

Speaker 18 (02:31:00):
You're so right that This central question of the residual
power of states rights under the Tenth Amendment remains one
of America's central constitutional questions. The constitutionality of secession turned
on who was sovereign, the people of the United people
of each state. And as you say, there's still some
states and now some of them were blue rather than red,

(02:31:22):
that are claiming there should be a residual right to secede.
And more broadly, this question of when the federal government
can commandeer the states and what the residual state sovereignty
is remains crucial. Very Goldwater, when he began to flment
the Conservative Revolution in response to the New Deal, said

(02:31:43):
that the Tenth Amendment was central, and on the current
Supreme Court, many of the justices invoked the Tenth Amendment
in arguing that the Obama healthcare mandate was unconstitutional and
that you can't commandeer the states. Justice Anthony Kennedy was
a big fan of federal and insisted that federal and

(02:32:03):
state power had to be kept within their appointed spheres.
He said, the founders split the atom of sovereignty. It
all goes back to that initial Hamilton Jefferson debate, and
the truth is we're not entirely. There's disagreement. There's not
consensus on the question of whether the nation is totally sovereign,
as Hamilton said, whether the states are sovereign as Jefferson said, Well,

(02:32:24):
whether there's a kind of dual sovereignty as Madison said,
which I think is the best reading of the Constitution,
which part where we the people are sovereign, but we
parcel out some sovereignty to the states and to the
federal government, and we've got to keep the balance between them.

Speaker 3 (02:32:39):
Yeah, so that's basically Wady, but it fit Amendment. These
powers have been delegated by the people in the States.
So these debates that this is why your book is
so important, because the debates that we're faced with on
all these core and divisive issues that are there, these
have been debated from the very beginning again between these
two polls of Jefferson and Hamilton. Your next chapter here

(02:33:04):
is eighteen hundred eighteen twenty six, and this is President Jefferson,
Chief Justice Marshall, and Aaron Burr in court.

Speaker 4 (02:33:13):
Tell us a little bit about that.

Speaker 18 (02:33:15):
Well, first I have to say what a villain. Alan
Aaron Burr was a historian, has been wishy washy about his.

Speaker 3 (02:33:24):
When it was in North Carolina. We had a descendant
of his who became a senator.

Speaker 18 (02:33:28):
Oh it was better than he was. He was charming
and you know, a rogue and very pleasant to be
to have drinks with. But the guy was dead to rights.
Henry Adams, the historian, found in the archives of the
British Ambassador a letter where Aaron Burr offered his service
to the British in exchange for their supporting his efforts
to lead a secessionist movement in Spanish Louisiana and set

(02:33:51):
himself up as dictator of Mexico.

Speaker 4 (02:33:53):
Wow.

Speaker 18 (02:33:53):
So he may not have been technically guilty of treason because,
as John Marshall said after Jefferson prosecuted him, because Jesson
sets a very high bar. You need two witnesses and
an overt act. But there's no question that he was
conspiring to secede from the Union. And Donald, Yeah, he
was totally abound too, Darnald. And that's what was so,
and then that's why Hamilton died. Remember Hamilton really distrusts Jefferson,

(02:34:17):
of course, but he thinks Jefferson is a patriot and
he thinks Burr is a trader and that's why he
calls bur a trader, and that's why Burr challenges him
to a duel, and he sacrifices his life because of
his devotion to the Union, and Jefferson joins him in this.
So after Hamilton dies, Jefferson decides to prosecute Burr for treason.
And this precipitates the huge clash between Jefferson and John

(02:34:38):
Marshall and the Supreme Court. The John Marshall is a
Federalist redoubt. After the Federals have lost the election, you know,
they appoint all these Federalist justices to pack the courts.
John Adams smuggled in marshalists Chief Justice during the waning
days of his administration, and Marshall sets out to defend
Hamiltonian values, namely property rights and national commerce over states

(02:35:01):
rights and too much democracy. And Marshall has these huge
clashes with Jefferson. The most famous one, Marbury versus Madison,
involves can he order Jefferson to turn over a commission
that Adams had made to a judge And Marshall doesn't
want to issue in order that he knows will be

(02:35:22):
defied because it'll expose the court as weak. The same
question we're having today is the president going to defy
the Supreme Court. Marshall dodges the question by saying the
court has the power to order the subpoena, but he's
not going to do it now because the act authorizing
this said poena to be turned over as unconstitutional. Even
to state this shows he was such a master of

(02:35:43):
what Jefferson called twistifications, who'd come up with these very
complicated legal compromises.

Speaker 4 (02:35:48):
Twistification. We need to bring that back. Yeah.

Speaker 18 (02:35:51):
Jefferson also said with Marshall that he's so untrustworthy that
if he asked me the time of day, I'll say
I don't know, because he'll twist my words against me.
They really disliked each other. They were distant cousins, and
I think Marshall's Jefferson had courted the lady who became
Marshall's aunt or something like that, so that they have

(02:36:11):
bled in the family. But the point is it's a
huge clash. Basically, the class between Jefferson and John Marshall
is the class between Jefferson and Hamilton continued after Hamilton's
death because John Marshall views himself as Hamilton's successor and
In the end in the Burr trial, Marshall does order
Jefferson to turn over papers related to Burr. This faces

(02:36:34):
Jefferson with a question, and he briefly considers not obeying
or abiding by the decision. He does decide to turn
over the papers, establishing the president that the president can
be subpoenaed. But Jefferson, in his response to Marshall, declares
that the president has an ability to interpret the Constitution
differently than the Supreme Court and to follow his own conclusions.

(02:36:56):
This is a principle that becomes known as departmentalism, or
each depart can reach its own judgment, and carried to
its extreme, it would allow the president to defy the
Supreme Court when he disagreed with it. Interestingly, no president
has taken that radical position and openly defied the Supreme Court.
Lincoln briefly defied Roger Tawny for two weeks during the

(02:37:18):
Civil War when Tawny ordered him to free a Confederate
prisoner and said that he'd unconstitutionally suspended habeas corpus. Lincoln
didn't do that for two weeks. Then he did comply,
but Tawny was acting as a district court judge not
sitting for the whole Supreme Court. So no president has
ever openly defied the full Supreme Court. But the point
of that chapter, the clashes between Marshall and Jefferson are

(02:37:43):
that they also establish the constitutional battles that were still
facing today between liberal and strict construction of the Constitution.
And remember Marshall's approach, which he calls liberal or fair construction,
which he gets from Hamilton, is always construe federal power fairly,
not to be unlimited, but broadly consistently with its spirit.

(02:38:05):
And Jefferson, as you said, said if the power isn't
explicitly enumerated, then you shouldn't construe it to be present.
And you should also carry yourself back to the spirit
in which the amendment was passed. It's strict construction. And
that debate is won by Marshall temporarily. But then just
to finish this part of the story, Marshall is succeeded

(02:38:31):
by Roger Tawni and Andrew Jackson wants Roger Tawni to
constrict federal power and to prevent Congress from chartering a bank.
And Tawny gets in and he comes up with a
more Jeffersonian approach on the Supreme Court, and it culminates
in the debate over the Missouri Compromise, which leads to
the Civil War.

Speaker 3 (02:38:49):
Yes, it is amazing to see these same strains being
pulled back and forth as we go through history. I
well love the way your book is set up. It's
very interesting, of course, with Marbury versus Madison, if I
remember correctly, Jefferson said, well, that's the end of the
Constitution if we're going to have the Supreme Court be
able to decide and have the final say as to

(02:39:10):
whether it's not something is constitutional. I'm kind of paraphrasing
him here. Maybe you know the quote.

Speaker 20 (02:39:15):
But.

Speaker 18 (02:39:17):
That's absolutely right. He's and he said that Marshall would
would make a thing of wax out of the Constitution.

Speaker 4 (02:39:23):
That he is true.

Speaker 18 (02:39:24):
It so liberally is to eliminate all powers, and that's
what he wants strict construction to prevent Marshall from turning
the Constitution into the thing of wax.

Speaker 4 (02:39:32):
Yes, that's a great way to put it.

Speaker 3 (02:39:34):
Today they talk about being a living document, but I
like the idea of that being a thing of wax.

Speaker 4 (02:39:39):
That's great.

Speaker 3 (02:39:41):
And then you have the period from eighteen twenty six
to eighteen sixty one, you say all honor to Jefferson,
and so up until the point of the Civil War,
you know, we have everybody again. Jefferson, who spoke so
eloquently about liberty, captured everyone's imagination in America, and he

(02:40:03):
is the one that everybody wants to be seen as
talk a little bit about that period in history there
because there were going through the nullification crisis and many other.

Speaker 18 (02:40:12):
Things, absolutely and culminating in the debate over the constitutionality
of the Missouri Compromise, which is the central compromise over
slavery in the early Republic. The basic question is does
Congress have the power to ban slavery in the newly
acquired territories and in New States? And Jefferson initially said yes.

(02:40:34):
He in seventeen eighty four sponsored a provision called the
Jefferson Proviso, which would have allowed Congress to ban slavery
in the territories. But then he becomes president. First of all,
he doubles the size of the US by buying Louisiana,
even though he's unconstitutional, but he swallows his doubts because
he's more interested in the obvious benefits of doubling the

(02:40:56):
size of the US. But then he really is afraid
that the Missouri Compromise is going to lead to civil war,
so he argues that it's unconstitutional, embracing the same narrow
construction of the territories clause that he'd rejected in buying Louisiana.
So it gets up to the Supreme Court and it
all comes back to that same question liberal versus strict

(02:41:18):
construction of the single word territories, and Chief Justice Roger
Tawny channeling the late but not the earlier, Jefferson says,
because the Constitution allows you to pass regulations for the
federal for governing land in the federal territory singular, it
only covers the territory that was held by the US
at the time of the founding, not future acquired territories plural.

(02:41:42):
It's like the meaning of the word is incredibly legalistic.
And the point here is that you know Jefferson had
flipped on this question, and it's the central constitutional question
of the anti Bellum period. The entire Republican Party is
founded by Lincoln and others in eighteen fifty seven on
the proposition the Congress does have the power to ban

(02:42:03):
slavery in the territories. So Tawny is imposing a contested
interpretation of the Constitution above the consensus of the Republican
Party as well as many other pro popular sovereignty democrats,
and his opinion has the effect of helping to precipitate
the Civil War. Tawny wrongly thinks that this will end

(02:42:25):
the divisions over slavery, but as usual, when the court
tries to solve the contested question without clear constitutional answers,
it made things worse. And Lincoln says that he will
not follow the dread Scott decision except with regard to
the parties in the case, but otherwise it doesn't view
it as part of the Constitution, interestingly embracing a kind
of Jeffersonian view of the president's power to interpret the

(02:42:47):
Constitution separately from the Court. That's when Lincoln stands in
front of Independence Hall in eighteen sixty one and he says,
I've never had a thought politically that doesn't stem from
Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Rather be assassinated on
this spot than abandoned the principles of Jefferson. It's incredibly
powerful statement by the Great emancipator. Why is Lincoln Jeffersonian?

(02:43:10):
After all, he's embracing a version of federal power that
really wants to expand the government in ways that are
consistent with Hamilton's views, basically, because you know, Hamilton's name
is mud and he's viewed as an aristocrat, and the
Federalist Party is dead. And Lincoln's mentor, Henry Clay, the
founder of the Whig Party, studied with Thomas Jefferson's law

(02:43:31):
tutor George with and views himself as a Jeffersonian nationalist.

Speaker 7 (02:43:36):
So that's why.

Speaker 18 (02:43:37):
Plus Lincoln wants to win, and everyone loves Jefferson, so
that's why he embraces Jefferson before the Civil War. But
the great constitutional achievement of Abraham Lincoln is to inscribe
into the Constitution the principle of liberty for all. And
by talking about the goals of the Declaration and the

(02:43:57):
Constitution in the phrase liberty for all, he's inspired by Jefferson,
and that's what leads to the post Civil war amendments
to the Constitution. It's just an amazing reminder of how
central that old Hamilton Jefferson debate was in leading the
Court to strike down the Missouri Compromise and helping to
cause the Civil War.

Speaker 3 (02:44:18):
And as you say in the next chapter, you know
posts well from eighteen sixty one on, Hamilton is waxing.
In other words, Hamilton is growing, and it's becoming more
and more concentrated and centralized. As many people pointed out,
they would say the United States are before the Civil War,
but after that they said, the United States is, And

(02:44:38):
so we have this tremendous consolidation that happens because the
Civil War speak to that.

Speaker 18 (02:44:46):
It's so striking, isn't it. Jackson was the first well,
James Wilson and Gouvernor Morris, who wrote the Preamble to
the Constitution, talked about the United States are. Jackson picked
it up, and then the Civil War establishes that were
plural union. I think it's so inspiring that James Garfield
led a Hamilton revival after the Civil War when he
read the collected works of Hamilton in the library Hamilton's son,

(02:45:10):
James published them and Hamilton. Garfield read them and said,
I want to make him the patron saint of reconstruction.
Then reconstruction of Congress. People like John Bingham, who's an
incredible admirer of John Marshall. Cite Marshall and Hamilton in
when they proposed the thirteen, fourteenth and fifteenth Amendments, and
the fourteenth Amendment in section five gives Congress the power

(02:45:33):
to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Beingham is trying
to empower Congress in ways that Hamilton would have wanted.
And the first draft of the Fourteenth Amendment says Congress
shall have all power to make laws necessary and proper
to enforce equal protection. He's taking that liberal construction of
that necessary and proper clause, all channeled by Hamilton. These
guys are such good lawyers, but more importantly, they're great historians.

(02:45:55):
They studied history as kids, they were inspired by their heroes,
and they want to make Hamilton and Marshall central. And
then the great debates over reconstruction, and it's such a
tragic period because Congress passes these laws and then there's
a violent reaction and black civil rights are subverted and
black people are lynched and murdered, and then the Supreme

(02:46:17):
Court goes on to strike down a lot of the
pillars of reconstruction, including the Civil Rights Act of eighteen
seventy five, which forbids discrimination and public accommodations, and also
the ku Klux Klan Act of eighteen seventy seven, which
allows the punishment of racially motivated violence. And in striking
those acts down, they INVOKEE. Jefferson strict construction of the

(02:46:39):
necessary and proper clause, and they ignore the fact that
Hamilton had the opposite view. And Justice Bradley is kind
of a villain of my book because he really does
a number on reconstruction and strikes all those acts down.
And the hero of this part is John Marshall Harlan,
a great justice named after John Marshall because his father

(02:47:01):
admires Marshall so much. Harlan is he is the president
of the Alexander Hamilton Memorial Society, and he writes the
only dissenting opinions both in the Civil Rights cases which
strike down the Civil Rights Act and in Plusy versus Ferguson,
the infamous case, which upholds segregation in railroads. And Harlan
nobly says the Constitution is colorblind and neither knows nor

(02:47:23):
tolerates classes among citizens, and he explicitly votes Hamilton's broad
construction of congressional power takes another one hundred years for
Thurbert Marshall to read Harlan's opinion aloud before he argues
Brown versus Board of Education. Today, Justice Neil Gorsich has
a portrait of Harlan in his chambers, showing that Harlan
has been embraced by strict constructionist conservatives as well as

(02:47:48):
liberals alike. But it all goes back to the Hamilton Revival,
when Bingham wants to make Hamilton rather than Jefferson, the
patron saint of reconstruction.

Speaker 3 (02:47:58):
Interesting and as we look at reconstruction and the idea
that we had a standing army that was a part
of that posse commatatis, which is now back in the
in current events because of the actions of Ice and
the Trump administration. That was a kind of a capstone
to reconstruction and some of the abuses that were happening

(02:48:22):
with a standing army at that point in time. So
all these things keep coming back, don't.

Speaker 18 (02:48:27):
They They really do, and to make things even better
for the Hamilton Jefferson arratif although not for the country.
The debate over posse comitatis is part of this long
standing debate about the president's power to call up the
militia to enforce federal law, which goes back to the
Insurrection Active eighteen oh seven, sponsored by Thomas Jefferson. It's

(02:48:48):
amazing that Jefferson is the guy who, before the founding says, oh,
we should a little rebellion every now and then is
a good thing, and we should pardon those whiskey rebels,
and we've got to moisten the blood of tyrants with revolution.
I mean, he like Niverses much revolution. But then he
becomes president and totally switches his tune when Vermont rebels
against his hated embargo. Jefferson has this disastrous economic policy.

(02:49:11):
We're cutting off all trade with the rest of the world.

Speaker 4 (02:49:14):
New England's familiar to but go ahead, let's sorry.

Speaker 18 (02:49:18):
Everything goes back to those days. Well in New England then,
as now actually rebels, and Jefferson writes to Madison, do
I have the power to send out the troops to
stop these guys? Madison says, I don't think so. So
they pass the Insurrection Act, which is the same one
that has been invoked throughout American history, and President Jackson
in votes it to put down rebellion. Lincoln invokes it

(02:49:41):
to put down secession. Grant invokes it after the Civil
War to try to put down some of that mob violence,
and it goes all the way up today. And the
last time it was invoked it was during the Civil
Rights movement and then George H. W. Bush involved it
to put down the Rodney King riots. That was the

(02:50:03):
last time. But this question, which is obviously central now
both with the Puzzi Comittatis Act and also the question
can President Trump send guards from one state into another,
goes back to that initial Hamilton Jefferson debate, and I
having read the Insurrection Act as it was amended over
the years, it does seem to give the president pretty

(02:50:25):
broad authority to send the troops even for domestic law enforcement.
Although Jefferson and Hamilton initially thought that you couldn't federalize
the troops for domestic law enforcement only to put down
insurrection or serious external threats. But because Congress has succeeded
in the expansion of executive authority over the years, the

(02:50:45):
president's authority may be unconstrained.

Speaker 3 (02:50:48):
Yeah, that's very interesting debate we have there. And then
we go to the period of the early nineteen hundreds.
You have this title of this Hamiltonian means to achieve Jefferson.

Speaker 4 (02:50:59):
Ends us marks.

Speaker 3 (02:51:00):
So I got the time of Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson,
and the new nationalism Henry Cabot Lodge, Calvin Coolidge talk
a little bit about that.

Speaker 18 (02:51:11):
I was partly inspired to write this book when I
read this historian from the Progressive era, Herbert Crowley, calling
on Theodore Roosevelt to deploy Hamiltonian means for Jeffersonian. And
Crowley was the founder of the New Republic magazine. As
it happens, I spent almost two decades there as the
legal affairs at it or a while ago, and I
just thought that was an interesting phrase. And I was
so struck that Roosevelt used it and quoted it word

(02:51:33):
for word when he said, I am a Hamiltonian with
regard to my views of federal power, and a Jeffersonian
in my views about democracy. So obviously the categories were
getting scrambled. And this is the period when Theodore Roosevelt
makes Hamilton the hero of the Progressive era, and then
Coolidge and Harding make Hamilton the hero of the Gilded Age.

(02:51:57):
Coolidge really admires Hamilton, who he studied. He's an Amorrist college.
He revers the founding, in particular the Puritan basis of
the founding, and he sees Hamilton as a patron saint
both of free enterprise and of limited government. It's so striking,
and there's a huge change in the understanding of executive
power in the election of nineteen twelve.

Speaker 4 (02:52:18):
If you had to pick a.

Speaker 18 (02:52:19):
Single moment for the growth of the modern imperial presidency
would be nineteen twelve, when both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson,
the Progressive and Democratic candidate, say that the president is
a steward of the people who should directly channel popular
will and William Howard Taff, the old constitutionalist, thinks that
they're both demagogues and that the founders thought that the

(02:52:39):
president should be a chief magistrate who enforces the laws
of Congress but doesn't communicate directly with the people. Interestingly,
all three of them are historians who love Hamilton and
Theodore Roosevelt.

Speaker 4 (02:52:53):
Isn't it?

Speaker 18 (02:52:53):
I thought this was so cool. Theodore Roosevelt wrote a
biography of Gouvernor Morris, who is a big Hamiltonian. He's
a great historian as well well as a great leader.
Woodrow Wilson is the only president who ever got a
PhD in history or in anything, and he admires Hamilton,
although he also admires Hagel, the German philosopher and criticized
the natural law separation of powers basis of the Declaration

(02:53:16):
of Independence. And William Howard Taft thinks that Hamilton and
Marshall are the greatest Americans ever and writes a book
on presidential power. So, George will once told me that
you can tell what kind of conservative someone is today
based on where they would have stood in the election
of nineteen twelve. And if you're a kind of populist conservative,
then you'd love Wilson Roosevelt. And if you're a constitutionalist conservative,

(02:53:38):
you like William Howard Taft.

Speaker 4 (02:53:40):
Yeah. I would have gone for Caft. I think no
doubt about it.

Speaker 18 (02:53:44):
And so I have to just briefly say, as it happens.
I wrote a short biography of William Howard Taft for
the American President series a while ago. I didn't know
much about him until I got the assignment, but I
really came to admire him as our last constitutionalist president.

Speaker 3 (02:53:57):
Wow wow, Yeah, he's a great man, not just by
his but it was an outsized character in history as well.
And so at this point in time, this is also
when we have a major restructuring of our country with
the bank with.

Speaker 4 (02:54:12):
A federal reserve. You're talking about.

Speaker 3 (02:54:13):
These guys being fans of Alexander Hamilton, while we can
certainly see that with a Federal Reserve Act, that happens
at that point in time. And then we have nineteen
thirty two to sixty eight, so New Dealism, FDR and
other things, the economic Hamiltonianism has become political Jefferson's Jeffersonians.

Speaker 4 (02:54:35):
Talk a little bit about that.

Speaker 18 (02:54:37):
Another example of a time when best selling books are changing,
Hamilton and Jefferson going up and down. Theodore Roosevelts inspired
to embrace Hamilton when he reads a best seller by
a woman called Gerthrud Averton, The Conqueror, being the true
and romantic tale of Hamilton. It's the Hamilton music of
its stay, and he it makes Hamilton the star of

(02:54:58):
the moment, but is inspired to resurrect Jefferson after reading
a book by a guy called Claude Bowers called Jefferson
Versus Hamilton, The Struggle for Democracy over Aristocracy and FDR
invites Bowers to speak to the Democratic Convention of nineteen
twenty eight, and he's a huge success, and then he
reinvents himself as the second coming of Thomas Jefferson based

(02:55:19):
on his reading of this book. FDR is a Hudson
Valley aristocrat who you'd think what his grandfather had actually
been an ally of Hamilton, but he just identifies with Jefferson,
the Democratic aristocrat and who he's collecting stamps and tracing
his ancestry back to the founding and decides to make

(02:55:39):
himself the second coming of Thomas Jefferson. But this raises
the question of the limits on the New Deal administrative state.
As you said, independent agencies were created during the Progressive
era by Woodrow Wilson and Louis Brandeis, who's another hero
of mine. Actually, Brandeis was a great Jeffersonian. He admired
Jefferson more than anyone, and in construction agencies like the

(02:56:01):
FED and the Federal Trade Commission, he viewed them as
a combination of public and private control that would prevent
too much centralization in the federal government. And Brandeis upheld
the constitutionality of the independent agencies. In the nineteen thirties
in a case called Humphrey's Executor that was a unanimous
Supreme Court decision. That's the central question in the Supreme

(02:56:21):
Court's going to hear in a couple of weeks. Are
independent agencies constitutional today? And lots of folks think they're
going to overturn that Humphrey's Executive decision and strike down
the agencies on the so called unitary executive theory, which
says that the president can fire anyone he appoints. Who's
the patron saint of the unitary executive theory Alexander Hamilton,
he came up with the idea of it in his

(02:56:43):
Pacificus letters, and Reagan administration lawyers invoked it when they
first came up with the unitary executive theory. And who's
the patron saint of the constitutionality of the independent agencies?
Thomas Jefferson, who brandis invoked in the Humphrey's Executor case.
So once again, I think you got the thesis of
the book.

Speaker 2 (02:57:02):
Now.

Speaker 18 (02:57:03):
It all goes back to that initial class.

Speaker 3 (02:57:07):
So interesting, and of course what we've seen as everybody
wanted to embrace the image and the reputation of Jefferson
and identify themselves as Jeffersonianism. And again I think it
was because Jefferson was so linked with the idea of
liberty as the author of the decroatione Independence and all
the rest of this stuff. But now lately there's been

(02:57:27):
this effort in modern times to link him to slavery,
and so I think he has his reputation has been tarnished.

Speaker 4 (02:57:35):
Now we've got.

Speaker 3 (02:57:36):
Hamilton with his own musical, and we have Jefferson who
is now decried as someone who had slaves, and so
there's been a reversal of that, and I think that's
kind of a key thing for where we are right now,
because again, people would have this veneer of Jefferson there,
but they were really were consolidating power, because that's just

(02:57:57):
the nature of pauls and politics is that you would
have a consolidation of powers act and said, but speak
a little bit about that and where we are, because
we're nearly out of time. Let's go some closing statements
here as to where you see us right now in
terms of this being polled from one poll to the other.
Jefferson and Hamilton.

Speaker 18 (02:58:19):
Well, these are challenging times for the American Republic as
we all know, and we are more polarized that at
any time since the Civil War, and there is talk
once again in the land of secession and Julius Caesar
and the question of whether the Republic will survive. It's

(02:58:41):
so striking that Hamilton and Jefferson embraced the basic principles
of the American idea as embodied in the Declaration of
the Constitution, liberty, equality, and government by consent. They disagreed
about how to apply those values in practice, and they
had fierce debates over the proper balance between liberty and power,
with Jefferson thinking every increase in power threatened liberty and

(02:59:03):
the Hamilton thinking that increases in centralized power could secure liberty.
The point of the Constitution is not agreement, but debate.
The Constitution is made for people of fundamentally differing points
of view, as justice, Oliver Wendel Holmes said, and disagreement
is not a bug in the system, it's a feature.
But the debate has to involve listening to the other side.

(02:59:26):
It cannot involve viewing the other side as enemies, owning
the Libs and owning the Conservatives. We've got to be
committed to the process of deliberation itself, and that's why
the Hamilton and Jefferson debate is so inspiring. As long
as we maintain it, we will keep the republic. And
it's only when we reject the debate itself that the

(02:59:46):
shooting begins.

Speaker 3 (02:59:47):
Oh absolutely, I agree with that. Yes, when we look
at the fact that, as you point out, both people
on the left and people on the right want to
shut down the other side such of them, punish them,
take away licenses, whatever, we have to have that debate.
And that was one thing on which both these two
polls agreed. That is the quintessential American thing, is that

(03:00:09):
we have to have a debate on these different issues.

Speaker 4 (03:00:12):
Thank you so much. Again. The book is.

Speaker 3 (03:00:16):
Let me get the title again here, it is The
Pursuit of Liberty, How Hamilton Versus Jefferson ignited the Lasting
Battle over Power in America by Jeffrey Rosen, CEO of
the National Constitution Center. And where's the best place for
people to find this? Do you sell this directly or
on Amazon?

Speaker 18 (03:00:33):
The books on Amazon and in bookstories near you?

Speaker 3 (03:00:35):
Okay, that's the best place for people find it. Looks
like a fascinating book. It's been a fascinating conversation. Thank
you so much, mister Rosen. Thank you for real great
insight that you have there. Thank you and everyone have
a great day today. And thank you Scott Helmer. Thank
you very much for the tip. I appreciate that and
we'll talk about that tomorrow again. Scott Heelmer dot com

(03:00:56):
dot news an anthem for a divided world. Scott Helmer's website.
There the latest single that he of course he is
a recording artist, he said, the latest single speaks to.

Speaker 4 (03:01:13):
It, does yes?

Speaker 3 (03:01:14):
Please share that Scott Helmer dot com and you can
see it his website. He's got a new single that
is there. Thank you so much, Scott, and thank you
to all of you. Have a great day. The common man,

(03:01:40):
they created common Core, dumbed down our children. They created
common Past to track and control us. They're Commons project
to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future.
They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated ordinary. But
each of us is worth and dignity, created in the

(03:02:02):
image of God. That is what we have in common.
That is what they want to take away. Their most
powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know
everything about us. While they hide everything from us, it's
time to turn that around and expose what they want

(03:02:24):
to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find
at the Davidknightshow dot com. Thank you for listening, thank
you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please
keep us in your prayers. Ddavidknightshow dot com

All Episodes

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;}Wed Episode #2127: America’s Gangster Government: Venezuela Killings & Gaza Genocide

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Ruthie's Table 4

The Joe Rogan Experience

All Episodes

Wed Episode #2127: America’s Gangster Government: Venezuela Killings & Gaza Genocide

On Purpose with Jay Shetty