Take a look. Behind the curtain with a real whistleblower and American patriot, Prepare to embrace the uncomfortable truth because this program has no time for comforting lies. Here is civil liberties enthusiast, Second Amendment defender, and recovering FBI agent Kyle Seraphin. Well, hello my friends. Welcome to the Kyle Seraphin show. I appreciate you guys joining me and we are a little bit late today and that's that's an interesting experience so far.
We have basically done this show for two years using the same Internet service in Texas, America. And we've always had significantly more upload bandwidth than we've ever needed. In the last two days, we've had 1/5 of that amount and it's not enough to do it. So hopefully what you guys are getting, and I apologize to those of you that are over on YouTube, you're not going to get 4K today.
I scaled down and I'm trying to tighten up the bandwidth because we're trying to work within what we've got. So if you're getting glitchingness on the video, that is something that I'm aware of. And I've ordered another line and we're going to do the best we can do. It's going to take another day or two before AT&T gets here and we're going to hopefully have fiber and cable.
But kind of interesting, especially when we've had two discussions today and yes, yesterday about some of the failures I think that are going on in this country. We're going to talk about the FB is inability to do pre crime, which is the expectation that people have of that FBI. I'm going to say it one more time. Law enforcement cannot do pre crime. We've had this on multiple programs. I'm going to give you more examples of it today.
It cannot do pre crime. And yet the expectation is Americans believe that that is in fact their job. And those things are antithetical. You cannot have American liberty, have a Bill of Rights that actually functions and then also have a law enforcement agency that can find out whether or not someone is going to do a crime before they do it and stop it from happening before it ever happens. That's not possible. That's not the the ability that we have as human beings.
And so that's where we're going to go. And I'm going to give you some other examples too. And it's not just that there's propaganda that's coming out in many different ways. What I want to lead off with before we do our first sponsor, because I got to get something queued up and we were a little bit behind the 8 ball. I'm going to play you this song, which I find very amusing. We're not going to play all of it.
I'll probably skip around it, but I've played it here before and I'm seeing a push right now about anti-Semitism and what's going on in Gaza. And even some of you in the comments are calling me out and saying, hey, you have to care about what's happening in Israel. You have to care about what's happening in Gaza. I'm going to just tell you right up front, I don't, I don't, I know what Revelations is. I understand that Revelations is
an apocryphal book. If you don't know what that is, go look it up. It's worth knowing there's a theological perspective in the way that it was written. And I actually don't care what happens in Israel. It doesn't have anything to do with me as an American. It certainly doesn't direct me, affect me one way or another, but we are being sort of gaslit that you have to pick a side in America where it doesn't affect us. And what I continue to see are people on the hard political
left doing two things. One, they started off just like they did in 2020, going after the George Floyd riots, where it started with property and it ended up in people. That's where the damage happened. We're seeing the same thing happen here and I think we're going to see that progression. And then the other side of it is, is that you're seeing leftist media running cover pieces and saying, oh, it's also happening overseas. And so, you know, there's a justification.
It's tit for tat. We're just in the middle of this this conflict that has happened for thousands or, you know, 2000 years or 1000 1/2 years. I don't believe that. So let's start with this little fun video talking about the friends over in Hamas. And remember for all of the talk and posture, the people who actually make money off what goes on in Gaza do not choose to live in Gaza.
Kind of like Democrats who make money off war zone type cities in West Baltimore and Southeast DC and Southwest DC and so on. Or yeah, that's right, DC SE in all these like rotten neighborhoods. That's where they go when they campaign. But do they live there? Is that where Maxine Waters would live? She'd go live in South Central. No, they go live in fancy palaces where they have lots of money and so how much of it is just the face to recruit more money so they can live their
lives the way they want? Again, this is the little kind of like a kick off video. It's called Black skies in Gaza. The children of Gaza are suffering, they have no food or medical supply but you can help. Please open your heart and make a donation by clicking in the link below. Shukran and God bless you. Like a Ramadan retreat. I don't really give a shit. Come on, hang on. I'm my sweet ask. Money. My dog needs more money because the sky is bread.
But Qatar is always funny. You just give me money. Life is pretty funny because the sky is bread, but Qatar is always funny. We need more money, people of the world. So a little bit of a musical start from there. I'll put the whole thing over on kyleseraphin.com, assuming we have the bandwidth, which I think we do. That's the point. The point is, is a lot of this stuff is messaging. A lot of this stuff is fake and turning on the tears.
And I'm going to give you like a really, really good example that comes from NBC in just one moment. Before we get started with what most of today's program, let's go ahead and say thanks to folks over at My Patriot Supply. And there you go. Actually, you know what, we're going to be using a different here. There we go. We're going to be using a different website than we normally do. It's my Patriot supply Dash Dash Kyle or my Patriot Supply slash Kyle. Thank you.
I'm having that moment today. Let's talk about it. So if we've got issues in this country, they can come from all different facets. They could be food. You guys know that I've been talking about emergency food for a while. What about the power? We're having that kind of experience right now. We actually had power outages over the weekend. And what happens when it goes out? I'll tell you one thing, we can't run the show. But if it's a heat wave, it's a summer storm.
It's electrical activity going on, maybe people just overloading the grid, everybody using their AC. Our grid is fragile. It doesn't always keep up. One of the things you can do is get the grid doctor 3300. It's a solar generator from my Patriot Supply, an absolute beast. Puts out 3300 watts of off power grid and keep your freezer. It can keep your fridge. So that's your food, your lights, even medical devices running whenever the grid power fails.
If the grid power fails. And if you want to do it, they've got a crazy deal going on right now where you're going to get 2 waterproof 200 Watt solar panels. That's going to be the charging device absolutely free, saving you almost $900. It's an $894.00 value added on top. They're not cheap plastic panels. They're durable, they're waterproof, they're made to the last through storms and heat and God knows what else is thrown at you. Go to my Patriot supply dot dot com slash Kyle.
Claim your free panels with that grid doctor 3300. The link is in the show description to get down there. If there was a time to be serious about it, it's probably during the summer. That can be a life or death thing here in somewhere like Texas. So check them out again mypatriotsupply.com slash Kyle and consider it. If you guys don't have solar power, if you don't have a backup generator of some kind, many of you do. But if not, that's where you
might want to start. All right, let's get in today's show. Like I said, we're not going to just do musical interludes. We're going to talk about lies and pre crime and people and property. All. Right, so let me hit this record button here. I actually should have started recording locally, but it seemed like it was going to go well. And then, of course, it probably won't. All right, so the first story that I've got in front of you here is this one. And that's why I played the
video. Israeli forces fired on Palestinians seeking aid. Health officials say dozens are dead. That's a pretty aggressive headline. That's that. Those sad faces on the screen. I wonder if that's like green screen stuff and acting. And I'll tell you why because this is one of the lead stories coming out of NBC News. It says the incident marks the latest in a string of attacks in which health officials in Gaza. I just want you to hear the words that are being said. String of attacks.
What's the source? Health officials in Gaza say Palestinians were killed while waiting for aid under a controversial new distribution system. OK, so this turns out to be an attack on what's happening over there. And of course, it's an attack on Trump's policy, foreign policy. More than two dozen were killed early Tuesday after the Israeli military opened fire to close a controversial aid distribution point in Gaza. Comma. Local health officials say
comma. It's the third time in three days that Palestinians were killed close to the site. The Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza, which is the source of this information, which has been run by Hamas since 2007. So the Health Ministry run by a terrorist organization in Gaza, said Tuesday morning that 27 people were killed, more than 161 were injured as they waited for aid at a site that is known as Al Alam in a roundabout part of the southern city of Rafa.
That sounds awful. That sounds like a terrible thing that could have happened. NBC News was not immediately able to verify those figures. It says right up. That's the number three paragraph. So it's buried a little bit underneath the headline. It's buried underneath Ian, the actual story. NBC News was not immediately able to verify those figures.
But lest you think that they are just lying, the World Health Organization has previously stated that it considers this health ministry data to be reliable. OK. So is it reliable when it comes to casualty numbers? Is it reliable when it comes to broadcasting the number of people that have been hurt? The Israeli military said it fired what it described as a warning shot at a number of people about 1/2 kilometer away
from the aid site. And then it was aware that the casualty reports were were being thrown in the news and it was looking into the matter, but it didn't confirm them. I think both of these people have a vested interest in lying. I do think it's interesting that NBC News, which wants to cover this on their front page and thinks that it is a really important story, it can't verify these things.
And so they're going to lean back on something like the World Health Organization, who most of us do not believe is an honest or reputable situation. They don't think that they're an honest organization. And the reason that is, is because they killed all their credibility over the last four or five years, like so many other things here. Kind of interesting stuff, right? Why is it, why is it these people keep pushing these lies? Here's another good one, completely unrelated, but it was
another thing. So not only do you have to feel bad about what's happening in Gaza, because that's part of what the left of ethos is, the other thing is you must care about climate change. And what better way to go and attack a Trump administration than talking about a FEMA head? You remember how well FEMA was run under the Biden administration, that it totally wasn't being used by folks who wanted to punish Trump voters in North Carolina who are still
suffering right now. But now they're in the summer and they've made it through the winter. Yeah, this headline coming from CBS, which is the other head of the three headed beast. I've got a BCCBSNBC is the three heads of the beast. The acting head of FEMA said he was not aware that the United States had a hurricane season, sources say. I feel like the word sources say, are the indicator that we're about to lie and use some sort of propaganda. So let's go ahead and get into
what that story says. The staff of the Federal Emergency Management Agency were confused and they were dispirited on Monday when the acting head said during a daily briefing that he was not aware that the country had a hurricane season, said three sources familiar with the meeting.
Now, it's also interesting that as the Trump administration continues to try to take over these agencies and honestly, they're not doing it the way that I would do it, I would be firing everybody that was in a senior management position. That's the only way that you get rid of people that have been part of the culture that came up and thought that whatever they
were doing was OK previously. You're going to lose some competency, but you're also going to at least get rid of the folks that are bad actors and you probably get rid of some other ones. They said this guy didn't know that it was a hurricane season, something that I've been hearing about since I was a little kid. I didn't even live in hurricane
country and I knew that. The remark was made by David Richardson at the conclusion of an 8:30 AM daily briefing, which is typically attended by hundreds of FEMA staffers and interagency partners. Reuters was the first ones to comment on the on this report or to report on this comment. He's a former Marine Corps officer. He's probably not a dummy. I don't know a lot of people that are completely incompetent Marine Corps officers.
And then you get to it again, just like the other one in the third paragraph. It's not clear to the staff whether he meant it literally or as a joke, but we're going to report it as though he didn't know what was going on. Current and former employees who spoke with CBS News said the Comet really flustered them because they genuinely believe that. Richardson was truly surprised to learn that there was a hurricane season and that it had started. That's hard to believe, isn't
it? It's hard to imagine that some guy who's running FEMA, which does one of its major, sort of one of its major features is to in fact is, is to solve the problem of people who deal with hurricanes. And he didn't know about it, supposedly. Is that probable? Even if he didn't imagine this, imagine that he did not know that there was in fact a hurricane season. Does that matter?
Does it change anything? Does it change it because you don't need to know all the things that your organization does to run an organization. It might be shocking to people to learn that the CEO probably can't do every job in every company. And yet when you hire people that are competent, you can let them do that work and then you don't have to do anything else. You go, OK, well, I got that problem handled. I paid someone to handle this business. It's not clear if he meant it as
a joker, literally. But current and former employees who spoke to CBS News said the comment flustered them because they genuinely believed it was real. Any joke made by a leader about the upcoming hurricane season was delivered in poor taste. They suggested offending agency staff who already suffer from low morale among a flurry of resignations, firings, leadership overhauls and polygraph tests, which are now being distributed to staffers.
Well, if you hurt everybody's feeling at a federal agency, doesn't that seem like you're actually doing the job properly? That's what I would think. I'm going to give you another CBS story. And I think this also goes into the category of wins, at least it does to me. How about this one? Justice Department capital siege section head Greg Rosen, This is also from CBS. He's resigned. He says that Trump's January 6th
pardons sent a terrible message. Do you remember when we kept hearing that there was this new Bongino rule? I feel like that was a Jim Verdi thing. They said we have to wait 6 to 8 months to be able to get rid of people who suck who did things that are illegal, immoral, unethical, or not in line with the current administration. I heard it was going to take a long time.
And then I immediately remember hearing from Harmi Dillon saying that there were these like pity parties and Cry Fest and that people were actually disappearing right away. They were just going away. They no longer did the job. They decided that they couldn't work under this type of organization, this kind of pressure. They were demoralized and defeated.
And all their hard work going after these grandmas and, and, and other people like Steve Baker who were accidental tourists or trespassing terrorists or whatever you want to call them. Those people had to be removed. And so he resigned. Section head Senior guy, federal prosecutor who helped lead the largest federal criminal case in American history has resigned his position at the Justice Department. He's a long time assistant United States Attorney Greg Rosen.
He was the chief of the Justice Department's capital siege section. He departed for a post with a private law firm. I'm sure it's going to be terribly paid and he's going to suffer significantly. And that just kind of reminds me that Stephen Jensen was promoted. He would have been the counterpart as a section head was he not? He was the section chief for the FB. IS DTOS the domestic terrorist operation section.
He got promoted to be in charge of the entire Washington field office for an analogy to be 1 to 1. Greg Rosen at DOJ resigned saying that he had been demoralized and his work was underdone because Donald Trump pardoned all the J Sixers. Stephen Jensen was promoted. It would be the equivalent of if they took Greg Jensen and made him the United States Attorney for the District of District of Columbia, which was the job that Ed Martin was previously up for.
If you took Greg Rosen and made him in charge of Washington DC prosecutions, that would be the equivalent of taking the section head Steve Jensen from the FB is D toss and putting him in charge of the Washington Field Office. Some people seem like they're getting it done. And as much as you're hearing crying about folks saying it's not been enough time, there are consistent and regular examples of this kind of thing. Here's what he says. He spoke to CBS News.
Of course he did. The message that the pardon sent is that political violence towards a political goal is acceptable in modern democratic society, and that, from my perspective, is ananthema to a constitutional Republic. What I don't hear him saying is that we've basically changed all the rules. We've we've willingly thrown them out the door and we are no longer interested in just the status quo that the FBI and the DOJ only focus on big crimes,
big criminals. And the biggest of those, they don't even have time for the small fish. And yet they took time out of their busy days to go after people who probably would have been kicked out of the Superior Court in the District of Columbia because they don't handle trespassing cases, because they don't have time, because there's too many rapists and murderers and people that are actually driving drunk and ending lives and doing all kinds
of incredible violence. DC is insane when it comes to how dangerous it is, but they prioritize something else. And they didn't just do it in the Superior Court, which is where the local crime is handled, which is what you would call it. They didn't do it the way that they did it to the folks that were fighting and rioting and getting involved in physical conflicts. In 2020, I think we were about to see a 2020 type summer. It'll be different because we know more things.
It'll be different because America is sort of like played out on how to deal with this stuff. But we're going to see a lot of the same things that are coming our way as came our way in 2020. And the example of that is that I'm seeing reporting coming out over and over again, suggesting that you should get ready to mask up. Because there's a new COVID variant coming on and we heard about this the other day. I shared this with you guys. I'm just kind of watching it right now.
But it does feel like what propaganda looks like. And why would that be? Because they've tried the other thing. They've tried compassion. They've tried to to make people feel OK. They've tried to go out there and say like there's some really, really mean heads that are out there in the Trump administration. They're they're doing awful things to really nice people. This is another great example of
that story. This one comes from this is NBC again, I've got a couple other from ABC shortly. But this was like a great example of what I keep seeing the exception that they're using to prove the rule. ICE arrest a high school student sending shockwaves through a Massachusetts town. An 18 year old is in immigration detention after being arrested on graduation weekend in Milford, southwest of Boston, where he attended school since
he was six years old. You guys know what kind of like an absolute meanie head we're talking about here in Donald Trump. Do you know how mean you have to be to arrest a guy who just graduated from high school? He's been here for 12 years. It's an exception to the rule. When was the last time you saw a bunch of people outside of
Boston waving American flags? By the way, I'm pretty sure what I'm seeing on the screen right there is a hate crime according to Massachusetts. I only say that because my dear friend George Hill lives outside of Boston and that's his experience. I'm confident that if you put out an American flag inside of your house, you would be a problem. Members of the community in Milford, MA described Marcelo Gomez De Salvia, or De Silva, as an 18 year old high school junior who was arrested by
immigration authorities. Wait a minute. He's a high school junior. He's 18 years old. It's graduation weekend, but he's a junior. Do do people graduate high school? There seems like there's some discrepancies in these stories. I wonder. All right. Then you get to the third paragraph where they tell you the truth. The immigration authorities made a traffic stop because they were looking for Gomez de Sylvia's father, who was also unlawfully present in the United States.
And then they found out that this guy was too, you know, like he was just incidental conflict or what we would call a target of opportunity. He was born in Brazil. He attended Milford Public School since he was six years old. But that doesn't mean that you're legally here. As we found out, he wasn't the target of the operation or the investigation, which they did during a month long enforcement operation which grabbed nearly 1500 immigrants. And by 1500 immigrants, we mean
illegal aliens. There were 1500 illegals and they chose one because he was here from the time he was 6 and brought in in a way that he wasn't supposed to be. Isn't that interesting? It's almost like Democrats have just lost the thread when it comes to how to prove their case. I got a couple fun examples of that. And all this has to do with pre
crime. By the way, this does actually go back to pre crime, but I'm going to, I played this little clip from CNN kind of it shows you that this is where they focused. They've decided that they're going to try to go on emotion. And again, one out of 1500 exceptions proving the rule. Democrats have to stop being against Donald Trump and start being for something. I'll defend the Democrats. They are for things. Illegal aliens. You're for boys and girls
sports. I mean, you are for things, and that's why you have such struggles right now in your party, because you're not for anything that's on the right side of any of the 8020 issues that are driving this cultural divide in America. I think Westmore is actually a pretty talented communicator. The other person who spoke in South Carolina, Tim Walz, is a special mixture of extreme buffoonery and a mean spirit, which is a toxic brew. He is not the future of the Democratic Party.
More is interesting. More is interesting, probably more interesting than some of the radicals you have out there. Crockett, AOC. I mean, these are the true leaders of your party right now, but it might be better off at place and I'm not going to even let you. No, it's not true that you couldn't say that. You wouldn't want to say that Crockett and AOC are the thought leaders of the Democrat Party, would you?
You wouldn't want to do that. The reason why we think that is because the actions and the statements that are being made by those people, Crockett, AOC, Bernie Sanders, for example, Chuck Schumer, is that those things are picked up, mirrored, and then those actions are taken out there into the world and that's how they're executed. That's the things that we see them do. They've been saying things that have been incredibly dangerous. And here's the thing, that's
just what you do in politics. But if you're on the left, you don't get blamed for it. You don't get blamed for saying things like Joe Biden did, like inviting all these millions of people that came into our borders for the last four years. If you're on the right, you're very bad, no good, and you're Donald Trump, which means you're literally Hitler.
It's interesting that the left will look at one side and be able to pin it on cult of personality and words that come from someone that they don't like, but when it's turned back on them, they won't be that person. I think some of them are starting to realize that, though. This is a sort of an interesting little observation about what those people have done. They've shown up on the college campuses. They've shown up and gotten people riled up again.
It starts with property damage. It ends with person damage. And so here's kind of like a little kind of an excuse. I don't think it wins. And we're seeing sure, Michael Singleton kind of just demolish them on this stuff. Again, I don't see them saying this this statement about Donald Trump, which is where it really should be. You can't blame one person for rhetoric and then excuse the other side just because you like their rhetoric more. That's what our news does. That's why they keep
discrediting themselves. I, I definitely think to the congressman's point, there are specific things that are being said on these campuses that are anti-Semitic. But the idea that AOC and I mean, I, I don't know, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar are engaging in those activities. I'm not sure showed up on those campuses. They spoke at the campuses. They were there all those, but I guess you know, but here's, here's what I'm saying. But do you understand what I'm saying?
If they are, if they show up on college campuses to protest, you know, the what's the situation in Gaza? Is that are you saying automatically the same thing as uttering anti-Semitic words? Yes, they're anti-Semitic Semitic, no mistake about it. Their words are absolutely and and this is all based at anti what I'm saying. And I seen a rise evidence that they actually engaged in
anti-Semitic language. That is the issue, you know, supporting supporting terrorists and and so in some of her past. Are you saying, I mean, do we have to go through the statement? I am talking about? It's like on college campuses, you know? OK, we're not talking about language that they said other places we're going to get specific about on college campuses. That's the only way we're going
to be able to make this. If we can get it narrow enough, then we might be able to be accurate and correct. I guess that's the push. It doesn't really play for me. I think this actually makes a lot more sense. This is coming from Fox, which God help us, we have to go to Fox for sanity. But it does sound like it does make more sense to me. I saw an observer yesterday note that Hamas supporters aren't just burning American flags in our streets, they're now burning Americans in our streets.
When we hear these chants of globalize the Intifada by any means necessary ringing out in our cities, on our campuses, at these hate rallies, this is what it actually looks like in practice. It looks like a governor's mansion torched in the middle of the night with a Jewish leader sleeping upstairs with his family. It looks like 2 employees of the Israeli embassy in this city, our capital city, murdered in cold blood at a Jewish museum.
And it looks like these elderly Jewish Americans firebombed at a peaceful rally on behalf of relief releasing hostages in Colorado. The pro Palestine movement is a violent movement. The rhetoric is violent. They justify violence. They celebrate violence. And increasingly they are engaging in violence, not just over there, here in the United States. It's a disgrace and it has to stop. I'm not sure anything will bring about change at Harvard unless
they are forced to change. We see two students at Harvard in 2023 physically assaulted a Jewish student on campus. One of those assailants was just rewarded with a very generous fellowship at Harvard Law to go work at CARE, which is a hate group as far as I'm concerned. And another one was given this really nice position in the recent commencement ceremony at the Divinity School. These are people who physically attacked a Jew on campus and were rewarded at.
So my point on all of this is you're going to major in the minors, you're going to go after the smallest segment, you're going to look at exceptions to prove your rule. And then you're also going to see something that doesn't really work. And that's pre crime.
Because if you were going to look at pre crime, you would look at the indicators and you would say, well, people who've been involved in property violence that are willing to go and destroy college campuses that are going to will to burn things in the streets that are going to stop and even just lawlessly protest. You're allowed to protest in America, but not at the inconvenience of others.
You can't just peacefully assemble in the streets and shut down, you know, entire thoroughfares where people are trying to make their way and, and go on about their lives like you're not allowed to inconvenience other people with your protest without permits and so on.
That's kind of the rules. That's the way that we set this thing up. If you go from that, though, and there's no consequences, inevitably some people and it'll be a small, small fraction of them will move on from personal from from a property damage to person damage. And that seems pretty clear to me.
We're going to get more into that again, pre crime doesn't work because if you were going to do pre crime, and I'd love an example of where they actually thwarted something they weren't setting up, they being local, state and federal law enforcement. It's not just the FBI, it's the DEA, it's the ATF, it's your state police, it's your individual local police officers and sheriffs.
They are unable to do pre crime because they're not allowed to go after somebody who hasn't actually broken the law yet, unless they're the FBI, which is where the danger really comes in. And you'd think that they'd have a better track record that we wouldn't have two people shot outside of the Jewish Museum, one of whom apparently wasn't even Jewish, just happened to be in a location.
You'd think they would have known that someone was going to do that because they're out there trying to stop violence. And they have all the indicators of some of these people doing dangerous things, saying things. Oh, yeah, Those things are are constitutionally protected. I'm going to give you one last little piece on this, which is that to act like these are not politically motivated inside the agencies themselves is wrong. I've got a little clip here from John Brennan.
I think that's the clip I got queued up here. It disappeared on me for a second. The craziest thing is, is imagining that that you hired political actors and they weren't going to act politically. It's one of the things that I brought forward. It's one of the things that Garrett Boyle and Steve Friend and the other suspendables called out. It's the reason why January 6th
prosecutions were problematic. Listen, if they went after every single property damage in Kerr, in the city of DC and otherwise going after federal property, whether it be in Seattle, whether it be in Portland in 2020, if we saw them do that, a full scale government wide push to crack down on government property damage of the federal government, and then they did the same thing on January 6th after the fact, we'd be like,
yeah, got it, fair play. Nobody's allowed to Jack with the American people's federal properties. What we did see is that they said, well, if you're interested in BLM, if you're a pro Palestine type, if you're like one of these, you know, left wing anarchy activists and you hate capitalism or something, you're fine. You can burn things, you can destroy things. You can do whatever it is you want.
You can try to firebomb the White House, throw Molotov cocktails at Secret Service, you can throw bricks at their head. You can drive the sitting president into the bunker underneath the White House, no problem. You can burn St. John's Church and you can get away with it. Nobody was convicted of that as far as I can tell. And if they did, they certainly didn't serve a lot of time. The assistant or the the District Attorney in the in the the District of DC, no major push. How do I know?
I was in Washington, DC at that time. I worked for that FBI and they didn't do it. It was not a whole scale round of these people. And then and then we saw something different happen. So don't tell me these people are not political actors when they act politically. If you say something that's not political has nothing to do with politics. It just has to do with getting your day started off properly. You guys can tell I'm a little wired up.
Even if our Internet connection is not killing it, my brain connection is firing on full speed. That's 'cause we're drinking blackout coffee here. I've got a cup on the desk right there and one of my little Patriot mugs. This is blackout coffee. If you guys have been hearing about it and you haven't tried it yet, let's just talk about a company that's built on hard work and grit and American values, the opposite of people that want to loot and riot and destroy American cities.
The founders of this company started in their home garage just like we started on the little trailer. They built it up to a 64,000 square foot rare house. They are roasting all their beams in houses you guys probably saw on the screen. They employ over 30 hard working Americans, people who don't have time to go to a protest and throw bricks at the Secret Service head because they're doing their damn job and they're making damn good coffee.
People who give a damn about the thing and the product that goes out. Yeah, it's not just a good cup of coffee. They support American values, American dreams, a company that was built the right way. There's no shortcuts. There's no woke nonsense. There's no weak beans. If you guys want to try out, we're into the pitch dark espresso roast, which I have over my shoulder. If you haven't seen it before, that's what's over the shoulder on the wall up there.
That's my reserve bag of £5 just in case things get spicy. I still got that. Go to blackoutcoffee.com slash Kyle again, blackoutcoffee.com/kyle. Use that promo code. Get 20% off your first order. Keep the American dream alive. Drink some real coffee. Support the folks over at Blackout. Again, they support our program. We appreciate them. If you're going to spend money on one luxury item for me, coffee is an easy and a no brainer.
I do it every single day, so I might as well have something that I enjoy at a high level. blackoutcoffee.com slash Kyle. Give them a look, link in the show description, etcetera, etcetera. As usual, let's let's do this little clip of Brendan. Just tell me if this this hits with you. I don't know.
You can't make the argument that these people are not political actors when the results have been political and their pre crime only seems to work for whatever is the the way the wind, the political wind is blowing at this moment.
Here's the former CIA director. These agencies, whether it be the FBI or CIA or others, they attract individuals who really want to do right by their fellow citizens and to tackle those tough issues, whether it be terrorism or whether it be, you know, foreign espionage activities here in the States. They're principled individuals who really believe in the integrity that is necessary in order to conduct these these investigations, again, in the 8 political, nonpartisan way.
But if this new regime now is putting in place sort of this test of loyalty to the Trump administration, again, that is just, it's so similar to the the totality totalitarian regimes that I saw overseas, so many for so many years in terms of making sure that the security services are doing the bidding of the political leaders are not really carrying out their obligations and responsibilities to the citizenry, to the country, to
their constitutions. And that's why I think that the FBII think is going to have a tough time attracting individuals that have that type of principled approach to government service. Sure. Yeah, they're going to have a hard time doing it. No, it's a good paying job. And if it actually was an organization that didn't do the things that we were worried about, then it wouldn't be a problem.
But you cannot make the argument that Brendan just made in light of actual facts that were put out by the by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. OD and I published these the other day and you got Shellenberger and Catherine Herridge and others reporting on this. The Biden administration labeled all the people that were against their COVID mandates, which were sketchy to begin with. They were a novel interpretation of law. Do you remember that?
They were all hinging on the Jacobson decision at the time, a nineteen O 5 court case where somebody got like a $5 fine for not getting a vaccine. That's what they decided to base their entire national policy on. And if you didn't agree with it, you were a domestic violent extremist, even though there was no indication that you had to be violent. And then the position you had was not particularly extreme. If 30% of Americans believe something, it's not particularly
extreme. It's like, you know, a majority, but a strong majority. And it turns out that's what our First Amendment actually protects. Since we're talking about the First Amendment, it seems like you're supposed to be able to say anything you want in this country. There can be consequences when it comes to private industry, but the government's not supposed to get involved. I I also think this is kind of funny. It protects all of the crazy propaganda that the left has been putting out.
I saw this out here. Somebody's going to run against Joni Ernst because of something she said. And I did have a clip about I think Scott Jennings. Maybe I do have that clip still, Scott Jennings, like defending her. But at the end of the day, it's like this woman said something that it that should be again,
it's a joke. I don't I'm not a big fan of Joni Ernst, but somebody screamed out people are going to die because they talked about the cuts to Medicaid, by the way, the Medicaid cuts were saying that we shouldn't have them for illegal aliens in this country. And she said, you know, well, we're all going to die when someone cried out, people are going to die. Somebody did this, that the song People will Die, which is a joke and acknowledging that we're all going to die, that nobody gets
out of this life alive. Even though my joke to somebody, one of you wrote me an e-mail the other day and said something to the effect of, you know, you have these medical conditions. And it's like, well, yeah. But whenever I go into a doctor, I always tell them, like my I don't know if it's a condition or if it's a symptom, but possibly immortal because I've never died yet. It's a joke. We all, we all die. Everybody knows this.
So her acknowledging that at a town hall, maybe it's in poor taste again, maybe it's a joke that doesn't hit well with an audience of people who are really emotional that decided to show up at a town hall worried about Medicaid cuts for illegal aliens. But it's not really a controversial statement. And that caused a a state representative and former professional basketball player, a guy named JD Schultz, and is now going to enter the race.
And so he gets front page coverage from ABC News. She said it was sarcastic. Then she did another sarcastic video. By the way, Joni Ernst, not very likable. One of the things that I saw in the comment on her, her sarcastic apology, which she posted on on social media the other day, was a guy who said when I was writing my book about what's called the the Fort Bragg cartel, talking about drug trafficking happening in North Carolina and how it goes through military bases, which I'm sure
is probably a really. But I wanted to maybe we'll get him on because that's actually interesting. He said that I had there were allegations during my research that she was involved in sexual excapades with people that were in the military hospitals. And then her marriage broke up because of infidelity. I mean, I can't validate that. I don't know if that's true or not. But when I was reading it, I went like, oh, OK, yeah, that
sounds right. Like because we elect the worst people, we continue to elect the worst people. We've talked about a challenge here. In fact, on the call in show, we've talked about somebody challenging Joni Ernst. Remember one of her, she was one of the big proponents of pushing back against Pete Hagseth, who of course is going to do the really scary thing. Anyhow, this is this is a little CNN clip of them talking about how she kind of stepped, put her foot in her mouth.
She didn't make it any better. It's still not honest reporting here. It's still not coming from an honest position. That's what you expect from our propaganda news right now. Here's Scott. Yet he's trying to cut through some of that. The beating heart of the Democratic Party right now is what can we do for illegal aliens? We want to keep them in the country. We don't want the deported. We got to give them health care. That is the reason for the Medicaid rage.
It is the reason for all that. I mean, I think that politically it's completely false. That is not completely. The 1st 98% of her answer was great because she was explaining exactly what the Republicans are doing. Illegals who are not eligible should come off the work
requirements. Look, I'm I'm sorry, but if you're 30 years old and you're playing video games on grandma's couch and you don't want to get up and work, that's a problem for every taxpayer that has to get up and go to work every day. You need to go try to work. If you need this program and you're trying, the program will be there for you.
The purpose of the the purpose of the reform is to save it for the people who need it and are trying, not for the illegals and the people who won't work, period. That is the truth. That's that's what the root of this debate was. And again, it's a disingenuous sort of push back on there, but of course it gives somebody an opportunity to launch into their their 2026 run. So that's what we're going to see it.
It just, it just shows you how far they've come on on things like immigration, how far they've come on. People should just fund other folks that you shouldn't have to do work in this country. That's the opposite of what used to be the the Democrat values. They used to try to represent the working class. It's like, hey, you're struggling. Other people have it easier because they were given an unfair advantage.
We want to make sure that we remove the barrier so that you can go do it. That was like their old pitch. And some people are starting to realize that the new pitch of free stuff for people that have no business being here. And let's cry about one in 1500 because he happens to be an illegal alien that's 18, and he's a junior, and he's not graduating, but it's graduation weekend. So people his age are graduating, but he's not very
weird. You know, some congressmen are looking around going, like, I don't think we're going to win on this. This is not a winning position. I found this clip to be sort of heartening. And then of course, old Democrats, including people we despise, also used to know this. It's not like a historically ignorant position to say Democrats actually used to not be on the wrong side of this so badly. I feel like there is a recognition that we went too far
left on immigration. But, you know, I, I feel there needs to be a fundamental restructuring within the Democratic Party, a return to a rational center. But, you know, I worry that, I mean, Donald Trump is so aggressive that he is provoking a response that is, you know, there's a divide between what I would say 2 teams in the Democratic Party. There's team restraint and team
resistance, right? There were those in team resistance who feel like we should react hysterically to everything that Donald Trump says or does. And then there are those who feel like we should pick and choose our battles and be strategic. But I worry that the momentum is on the side of hysterical hyperbolic resistance and. And it is, it obviously is. You know what's even funnier though?
The old Democratic Party, not even going back 20 years ago, less than 20 years ago, used to actually agree with the position that he just said, which is like, not hysterical, not resistance oriented, just their principles, which should also align with the average American's principles. Here's someone you wouldn't expect to agree with the idea that you shouldn't give Medicare and other public benefits to
people that come here illegally. Here's Hillary Clinton because people used to actually think a little bit more sanely about what their voters thought and and realize that regular people are the ones who are supposed to pull the levers unless it's all been captured. Makes you wonder when that sort of like changeover happened. Here's Hillary Clinton with kind of an older looking clip. This is not the 90s by the way.
This is like 2009, 2010 as. To illegal aliens, we agree with you that we do not think the comprehensive healthcare benefits should be extended to those who are undocumented workers and illegal aliens. We do not want to do anything to encourage more illegal immigration into this country. We know now that too many people come in for medical care as it is. We certainly don't want them having the same benefits that American citizens are entitled to have. Yikes.
Ugly, accurate. So we should be able to deport these people because they are illegal aliens. She called them undocumented. I think she called them undocumented immigrants and illegal aliens. They're the same thing. They're one and the same. And yet you can't even get that done when you read the headlines
over here. This is another CBS 1 judge in California on Monday blocked the Trump administration from using the wartime Alien Enemies Act. Yet another one go shocker in the 9th Circuit. The ruling by District Court John Holcomb, who was nominated by Trump in 2019, is the latest to limit the administration's controversial practice of rapidly deporting people accused of being a gang member in Trend Daragua under the 1798 law. They love to highlight that it's
an old law. These are the same people that are crying about their freedom of speech and their ability to go out and conduct protest. You know, like under that old thing for the United States Constitution in 1789. Anyway, Yeah, the removal during the invasion or predatory incursion, we covered this at length when we first started seeing it. And of course, it only requires a presidential proclamation there. The due process is done inside the executive branch.
Why these guys are going to fight against it? Yeah. Maybe because they're ideological actors. We can't get away from it. Let me give you an example of something that should be considered due process. This is actually coming from the Trump rapid response social media team, But I think it's kind of fun. Ignore the fact that they got the wrong Chiron where they list their reporter as a as a breast cancer survivor randomly. It's really funny.
But if you're if you're watching this, you'll see that if you're listening, you won't see it. This is a a catch up on something called Operation Last stand. This is what law enforcement actually can do. This is what they actually can do. Now there are incidental contacts during law enforcement where you happen to be doing a logical investigation and you encounter someone who was involved in a crime.
For example, that one in 15118 year old junior in Milford, Boston or Milford, MA rather where somebody actually is involved in breaking, let's say immigration law, but you weren't the target of it. So you do sweep some people up on there, but then you have the ability because you're lawfully where you need to be and you are doing a lawful action in the investigation and you happen to uncover the evidence of another crime. Boom, no big deal.
This is operation last stand which is how actual operations work. It is the opposite of pre crime. This is what you should expect law enforcement to do.
It starts with an allegation, then it starts with further allegations and information that there is a crime underway and then it involves more evidence of that crime, interviews and so on. It might involve surveillance or records or so on. They might be pulling city codes documenting things along and then eventually results in multiple arrests for violation of either state and or federal
law. In this case, it's federal because it's immigration and they go wrap up like 60 to 80 people who were involved in this illegal underground night come situation that we're also illegally in this country. This is the opposite of pre crime. This is how law enforcement is supposed to work. Again, there's an allegation or information of crime. There is a evidence gathering period where you document and you build the case and then there is the enforcement action.
That's the only way I can work. You couldn't just say, well, that's a, a Mexican predominantly or a Spanish language nightclub and we're going to go in there and rate it because the likelihood is that there's a bunch of illegals there. That would be problematic. You wouldn't want people to just assume that. Let's say that my neighbor who's Indian decides to play a bunch of like Tejano music because he really likes the beat and he just always wanted to hear Mexican polka.
He can do that. We can't assume that he's an illegal alien because of his musical choice in America. Again, listen to this. This is the way not pre crime works. And then we're going to get into the idea of how it actually never works as pre crime. Joining us first at six new details on operation last stand, a month long investigation that led to at least 80 arrests near Somerville yesterday, the Charleston County Sheriff's Office, SLED and Homeland Security Investigations shut
down the Alamo nightclub off Hwy. 78, a place they call home to repeated dangerous and illegal activity. And our Claire Webber joins us now live from the at scene this evening of the sting operation with more details on how this all unfolded. Claire, Katie, Tessa, officials say there were more than 200 people at this nightclub early Sunday morning for what they call a, quote, cartel after party. Now, one person who was here tells me they had no idea this was an illegal establishment.
Still today, all you'll find are closed signs and locked doors. If you're involved in illegal activity in Charleston County, I can assure you there's no place to hide. A nearly eight-month long operation coming to a head Sunday at the Alamo nightclub, Sheriff Carl Ritchie says what started as a history of noise complaints soon became much
bigger. We started noticing the assaults returning in the parking lot, maybe some of the different illegal activity that was going on that caused us to take a deeper look. Around 3:00 AM. Sunday, nearly 200 local, state and federal officials served 116 arrest warrants to a total of 80 people. Homeland Security says more than 66 people arrested are in the US
illegally. Some. OK, I want you to just hear what we just said there, that I let it run longer than normal because I wanted you to hear. It started off as a series of noise complaints. The investigation then uncovered more evidence of illegal activity. That's how you do that.
And then eventually, they served 80 warrants, which means they had to go out with probable cause to believe that a crime was underway or that a crime had been committed and that this person had the probable cause of being the one who was the perpetrator of it. That's how the game plays. That's law enforcement. That means a law was broken and then you enforce what happened. It is the opposite of this where you declare somebody a nebulous domestic violent extremist.
Why do I keep using this? Because it is so imperative that we understand that pre crime is the opposite of how the 1st Amendment works. You're allowed to think and associate with, you're allowed to believe whatever religion you want. You're allowed to say things almost, almost without any limits in this country outside of true threats and incitement and a few other limitations. You can say fire in a crowded theater.
There's plenty of examples of this as as the American radicals my buddies Steven and Garrett covered. If you guys want to go back and listen, when Joe Biden would make that example, he was wrong about what the case actually even held regarding fire in a crowded theater. Americans are supposed to be able to express themselves in any way they want. And if it turns out that they are violating a law in doing so because let's say they're doing it too loudly, then you investigate.
You don't preemptively say, aha, I see a man with a megaphone. That megaphone has the capacity of being louder than is allowed on this city street. We're going to go ahead and arrest him for public disturbance or for some sort of noise violation. You can't do that. They have to actually break the law first or you do what you see the Biden administration doing during the last four years, which is where they preemptively call you a quote UN quote
threat. This is one of the overarching principles that we try to cover here. When somebody is a threat, we no longer are doing due process. We no longer are doing law enforcement. Now we are doing predictive intelligence work, which I've always called kind of sarcastically pre crime. And that brings us to the situation of the guy in Boulder. A Boulder attack subject has been charged with a federal hate crime. He wanted to kill Zionist
people, said the court document. Here's what we know, says CNNI got a couple different quick pieces of the story. Part number one, again, he's an illegal alien. He got here in 2022. He was supposed to leave as far as I can tell, in 23. He had work authorization. If I'm reading this properly, I guess this is a where is this coming from? This is a ABC article. They said that he's a husband and a father of five.
He'd been planning the the attack on Sunday afternoon for an entire year, but he waited till his Dodger graduated from high school. No word of if any of these kids are actually American citizens, that they're here. That's also kind of interesting. He's under a $10 million bond. There was some false reports that went on social media yesterday saying that they released him. They said he drove 100 miles to Colorado from Colorado Springs where he lived to Boulder to pick up gas.
So that shows like as a degree of competency and premeditation. He filled up 8 glass containers that he bought from Target. He also used a like a weed sprayer. So that was like a spraying device in order to make a quote UN quote homemade flamethrower. He was spraying A flammable liquid and then he threw them into a crowd of people over the
age of 50 and burned them. As the guy stated earlier, from property damage to people damage from saying that we need to burn these institutions to actually burning American people. And he's screaming all kinds of rhetoric now. He could have been a mentally unfit person. He could have been like what we would call an EDP or an emotionally disturbed person. That was always a possibility. But in reality, it sounds like he's got premeditation. He had plans. He had been doing his thing for
quite a while. He made some sort of like premeditated steps. And so they're prosecuting as such. Good on them. But let me ask you this. If he did all these things, if he was planning it for a year, why didn't the FBI know about him? Why didn't they know that he was going to go out and commit a terrorist type tack that they were immediately able to call a terrorist attack? Why was he not previously flagged as a 415 subject and under constant surveillance by our federal law enforcement?
I'm going to tell you something that's disheartening because it makes you realize how you don't have a lot of safety in a free nation. But on top of it, it also should make you feel empowered that our government is actually not spying on everything you do, at least not some of you. They don't catch people that they're investigating in the act unless they push them to that moment. And it's not because of laziness.
It's because human beings cannot, do not have the ability to predict what someone is going to do. This shouldn't be news to you. How many times have you seen someone do that? And you're like, man, I would have never thought that person would have done that. How many times does something come completely out of the blue and it surprises you? You're like, man, maybe that's God's plan. Maybe that's a sign. But I had no idea what just happened would happen.
How many times did we interview neighbors where you're like, he was a quiet guy. You'd never think he was the guy that was going to go do this. Fill in the blank, horrible thing. It's because we do not know what human beings are going to do. You cannot read what's in man's hearts. And the FBI is no better at it than you are. And they get it wrong all the time. The only people who end up getting caught are the ones that are being pushed to do the
thing. There's a reason why we called it The Terror Factory. And I'm going to just be very, very blunt about a movie that we were involved in. Steve Friend and I were both helping Dinesh D'souza when it came to creating a realistic FBI action movie, or at least the reenactment parts of the movie police tape. By the way, Dan Bongino was in that, so was Julie Kelly, so was Cash Patel. Like all these people, we all
overlap. And the sad thing is they try to tell a story that the federal government was only interested in going after conservatives. That's wrong. The federal government, those people that you heard John Brennan talking about, they're not apolitical actors, not not in a true sense. They're people that are interested in maintaining their own government job. They're maintaining their own comfort.
And so if the budget or the funding says that there are domestic violent extremists that need to be confronted, that we need to go after COVID deniers or we need to go after quote UN quote, militia violent extremists, then we'll do that. That's what they do if they're going to go after your average American who just says things like I think that the Second Amendment is absolute and Ashley Babbitt is a martyr, which by the way, you're allowed to say they can say that white people
are the superior race. They're allowed to say that too. You're allowed to be an A hole in this country. You can say things like Stu Peters says, and that should not get you the government knocking on your door because they cannot predict what kind of crime you might be involved in. Pre crime is not real. And suggesting that it's the same thing as gravity, that someone comes up with a thought and then they're going to inevitably go and do that thing.
People quit and don't do stuff all the time. How many times have you heard someone who said, especially veterans, they were like, I had this very low moment in my life and I was sitting there and I had either a gun in my mouth or a gun to my head, or I had a bottle of pills and I was going to take it out. I had this plan and something happened. It's not predetermined what we're going to do. If you have free will, if you are a Christian, you believe that.
Most people actually do believe that under some level. They are under their own power, even though they're often powered by emotion. You have a choice right up until the last second. You have a choice. So this little clip, this is from Minority Report. Again, this is from 2002. It was a reminder right when the Patriot Act was passed that just because you see all of the evidence, it doesn't equal the same thing as an act.
I've always had a problem with the idea that you could charge people with conspiracy unless they were actively executing the conspiracy. Just planning something is not the same as doing something. We sort of used to know that. Unless you want to lock yourself into more and more safety. But if you do, how do you explain what happened in Boulder? How do you explain what happened
outside of the Jewish Museum? How do you explain any mass shooting where somebody, quote UN quote, knew it was going to happen, but then no one stopped them because you didn't know what's going to happen? How many people have planned on mass shooting and never done it? I imagine a lot. And as someone who investigated like terrorism was on quote UN quote counterterrorism subjects for the FBI, we did 20 plus my my part of my team. We did probably 40 while I was
there. And I got half of those quote UN quote deployments or TD wise. I did 20 different high priority counterterrorism cases. None of them actually did the thing that they were said they were going to do. None of them zero out of out of 20 except the one who would already done it. And then we went and watched his friends. And by the way, they didn't do anything afterwards either. There is no track record for for accurately predicting this stuff.
So you can't go out there and say we're going to stop things from going boom, which is the argument you hear people make when they want to defend these agencies. Well, if you didn't go and watch all the bad guys, then something bad would happen. Really. Show me the example of them dismantling it without being directly involved in what was going on. Just like we saw that that case the other day of quote UN quote, espionage. Since Brandon mentioned
espionage, right? It was a 28 year old guy working at DIA. He was a contractor and he was going to give information to a friendly nation to screw with Trump, the so-called resistance, like we heard the congressman say earlier. And what did he end up doing? He just gave it to the FBI because the friendly nation wasn't actually going to be. There's so many variables, there's no way you're going to predict them all. Anyway, here is the movie I'll just put on the screen.
When the precogs declare a victim and a killer, their name is embedded in the grain of wood. Since each piece is unique, the shape and grain is unique. The shape and grain is impossible to forge. Make sure you all understand the legalistic drawback to pre crime methodology. Here we go again. Look, I'm not with the ACLU on this, Jeff, but let's not kid ourselves. We are arresting individuals who have broken no law. But they will.
The Commission of the crime itself is absolute metaphysics. The precogs see the future and they're never wrong. But it's not the future if you stop it. Isn't that a fundamental paradox? Yes, it is. You're talking about predetermination, which happens all the time. Where'd you catch that? Because it was going to fall. You're certain? Yeah. But it didn't fall. You caught it. The fact that you prevent it from happening doesn't change the fact that it was going to happen.
Except the fact that human beings are not ruled by rules like gravity. We have all kinds of things we have. We have emotions, we have other outside influences. We have divine intervention, which you should believe in if you've ever lived any life. You've seen things happen that you cannot explain outside of anything else. So it's just interesting. It's interesting to see this sort of thing.
And when you see violence that is happening and there are certainly people who are getting riled up, and there is going to be a small subset of those people who will go out and do violence. We can't predict which ones they're going to be. In fact, it's usually people you don't expect where we're not on your radar at all. Just because they were reported doesn't mean that you were going to be able to accurately diagnose what they're going to
do next. The amazing thing is, Speaking of an 8020 thing, Democrats have decided even in the wake of COVID, where we had more gun owners, remember in 2020 and 2021, what did people do in response to uncertainty and the fact that they realized like, hey, man, there's chaos in the streets and like, the government doesn't seem to be able to stop it or doesn't seem willing to. What did people do? They did the exact thing you'd think people would do, which is
the only rational action. They tried to take things in house. They tried to go out and stop whatever it is that they could control in their own space. There's only so much you can do, but you can physically maybe protect yourself. So, of course, the Supreme Court has just decided they're not going to hear a case out of Maryland. This is the Snopes case. They rejected an appeal from a gun rights advocate. Again, gun rights equals just like regular human rights to
defend yourself. The Supreme Court doesn't want to hear about an assault weapon ban, an AR15 ban and a high capacity magazine ban in Maryland. But that's what people did. By the way, that's a pretty cool picture. Those are like all suppressed things. And they look, look, they're all shadowy looking. This is from ABC News. They turned away an appeal by a gun rights group.
It's not gun rights, it's just saying that there's a American predetermined civil liberty that you're allowed to defend yourself. By the way, the UN actually agrees with this. Self-defense is considered a quote, UN quote human right by even the commies over at the UN. This decision was considered a major win for gun safety advocates. You want to talk about propaganda, gun rights advocates and gun safety advocates? Which one do you believe in? Those dirty rights people or the
safety people? It turns out the safety people are the exact same people that would argue that pre crime is a possibility that we know what you're going to do. Why? Because you have that scary thing that would allow you to do it, even though there's so few instances and the number of people that commit crimes with guns is an infinitesimally fractional size of those who actually own guns. Yep.
Scary, scary stuff. So if you want to see Democrats taking the wrong side of an 8020 issue because people actually do believe they're supposed to be able to do it, why don't you say that? The issue with a guy who got gasoline, who's literally proving, and I mean that word, he is proving that you don't need a gun to go and hurt people. You can use a car, you can use a knife, you can use a weed sprayer from Home Depot and spray gasoline on folks and then throw a Molotov cocktail and
burn them. People are infinitely creative when it comes to doing damage to other people. Or you can be like Jamie Raskin and you can say we have a gun problem. When you see a non gun problem.
A guy who literally didn't use a gun, who would have been stopped if someone had a gun on that on that Pearl Street little episode and put a bullet in the guy's head, which would have been a way to stop somebody from causing significant burns and probably ruining some of these people who will likely die. Burn wounds are infinitely dangerous. They are not just causing damage to all of your connective tissue. They cause all kinds of agitations. There's after effects when it
comes to swelling. There's infection, which takes out a lot of people. They're going to have a wrecked life for a long period of time. If you've ever dealt with people in a burn unit, it is the worst. It looks incredibly painful. People who have been burned really badly often wish that they were dead. I've actually had a guy who burned his entire body and he was writing notes in a crayon to me as a medic saying please kill me. Now that's terrifying and horrible.
It looked awful. Jamie Raskin has decided that people who can use Molotov cocktails and gasoline, you know, the real problem is guns. I'm, I'm not even kidding. This is coming from MSNBC. So same people that were covering Brennan across the country. We are still in the midst of a gun violence epidemic. So we need to be acting with due concern for human life.
I mean, This is why, of course we have been fighting for universal violence, criminal background check we are for a ban on military style assault weapons in the country. You know, our LAX gun laws are a danger to everybody in America. And that's something that we can act with some legislative determination to turn around. But people have got to lead their lives and people need to act with courage.
But it is the responsibility of government to try to keep everybody safe from, you know, random arbitrary violence and bigotry and hate, you know, hate motivated crimes, right? Except you can't do that and also still be someone who believes in the Bill of Rights. You can't. He's arguing in favor of pre crime. He's arguing that the tool is in fact the reason that somebody goes and commits a crime. And of course, his state, Maryland, is the one that passed this particular ban.
And his state was the one that just got a quote UN quote, gun safety success in the courts. They were just handed a win. It's amazing to me to see in 2025 that so-called liberals are arguing against their own liberties. If you don't want to own a gun, don't own one. If somebody commits a crime with a gun, we already have those laws. It's always about control. And that's the thing I think most people learned during the COVID crisis and all the shutdowns.
It's that one, they can't predict whether you're going to die or not. Their ideas and their solutions, whether it be masks or shots or whatever else, or distance scenes or other nonsense, or making your loved ones die alone behind the glass pane. None of those things actually work. The mitigation strategies were all failure, so they don't have the credibility to make that argument and they're still doubling down on it. There's also this interesting idea of what about ISM, which is
the so-called. There are good people on both sides. Here. We have a woman named Tara Palmari. She's talking to Scott Jennings, and she's just saying that there are definitely violent people on both sides. That's probably true, but one side seems to have normalized it and made it a reactionary, acceptable answer. Again, January 6th, 4-5 hours of a riot. Summer of 2020. Months and months, hundreds of days in multiple cities causing property damage and people's
deaths. It's not a comparison, but the what about ISM and the gaslighting on this thing is kind of funny. That is the argument being made by the way. Where is all the gun violence they're worried about? They're happening in urban areas. They were happening with a very sub small subset. The majority of gun violence get done by a small subset of people who Democrats also don't want to hold accountable for it because they think somehow that has something to do with their voting base.
They don't think that violent black gang members and Latino gang members have anything to do with regular voters. But somehow they've managed to deceive people. Here's Scott Jennings, who's at least pushing back on some of this nonsense. I think this lady actually believes what she's saying. She actually believes that it's really the fault of, you know, everybody. Everybody is potentially violent or dangerous. The left has a problem with violence.
It is in its heart right now. I don't think it is only the left. I mean, you have literally seen people on both sides committing violence. I think the problem is not the left. I think it is the extremes on both sides of the party. And that is what's happening. Like those, they're the loudest voices, whether the leaders want them or not, and they're the ones who are tend to be the most violent. I don't think that's fair to say it's only the left. I mean, why? Why?
But why is it happening? Why do why do late night comedians go on TV and encourage or coddle or give lip service to this this vandalism of what went on with Tesla dealerships and so on? Why are there so many prominent people? I'm not for vandalism but like. It's more than that. They firebomb these things like it's it's but. It starts with property and it goes to people. And here's the major difference.
People on the right, including people that they would consider to be far right, a huge chunk of them also actually have a religious basis. And people on the hard left, the far left, the majority of those people do not. And so government is God and it should be able to look into your mind and decide what's going on. And it can tell you what the values are. And you can worship at the altar of government and government giveaways. All good things come from the government if you're a real good
hard leftist. And so you get maybe like 1/3 on the left, but the hard left becomes the extreme, whereas it's a fraction, it's a single digit percentage on the right that thinks that violence is somehow an answer. And I think the big difference is, is religion, God anchoring traditional values, call it what you want. What they consider to be a far right radical would be someone who thinks that men are men, women are women, Mom should stay
in the home. Children should learn from their from their parents about what their moral structure looks like. And they should go to church on Sundays. That's a that's a far right. Apparently one of those people is not dangerous. The other one on the left thinks that like killing off Aceo is the is a moral good because they are operationally more moral. They are operationally moral and therefore they think the ends justify the means. And by the way, that's the case
all the way. You know what the scariest thing is? I just saw the FBI on its Albuquerque website that they pushed it out on social media the other day. They were, they were Hawking the Palmer raids as something good and righteous and just the Palmer raids which were an overt violation of both the First Amendment and the 5th amendment. The right to due process, the right to have freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the ability to actually put out your ideas.
Even if you're a communist, you have that right in this country because the FB is always try to do pre crime. It goes back to the 19 teens. It's just interesting. These ideas are all recycled and they've already been proven to be bad and dangerous and anti American. They're still around. As long as our side's in power, you got to be really, really careful if you're on the political right, looking and saying my team's in charge, so
we're going to wield the weapon. The weapon wields the user. Every time the FBI runs the director, the ring of power corrupts whoever holds it, nobody wields it. Well, it has to go into the fire. So anyway, that's been the argument I've been making about deweaponization for quite a while and time. I'm not going to leave you with nothing positive. I'm going to give you something very positive as we walk out the door. Sometimes we should just remember that sports had a purity to it.
If you want to go to the pure form of sports, you have to go below the professional leagues a lot of times. I think this is an awesome little thing that I saw, and I don't watch sports anymore. This is a minor league player who's in the Seattle farm system. He's getting pulled up to the majors and here's his coach. Coaches were like surrogate fathers for a lot of us, right?
We had coaches that gave us the same kind of things that our fathers would say, but in a different voice with a slightly different tone outside of the house. And you would say this is another male figure who I respect and has been giving me guidance also can tell me that they're proud of me. This is just like one of those heartwarming moments. There's two pieces to it. One, the coach and two, the team. I love all of this video. I'm going to share it with you
guys. Just at least a piece of it. This kids going up to the majors and he doesn't know it. And his coach drops it on him in the dugout here. I meant to tell you this earlier, but I'm really proud of what you've done, how far you've come. Just take that to Seattle tomorrow, OK? All right, Seattle, come on. So you're done. You're not playing anymore of this game. You're going to go play yourself. All right, Congratulations. Hey, come on, kid. I got to go to work. Woman pack.
Let's get this team. We're also back in the field. Look how excited they are for him too, because that's. Yeah, that face is good. That's the reason why people watch sports. Back when people used to watch sports more, it wasn't about BLM or taking a knee for any bullshit nonsense. It's like pack your stuff, you're going to the big show and everybody's excited because everybody wants it. But everybody knows who that guy is who has the talent and they're like that.
Rather than envy and jealousy, which is what I see a lot on the political left. That's what I see in Marxism. It's like somebody has this thing and I want it, you go, I'm so happy because I know what that guy did to work to get there. And maybe it's just his God-given talent, too. Like, you want to feel good about it. That's pretty special. That's pretty cool. All right, We'll also go out with a little laugh here. I found this the other day.
And something about the new generation that makes us a little bit concerned. But maybe it's just a little bit of accurate self-assessment. It's a lack of humility. It's just realizing the truth. This is a comedian talking about people that are, you know, wanting to put all their own labels on themselves. This is where the left ends up, the clowning itself. And so it makes it kind of laugh. So here's something to go out the door laughing about. Here we go.
How to own it though, That's what the younger. Generation does. They own it, you know, they just own everything about themselves. It's so interesting just because like, you talk to some of these young kids, man, and they'll proudly tell you they're like, listen, I'm, I'm pansexual, I'm neurodivergent, right? Which is just so interesting, just because, like back when I was growing up, you tried really hard to not be a gay retard. There's nothing wrong with it.
I'm. Glad you can be who you are. I'm just saying times are changing. Because now you go up to a kid like you're a. Fucking. Gay retard. They'll be like Oh my God, thank you for noticing, I really appreciate it. Right. I feel so seen right now. I like the expression, I feel so seen. It's like therapy talk but weaponize anyway. Don't go out and be gay retards, you know, do whatever you got to do, but avoid that as best you can. Thanks for watching.
I hope we didn't have any too many issues. We're going to get another line piped into the house here, rumble.com/kyle Serif and give us a like youtube.com slash at kyle.serifinthelocalchannelsalways@kyleserifin.com. You guys can get the Sunday sit down a day early if you want to go do that. Some behind the scenes stuff. One of you guys found my biography out there and found out I'm worth $2,000,000. News to me, but very exciting to find out. I look forward to finding that money.
Lastly, you can share the show at Spotify. It's Kyle serifinshow.com. Yes, the biographies for you website listed me as a Republican, which many of you guys know is not the case, and then additionally let me know that I'm worth $2,000,000 estimated, along with some other kind of funny little facts that are not necessarily exactly correct. They did pick up that my wife speaks Italian, which made her very nervous last night.
She didn't like that anyway. All right, as the chat just said, gay retards, we are out for the day. I hope you guys have a good Tuesday out there. We're going to go get some more Internet piped in here and try to get back to 4K. Have a great one. We'll see you again on the other end. If you're sitting here on the Rumble Channel, you guys are going to be able to go to the American Radicals very, very shortly. God bless you.
See you again tomorrow. Thanks for listening to the Kyle Serafin Show, streamed live weekdays on rumble.com/kyle Serafin Bobble Kyle on Twitter, Truth Social and Instagram at Kyle Serafin.