HYPOCRISY: Without DOUBLE Standards, there would be none at all | Ep 513

Take a look behind the curtain with a real whistle blower, an American patriot. Prepare to embrace the uncomfortable truth because this program has no time for comforting lies. Here is civil liberties enthusiasts, Second Amendment defender and recovering FBI agent Kyle Seraphin. Oh, wow, something kicked on and is making noise. There we go. Good Lord. You know what, YouTube, I'm mad at you right now. YouTube just like played the audio four times with no reason to be open.

All right, folks, welcome to the Kyle Seraphin show. Holy moly, that was kind of a rocky start. Today is Thursday. It is March the 13th. That helps me because I had a rocky end to yesterday. It was Wednesday, and I told you it was Thursday because I don't know what the hell day it is. I'm in the middle of moving all of my worldly possessions. I started dismantling some of the studio around me. I've pulled down some stuff off the walls. Anyway, it's chaotic.

There might be even a little bit more echo today because we pulled down some of the sound treatment and we're moving it across town. Ah, all right. So today we're going to get into hypocrisy. It is a endless well. It turns out we can always go to the well of hypocrisy when we're talking about people on the political left right now. And one of those things is government shutdowns. Government shutdowns are their favorite thing to cry about. God forbid it ever happened.

It actually turns out people on the left or the right do not want to shut down the government. I think there's a little bit more fun to be had in this government shutdown because it does seem like there might be a bigger play. I'm watching Donald Trump's actions. I don't get into the 3D, the 4D, the 5D chest thing that many of you people like to get excited about. But there does seem like it might unlock some capabilities and there might be some some

advantages to a shutdown. Especially if we can point it directly at the people on the political left who for years have been telling us the worst thing that could ever happen is that you don't fund the government and government workers don't get to show up. As as you guys know, my position is consistent. I love government shutdown. They do something so important and so easy. They show you that the government doesn't actually affect your life most days other than reaching into your pocket

and pulling your cash. So are you still going to pay your taxes if there's a government shutdown? Yes. But what you're also going to find out is that there's a bunch of what we'd like to call non essential employees and they are going to be highlighted almost immediately. Border Patrol, no. Military, no. Law enforcement, no. People that work at the Department of Education, pretty much, yes. So we're going to talk about

education. We're going to be talking about a judge that has decided that that security clearances cannot be taken from people. That is very big news to people like me, Garreto, Boyle, Steve Friend, the suspendables crew, Marcus Allen and others. Whistleblowers. We're going to talk about that because there was this Supreme Court case that happened and I think 1988 or 1999, eighty, 988 or 89, it was called Navy versus Egan. It really doesn't mean anything at all.

And this judge has decided to throw it out. So the activist judges revealing themselves. What else? We're going to talk about gun rights with Mel, Mel, Mel Gibson. Yeah, terrorism, domestic terrorism, 18 USC 2331 is being cited. I want to talk a little bit about the freedom of speech issues and that guy at at Columbia University. So all those things are coming up. Got a whole bunch of stuff to cover down on. Before we do. Let's kind of let's get myself on track back here.

Let's go and talk about the folks at the Wellness Company. In addition to moving, I also hate being sick. Those are probably my two least favorite things. And when you're feeling crappy, there's nothing worse than having to make a decision that you have to go somewhere outside of your house to go get a prescription. If you're an adult, you've been sick before. You know what it takes. And wouldn't it be nice to be able to have access to pharmaceuticals at your own

house? You can do that with TWC dot health slash Kyle. Again, the Wellness company. That's TWC dot health slash Kyle. It is a way to limit one of the worst things, running errands when you're not feeling well. If your time is valuable like mine, you want to use your downtime to get better, to get rest, not to be outstanding in lines at pharmacies or waiting rooms for doctors or getting the will text you or calling somebody's name, waiting around in a a grocery aisle for your

prescription to get ready. You don't need to do that. It's already at your house. You can prepare so you don't have to repair. If you get an emergency medical kit from TWC dot health slash Kyle, check them out. You've got a couple different options there. One of them is the contagion emergency kit. If you're someone who's prone to respiratory issues or you're worried about that, you'll get a generic Tamiflu. You'll get a nebulizer as well as azithromycin, which is AZ

pack. You'll get hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin. These life saving medications are at your house so you don't have to wait on them. You already know what you can do. You get into a basic amoxicillin, things like this, broad spectrum antibiotic products, and you'll also get a guidebook so you know how to use them. They'll all be available to you in your own home. You can refer to it from normal use.

Takes 2 minutes of an intake form after you do your checkout and then you're going to have that thing shipped to you. It's for US customers only. Each kid is only intended for one person for whom it is prescribed. You can get it at TWC dot health slash Kyle. All right, take control of your health, take control of your own life. Let's take control of this podcast. Here we go. Let's dive into it. Yeah, I don't know if you guys

saw that when the YouTube ghost. So I usually open up all the windows so I can see what's going on around me. I want to make sure that we're streaming on Rumble, that we're out there available to you guys on YouTube and on Axe and so on and so forth. So I open up all the things and usually they're silent. All the windows are quiet. Today's windows just started yelling at me and it just kept

restarting. So I don't know if that was being played through our speakers, if it was coming back out through the broadcast software, but very derailing on my end of it. So hopefully actually you didn't hear it and I just look like a weirdo. Instead of sounding like 1-2, let's do this one. This story comes from the ABC non-stop. OK, Why do we think that the political left is in complete alignment both politically and with the media?

Probably because the same people and the same messaging is coming out. Fired Department of Education worker. We got the sense that we are disposable. Joe Murphy worked at the DOE for 20 years and he felt disposable. Dude, what did you do? It doesn't matter how long you worked at somewhere. How many of you have been to the post office and seen someone that works at the post office? They probably worked there a long time. They probably built the building

around that man or woman. They were there before the building even went up and they were standing there doing nothing at that time. There's a reason why government is a problem. It's because it doesn't have the normal accountability. They are not accountable in the same way that people who actually work for a living and actually have to produce something for a living. There's a concept good enough for government work. It means that no one's going to come and check on what you did.

It means that if you showed up on time, and I used to see these employees all the time. This is one of the weirdest and most unique things about spending five years in Washington, DC. I didn't want to be there. I would prefer not to have lived in DC or in the DC area. It wasn't great for me. What it was was eye opening.

And if you've lived in other parts of the country and you've never dealt with government, where government is strongest, where almost every single person in the Washington DC area makes their money because the federal government is there. They claim that it's a recession proof area that the that the market will never fail when it comes to housing because there's always going to be new regimes coming in. There's always going to be new administrations.

There's always going to be a turnover of buying and selling of houses. And so it continues to ratchet up. It was pretty well insulated. Even in 2008 when it did have a pump where you had a bubble in the housing market, it still wasn't that bad compared to other places where it really did get jacked up. And the reason is because government doesn't have to

produce. The money that they get comes from you and then they do whatever the hell they want with it and they assign it to the military industrial complex. They assign it to the information industrial complex. They assign it to their preferred pet projects, whether it be pork back on the state sides or whether it be other sort of like consultants and think tanks and all kinds of nonsense. They don't have to be accountable to how they spend the cash.

That's why I think a government shutdown so great. I really do. I think it's awesome. It makes me happy. It makes me happy because the traffic is low and everyone realizes that it doesn't actually touch them. Isn't it strange that they have these pet projects and they don't even seem to be connected

to them? I could understand if you were somebody who had lived your whole life and you'd been benefiting from the public system and then you'd seen all the good things that could happen and you were worried that it would go away and it was not going to be available to the next generation. That's a thing. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's a thing.

But the folks that are even arguing against what regular people want, let's say that you live in a crappy school district, that you cannot afford the property taxes in a place that has a better school district. And what you'd like to do is take the money that you pay in your property taxes, which is your money that you are contributing to the government. And it is for specific purpose. A lot of times, property taxes fund education specifically.

That's the case here in Texas. If you want to live in a good school district, you were going to pay a lot more in property taxes, and there's an incentive for people to have that. But let's say that we were to remove that problem because it's all propped up by this sort of government idea.

Let's say you don't want to put your money into a crap school district, but you can't afford necessarily out of pocket to both pay your property taxes into a school district and then pay for private school on top of it. That was always the dilemma. People had to decide this throughout the 80s and through the 90s when I was a kid, I remember parents would make the decision, we are going to spend a bunch of money upfront. In fact, that was the decision

my parents made. I'm pretty confident They're actually usually in the chat. You guys can ask him, but I think the decision was this. Would we pay for a primary, a foundational, a middle school, and also a high school education? That is excellent. And then hope that our kids get scholarships or that they're able to make their own way when they get into schools. By the way, was mostly the case for us. I went to public university. I went to private schools before

that. I also went to some public schools. They weren't very good. Is it worth that money? Is that's that's the question. And it was a lower amount of money back then and the inflation wasn't nearly as bad. I don't know if the money, I guess. I guess if you were to take the money and multiply, no, it was still even cheaper then. Less administration, less, less overhead, less regulation.

But that cash, that investment, you know, if a parent couldn't afford it, basically you didn't have a choice, You would send them to public schools. Isn't it interesting when you see people who came out of public schools arguing against school choice, people who actually had parents make that choice think that their their experience and where they landed was not necessarily good or that it's not good for everybody

else? You always hear Democrats act like they're not elitist and yet everything they do is elitist. They align with billionaires, they put celebrities up front who have more money, and they are supposed to give you the

approved opinion they get. This gal who came out of a public, came out of a private school system, an expensive one at that, and she chose to go and argue in favor of people like this DOE worker who was fired, that the Department of Education must exist because it always has existed. I've got some interesting little pieces. We got a couple of clips here. They're not 100% lined up.

What I think they show, it's evidence that we have this Stockholm syndrome as, as Litnik calls it, our, our Treasury Secretary, sorry, our commerce secretary is explaining that Americans just assume that they're going to have to pay a ton of money and they're going to get very little out of it. And that's not normal. That's relatively new in American history. I like this. I like the set back, the rollback as far as we can go.

I'd rollback 150 years in this country when it comes to regulations and government agencies and a government shutdown actually kind of does that. All right, here's the take. Private school grew up in a a certain amount of privilege, let's call it what it is. I was privileged to have that as well.

Then you would see me argue that other people should also have that privilege because it was good for me versus this woman saying no no no, you can't take money away from the public education that she chose not to partake in that her parents chose for her not to partake in. That I imagine if she has children, although she's a leftist woman so who knows. But if she had children she probably would also want them to have a similar background that she did.

Private school choice. So did you go to a public school system? No, I went to a private school. OK, You went to a head Royce school. Why? I, I, I, I spent time in Oakland. You had a choice in Oakland to go to public schools. Also, why didn't your parents do that for you? Well. I would remind you that children generally don't choose the school that they go to. Your parents did your parents had a choice. Your parents paid 30 to $50,000

a year for your choice. What what gets me is how people like yourself. I would say this across the board. Parents who have an option they put their kids in the best schools. They know that's that's an investment for their kids future and you have to you, you come here and say how well it doesn't work. I, I just want to repeat, I want to read this real quick. In reality, students who use voucher experience experience worse educational outcomes than

their public school peers. Obviously your parents didn't think that way because they put you in a private school, right? Our parents didn't think that way. That's not the experience of people. Why would anyone spend more money to go to a private school if it wouldn't, you know, going to give them a better outcome? That's illogical. That's that's assuming that people don't know actually how to use things. If people look and they evaluate and they have two choices.

They can take their their vouchers, the money that they are paying in and they're getting credit towards, they can take it and take the state money that has been collected on their behalf for their child and put it towards a public school or a private school. And that's bad. How can you be considered a quote UN quote liberal if you don't actually believe in more freedom? And that's where these labels get screwy. Again, it's always the case that we are going to see the argument

where language exists. The the argument is we're going to call ourselves liberal, although there is a decidedly illiberal bend to this. Not only do we say something that's not true, we are going to basically operate in the opposite of freedom and yet call ourself the party that believes in it. Very weird. It comes from the Stockholm syndrome.

I got a couple of clips here. This is from this is from Howard Lednick. He is the commerce secretary and more and more when I listen to the various people that are in the the Trump administration, I like Pete Hegseth. I like what he has to say, but he's kind of polished. He's kind of Fox Newsy. That doesn't really hit for me. It's great. It's better than than the alternative. It's certainly better than like a Lloyd Austin who was previously there. But this guy makes me laugh in a way.

Like he's saying things and he's just so comfortable because he's smarter than the people that he talks to. When you sit down with dumb people, you don't actually feel threatened. Let me give you, I've had this experience, shocker, right? I've had this experience when I go into the Northeast and when I used to go and sit down with friends of my in laws that would want to talk about guns.

When you're the, when you're the commerce secretary and you're in your own right, you're a, a hedge fund manager or you are a, you know, like a financial guru. You have a ton of money on your own that you've made on your own that you understand the way the system works. And then you sit down with a reporter who's like a mediocre intellect. I have that experience when I sit and talk about gun laws with people on the political left. And usually what I say is we're

not going to have an argument. There's two ways this can go. We can just enjoy our dinner or I can have an educational seminar where I present to you basically a college level course and what you don't know about firearms mechanics, firearms language, the definitions and the legal statutes that currently exist in the United States at the state and the federal level. But I'm not really interested in doing that. And you're not paying me for a

college level lecture. So I'd rather us just have our dinner. Could we do that? Because otherwise I'm just going to sit here and embarrass you. That's what Ludnic seems to be doing over and over again. He sits down with people that are dumb and we, and then he talks to them and they're, they're worried about things like, you know, what is Trump doing with tariffs? And are they just letting billionaires run wild? And, and how are we going to pay for tax cuts?

Again, that same concept that we've been talking about all week, paying for tax cuts. You don't have to pay for tax cuts. That was never your money to begin with. I think that's where the voucher thing comes in. Your money is your money. The government sees a right to it. That's the fundamental difference between the left and the right, whether or not they believe that the money you make

is your own. And so when we like, sort of lazily call people on the left, communists and socialists, maybe because they're propping up people like AOC and Bernie Sanders, more on AOC in a second. Also a dim bulb. But isn't it interesting that they want to actually prop these people up? And they don't even seem to have a basic understanding of how money works, what money is, what government does with that money, and why it's not actually entitled to it.

They think that the status quo is totally acceptable. This is what leads us to the shutdown, by the way. OK, so a balanced budget would mean, according to our Commerce Secretary Donald Trump's plan is to try to help eliminate taxes on people who makes less less than $150,000 a year. Wouldn't that be wild? And by the way, we didn't used to have an income tax in this country, so it would actually be a rollback to the way that America actually was here. We. Go.

Who cares? I tell you what, Who cares? Donald Trump cares. And when we balance the budget, you know what that means? That means our deficits stop, Interest rates come smashing down. His goal is to have external revenue. You know, the way I think about it, we all are so used to paying taxes. We're so used to it. We have like, Stockholm syndrome, you know, don't stop the Internal Revenue Service, God forbid.

How about this? The rest of the world leans on our economy, breathes off our economy. Not only is our economy $29 trillion GDP, but we consume $20 trillion a year. We are the buyer of everybody's stuff. We buy everybody stuff. So who's more important, the people who sell stuff or the people who buy stuff? So we are the buyer of everybody's commodities, products, goods and services. Everything comes from us, right? Let them pay.

He's saying a simple thing that you actually know if you've run a business. Not a government, by the way, but a business. What you know is there's this rule, and I've heard it a million times because I used to be in sales. The customer is always right. If the United States is the customer of the world, then we get to set the terms under which we want to buy things. You know why? Because we've got the opportunity to buy from other people. We don't have to just go with one.

That's actually what the market would mean. How often do we think about it that way, though? No, we don't. We actually think that we owe other people things that we have to prop up other economies. Why? Because of the status quo. Because we've always done it that way. Because that's just how it's always been. What if we didn't? What if we actually unleash the power that we actually have as the customer?

For most of the world, there's been this argument that the United States is weaker because we're relying on a supply chain outside of America. And I think there's an argument there that's not unreasonable. There is a national security threat that somebody could cut you off unless you make it such that you could buy from everywhere and then you open up your opportunities. And so you don't have to just buy from Canada and you don't have to just buy from other

people. You can lean on them and say, look, we're going to just charge you if you're going to charge us for our goods that we want to ship out because we'd like to have some more manufacturing. It's just not feasible as it currently stands because we're subsidizing you. Why would we do that at the cost of the American people? Here's the alternative talking point. You tell me if this rings true for you. This is AOC. She's talking about taxes on

tips. She's a former waitress and bartender self admitted in this video. And yet she's saying, if we cut taxes on tips, wouldn't everybody eventually want to just say that all their income is tips? And then the businesses would not pay people for their wages, They would just. Make it about tips. First of all, I don't think she even understands what wages are because she's only have tip

based jobs. She doesn't understand how that could possibly be that your service could be provided to a company and there's no direct relationship with the customer. But if there is, and if there wasn't a tax base from all that, how many of you would be upset? We're going back to the idea that this, just because we've always done it that way, we haven't always done it that way. You can go to 1913 in this country and find out that we haven't always done it that way.

It's relatively new in the history of America. It actually still the majority of America. We didn't have an income tax AOC making the argument why we need income taxes, because taxes, because we need your money, because how else would we be government or something so. But in terms of no tax on tips, listen, I was a waitress, I was a bartender. I get it. And if you live off of tips, I I get it.

The one thing that I want people to think about is even as a waitress, if any of you all else have gotten gone like completely mad with every single job being a tipped job with an iPad screen now, like especially during COVID, I mean it's even to the point where the freaking where the freaking self checkouts at

the airport get tipped screens. If you are tired of that, I do think it's important for us to recognize the danger of every job becoming a tipped job and all of us then now having to pay each other's wages. Not just in waitressing, not just in bartending. I'm talking about everything, everything. And I think it's just a precipice that we all need to think about because it's not.

There's a very careful and slippery slope here that we just need to pause and consider because then it we can very easily enter a world where no one is paid, where like no one's employer is like actually paying their wages and we're all just tipping each other and essentially go fund me the entire economy. We're going to do a go fund me economy. Do you think that she she supposedly has an econ or, or a business degree of some kind,

right? Isn't that the thing we heard about her, that she knows about economics? Does she understand that the wages that you make when you work for a company, the company has what? Either a good or a service? That's basically what it does. All companies have to have something that it provides, except government services. They can just take money for no reason. Even then, let's say you're a think tank. Theoretically, what you're providing is analysis, product work products, intellectual

property analysis. That comes out in the form of paperwork or white papers or positions or advice. Those are services, right? All of that gets funded. It's this kind of quid pro quo. I show up and do the thing and then you pay me. Whether you call the tip or wage

is sort of irrelevant. Like how does she not understand that the basics of it, every single person who provides a good or a service or is part of the logistical supply chain that provides that good or service is being paid as compensation for the thing that they're adding to the product that goes out the door. At the end of the day, this is too much for her. This is why maybe we shouldn't have bartenders and and waitresses in Congress.

At least not someone who is just that's the the top level of their capabilities. There are people that are not smart enough to be in charge. Would we agree on that? Maybe. Folks, I used to wait tables. I got nothing against people waiting tables. I used to be really good at it too. I'm conversational, I'm friendly. I can pick up on when people don't want to talk. I can pick up on when people need their day lifted. I can make them laugh. I understand that children are

really important. You serve the children, you serve the parents. That's what's going on. That's why you're at a restaurant. That's what I notice about it when I'm out there with my kids and nobody understands how to treat kids. You want to make the best service experience for someone. Take care of the people that are that are the reason that they are there. And it's usually not. If they're a romantic couple, you make it about them. If they're a family, you make it about the kids.

This is simple stuff. What am I providing? A service, right? A service that the person wants. As a really good salesperson, you actually have to learn and guess and accurately assess what the service is that that person is looking for. Can AOC actually do that? Who's buying this? Who's out there saying, Oh my God, like we're going to have a GoFundMe economy? She has no ability to read who she's talking to, but she's been throwing her hair back for so long and looking so pretty.

She she mistook that people like to be around her and let her talk for what she has has to say being a value. Michelle Obama did that recently too. We've got a thing about her podcast that came out. In any case, it's wild to watch this stuff. So then you get these people who are asking, well, we just playing Russian roulette with our economy. This lady from CBS who's doing these interviews are is hysterical. We're going to go back to Lutnick now and what is he talking about?

He was like, lady, you're asking whether it's OK to let people who have tons of money and know how money works run things. And you haven't even blinked at a massive deficit of trillions of dollars every year that we spend that we don't actually have. Isn't that where the real question should be? This is so fun when you take things that people don't understand and they they, they minor or they major in these minor little points.

And then he just throws it back into her face and he's like, look, we're talking about something that's irrelevant because they have been running a massive scam on you. They've been spending money they don't even have and acting like that's normal to the point where you think it's normal. What kind of journalists are you?

Here we go. But it sounds like you're saying, trust us. And are you worried that at some point Americans are going to feel like there's a bunch of billionaires in Washington who are playing Russian roulette with our retirement? $2 trillion deficits don't bother you at all. How could you ask me while we're running a $2 trillion deficit and not care? You're destroying the people who have run this country before, are destroying the future for my children and my children's

children. I can't have a 5075. We have a $36 trillion deficit. And then we used to run deficits of 400 billion, now 2 trillion. Everybody who cares, I tell you what, who cares? Donald Trump cares. And when we balance the budget, you know what that means? That means our deficits stop, interest rates come smashing down. His goal is to have external revenue. You know, the way I think about it, we all are so used to paying taxes. We're so used to it. We have like, Stockholm

syndrome, you know? Again, same idea, this Stockholm Syndrome idea, this is, this is the defense of the status quo. It exists in all forms of government, by the way. This is the way we do it because we've always done it that way. That is the dumbest, most lazy argument. No business survives on. This is just how we do things. That's how you find yourself out of business. Unless you're in the government, you can get away with it.

I used to have this question, we used to go through training at the, at the Academy of Quantico and you'd be like, why do you always do search warrants at 0600? Why do you knock on the door at 6:00 AM? Why is that the time for the search warrant? And they go, cuz that's the way we've always done it. That's the earliest time we're allowed to do it. And if we do it at 6:00 AM, then we can all go to IHOP afterwards for pancakes and we can take the rest of the day off.

And I went like, wow, that sounds dramatically stupid. It sounds like it's based on an economy that doesn't exist anymore because people are using all kinds of different

schedules. It seems like it's really dangerous because of the best time to grab somebody is not when they're expecting it. And more importantly, I would like my subject when I go to arrest them, especially if they're going to be potentially violent, I would like them to be 100% alert and aware and making good decisions at that moment.

What I don't want to do is kick down a door when somebody still in their pajamas, surrounded by their loved ones and in a place that they know, where all their weapons are, the dark that I don't know. That seems like the dumbest possibility, but that's the way we've always done it. So that's what we're going to do. We've always collected taxes and we're just going to slowly increase that deficit because that's what we've always done. As long as you remember. You can see why I argue for a

shutdown. Now, again, I go back to that 1997 book by Vince Flynn. It's a novel. It's it's fiction. But they're talking about how crazy it would be if we had $10 trillion worth of national debt, 10 trillion. We're 3 1/2 times that now, and nobody even blinks at it. We're like, oh, we're going to probably hit $40 trillion, adding $2 trillion a year to it. And people are mad at Thomas Massie because he thinks that's

a real problem. We're going to do several clips of hypocrisy, which I did tell you is going to be coming in. That was the hypocrisy of the news media. We're going to, we're going to be mad at Donald Trump for doing tariffs, God forbid. But then we're going to get into the fun part of it where it's like, OK, well, what about the people that are mad about doge? What about the people that are

mad about government cuts? What about the people that are 100% cool with guys like me getting thrown out of the government because of COVID? Because I, because I said, listen, I have some whistleblower concerns and I'd like to bring this to a member of Congress in accordance with five USC 7211. I'd like to do that under US statute. And they're like, oh, well, the, the government can just remove your security clearance.

Then you take it from a government Democrat attorneys company, Perkins Cooley, and suddenly not only do they have their day in court immediately, but a judge says you need to go ahead and reinstate their security clearance. They're not even a government employee. That blows my flip in mind. And we're talking about case law that goes back from the time when I was in middle school. It's not new for those of you who don't know how old I am, you know, like middle school was a while ago.

I have a full beard right now. I'm a grown man and I have a baby, like several babies. So just just do the math on that. At 43, I'm looking back 30 plus years and seeing that this case law was enough to say you're out, you're gone and a judge in days, literally days, not years. Like we've been trying to get our stuff adjudicated.

Not like my buddy who's been out of work for 30 months right now and not paid because of this court decision because there's no grounds to appeal it. Suddenly a law firm that represents Democrats has it immediately. Wild stuff. All right, we're talking about goods and services. One of the things we do here is we provide you access to some goods and or services that we think are great. And one of them is my friends over at Silent. Let me grab their text over

here. And how about this, so you're looking on the screen you're seeing I went to SHOT Show, it's slnt.com/K YLE save yourself 15%. That's the value proposition of using our website there, OK? Between government, big tech, corporate America, criminals and so on, your compromised privacy is always out there in the public. If you want to make sure it's not compromised, you got to do something to protect yourself and that can start with silent silence.

Faraday products block all incoming and outgoing signals. Here's one right now. Check this out. This is mine. I'm blocking the microphone. Mine sits in here, there's the phone, there's my wife on it. Boom, closed up, no signals coming in while we're doing the podcast. If you want to put something like that in a Faraday sleeve, you make your devices invisible. It's safe from the outside world. I use these when I was working counterintelligence.

They're actually really useful in your daily life. Whether you buy a backpack, a phone sleeve, or even pants that have the signal blocking technology, you can get Peace of Mind that your dad is not going to the wrong hands. Your devices are not getting hacked. Once you put them inside and you close it, they're protected and safeguarded from unauthorizedaccessyoucangosilent@slnt.com

slash ayle@silent.com/kyle. Get yourself 15% off plus free shipping on qualifying orders and you'll see there's the E3 backpack. As soon as I finish moving, that's my next order. I don't want to move it in between houses. I have enough crap that I'm moving around. But that is a really cool product. It has two individual Faraday sleeves in there, one in the front for your phone, one in the back for a laptop or a tablet. Very cool.

And they click in and out so you can use it independent of the backpack. And it doesn't look like you're some tactical guy running around. slnt.com/K YLE. Check out the E3 Faraday backpack if you would. That's my best recommendation to you. You get all the products at once and they're well made. If you need to do something that's very compliant. If you work in a law enforcement or military role, they make them

specifically for the military. They're working with the Air Force and various other federal agencies. These people who are using a lot of electronics. So check them out again, silent.com/K YLE. In the show description, you can find them. Let's keep pressing on. Can I just bring up the person's Kui thing because it blows my mind. Here it is in a scathing ruling. Who's writing this?

Oh, it's CNN, of course it is. A judge halts part of Trump's executive order against prominent Democrat tied up law firm Perkins Kui. These are the ones that help push out the the Russiagate thing Federal judge halted parts of Donald Trump's executive order.

The District Judge is Beryl Howell sided with the law firm representing Hillary Clinton in 2016, and it's been involved in litigation against the Trump's granted the firm's request for a TRO, temporary restraining order against some sections. The parts being blocked include its limitation on government contracts with clients that the firm and potential restrictions it puts on the firm's employees, such as banning hiring of those government employees for government positions.

So in other words, you can't. They were saying that people that are coming out of this law firm couldn't immediately jump into government jobs. Why should the government, why should the federal government specifically represented by the executive and in this case Donald Trump, not be able to limit who they want to have in there? The executive order said, as she reads it, it's a punishment that singles out an entity for being disloyal. She makes a reference to Alice in Wonderland.

Of course, this judge was appointed by Barack Obama. You want to talk about weaponization and politicization? It all happens specifically when you get people that are willing to bend the rules and make it work for themselves. And we saw that during Biden's administration. We saw it during Barack Obama in a big way. In many ways, Barack Obama transformed the way the United States looks at almost everything. Much more so than than George Bush, who was kind of a status quo guy.

Much more so than than Bill Clinton, who would be probably considered a Republican based on the things that he said in 1992 and 1996. There's no way around it. The president is entitled to his own beliefs, entitled to his own causes, and entitled to his own dislikes, but you cannot bring the federal government down on opponents as he has done here. Well, Hallelujah. Wouldn't that be nice? Wouldn't it be nice if that was the case? And yet we've been advocating against this for a very long

time. What we determined we being the suspendables. I'm wearing the badge today. This is the blackout shirt. You guys can get these from the dash suspendables.com. That's Garretta Boyle's website. Our promo code, Kyle will save you. I think 10%. I get nothing out of it other than you put Garrett to work and you make him make some T-shirts since he can't be an FBI employee. This goes back to the October 1987 term.

I was a little bit closer. It was, I thought it was 89 or 881987. The Supreme Court ended up hearing this story out of the federal appeals circuit and it's Navy versus Egan. Egan was a guy who was a laborer. He was working in a like a, in a shipyard. And what it basically said was, is that the federal government, when they came down to it, the federal government has the, the plenary right to decide whether or not you get a security clearance.

You have no right to a security clearance and you have no ability to really appeal it. If the if the government decides that you are not appropriate for security clearance, then that could be all the way up to the executive, the person who decides what is and what is not classified. The ultimate classifying authority is the president.

If they decide that you no longer have a need to know or you no longer are worthy of that security clearance, boom, it's gone and that's it. And there's no real, like reasonable appeal. Gerardo Boyle's web. I'm sorry, web. Gerardo Boyle's court appeal has been exclusively to try to overturn this case. And we've got a judge basically siding with a law firm that represented nothing but prominent Democrats and actually Rep, you know, weaponized parts of our federal government

immediately. Wouldn't it be funny if they end up being the thing that works in our favor? Power being the American people who think that there actually should be due process. If you want to be a person who's consistent, if you want to understand that you're going to

have fairness. It does seem reasonable that if you have a property right to your job as as they say that you do as a federal tenure tenured employee, once you get off probation, they've got to go through a due process in order to remove you of something that you have a right to and they've determined that you have a right to that government job, for better or for worse. There's a lot of court law and

and case law behind that. If that's the case, then shouldn't you also have a, a right to the thing that the government grants you in order to do that job? I don't know. I just want consistency. I just don't want to see that you're able to go ahead and kick somebody out. It's the same thing that I see over here. There's another decision that was really a problem. Apparently Pete Hagseth is an issue because he doesn't want transgender people in the military. We've talked about this ad

nauseam. As someone who's gone through maps, the military entrance processing station, I think it's what it's called. As someone who's gone through maps, anybody who's enlisted, I assume that officers have a similar thing. You got to go through something

like that. Anytime that you've gone out there to go be involved in our United States military, you go through an exhaustive and very weird and generally like compromising and kind of like awkward moment, you know, like spread your cheeks for some doctor and squat down and do a duck walk. And everybody who's done it knows exactly what I'm talking about. You squat down, you put your hands on your head and you walk like a duck. And you, whether you quack or

not is up to you. There's all kinds of reasons you can get excluded from federal service in, in the military, flat footedness, near sightedness, allergies, asthma medications, psychological history, you know, not knowing whether or not you have a penis or why you have one or what the hell it's doing down there. If that's your problem, like maybe you don't belong there with the, with the heavy machine

guns. Maybe you shouldn't be the person that supports people that are going to go in and and engage in physical combat. Maybe that's just not for you, which is fine. You have no right to it. Federal judges ripping the DOJ lawyers and demands a written retraction from Pete Hagseth over his transgender military policy posts. These are social media posts from what I can tell and they are trying to say now this is a judge who was appointed by Biden.

As usual, you find out that once you find out who picked the judge, unfortunately, you often times find out, especially when it was Obama and on. You find out exactly how they're going to rule, but they're not going to be reasonable. This judge has previously stated that the idea of two sexes, you know, the biological distinction between male and female, is not

biologically correct. So maybe unlike the Supreme Court Justice Katenji Jackson Browne, this one Judge Anna Reyes has actually determined that she is in fact a biologist and can speak properly about this stuff. Wild. You heard arguments about the Pentagon's attempt to ban transgender individuals from serving in the military, which is always been the case.

Basically, if you are a male and you decide to have what they call bottom surgery, where they remove your penis surgically, which is a wild thing to do, let's say they do that. You are no longer deployable. You're now going to have an open wound essentially forever. And so you are not a deployable

person. And if you are a female who decides that you are in fact a dude and you're going to have like skin taking off your arm and create a false phallus down there, they're going to go ahead and create something surgically that did not exist. You're some sort of biological Frankenstein. You also have problems and need constant medical care and no longer can be functional in a fighting force. I don't even like the idea of women being in combat because I love women and I don't want them

to deal with that. And I signed up for it and I don't want my daughter's to have to deal with it or my wife. They don't seem suited for it. And although there is a overlap of women who are capable of doing combat, no doubt about it, can we just argue that the that the the Kamala Harris Venn diagram of women who are both capable of combat and women who are interested in doing combat has a very very small overlap? And I'm not sure it's good for unit cohesion or anything else.

Men fight differently when women are involved. It turns out we're not all wired the same. And acknowledging that as ADOD is not crazy and the fact that a judge has a problem with it makes me nuts. I don't get it. They only care about standards as long as they can have double standards. That's what it comes down to. How about this one? Biden under Lloyd Austin. So in that same area, they pushed the name of Fort Bragg into something else, Fort

Liberty or some nonsense. And Fort Benning in the same way. They're now going to revert back, but it's sparking controversy. So you've got the media, which is the other end of it, right? So there's politicians, there's the media, and then there's the judges. And they all seem to be in the

same sort of attitude. They're very, very upset that we're going to change the names of these places they go and found like someone who is an aggrieved person to cry about it. And so now we have to worry about whether or not Fort Bragg is offensive to people. Again, it's Fort Bragg. Most people who work at, look, I worked on Fort Bragg for what, maybe a couple of months? I was there, I was on a long term TDY.

I did some training. And what I remember about Fort Bragg is if you asked every soldier who runs around, if you just stopped anyone randomly and you're like, hey, Joe, because that's what you call random dudes in the Army. You're like, Joe, do you know who who Fort Bragg is named after? They have no idea, man. Most of them are not even sure if they're in the Army. They think they are. They're pretty sure of it because that's what it says on their shirt.

But some days they're not sure. Joe is a special creature. I love Joe a lot. Just like Marines that eat crayons, Joe is doing other things. He's marrying a very heavyset woman, was the first woman that held hands with him. He's making bad decisions with all of his finances. He's buying a Ford Mustang at 18% interest. Like Joe is a special kind of creature. We need Joe because Joe protects America and God love Joe. But let's be real, Joe doesn't

know who Bragg was. Joe doesn't know who Benning was. Come to think of it, I don't know who Benning was and I don't really care. That's what it's called. It's the name of a place. Move the hell on. It's irrelevant. It's the name. It's been the name. There's a reason why we have them. And now you've got people crying about that. So when you are in the outrage of the grievance business, that's what you do. OK, so let's let's let's push this towards the place where it's going to go.

Let's do first people who are not in the outrage business, they're in the business of selling high quality products. Again, another quality product company. They're into Patriots. They got no problem with Fort Bragg. I can assure you. I haven't even asked them, but I'll just know my buddies over at Patriot Coolers, we've got, I think three of them in the room right now. I got one with iced coffee.

I've got one with hot coffee. I've got one that I should have brought home yesterday and filled up, but I didn't. Patriot coolers.com is the website. That's how you get there. They are our longest sponsor. Our friends down in Houston, TX. They make an American product that is, yes, it has to be made overseas because there's no other way to do it. The EPA has too many regulations, but they make a quality product that says Patriot right on there. It's got Stars and stripes.

They give money back to veterans. They're good people. They're from Texas, they're here doing the right thing. Promo code Kyle will save you 10%. It's the same amount that you'd save if you were a veteran, by the way. So you get the same deal as the military discount, but you just use our name and we get credit for it. We'd appreciate that. Patriot coolers.com.

If you want a high quality outdoor product, that's the way to go. I have their 50 quart cooler, I've got their small soft cooler, I've got their backpack cooler. I have all their stuff. Most of it I bought with my own money. I was actually using them far before they ever became a sponsor, long before I thought about having a podcast when I was sitting in a in a surveillance vehicle and peeing in a cup or peeing in a, what do you call it, peeing in a jar

watching bad guys. I had a Patriot cooler with me. So check them out. You'll never be sad. I've got Gen. 1-2 and three of their stuff. Actually the funniest thing I got to tell you, this one right here. This was actually in the fridge last night. I poured it with hot coffee yesterday. I left it in the fridge for about 6 hours and I came back and the damn thing was still hot and I was like, I got to take the lid off if I want to cool

this thing off for the night. So now I have cold coffee, had to sit all night. In any case, they work even better than you necessarily want them to. Let's do, let's do some hypocrisy here. I've got a back-to-back. Here's Mike Johnson talking about they're going to shut down the government. He thinks Democrats are going to do it. That's what's coming our way. Government shutdown again. I'm for it. I'm going to give you we're not, I'm not the only one who thinks this is a good idea.

So I'll play you some Fox News in a second, but let's start with Mike Johnson. Spending bill is probably not going to pass. Democrats are going to get together and going blame Republicans even though they're united in opposition. Here we go. They're planning to vote down the simple bill. They are going to try to shut the government down. Every House Democrat will participate in this, it looks like That would be a shame if it's true.

I hope some of them will have a moment of clarity themselves and do the right thing. But it looks like they're going to try to shut down the government. It's a striking new posture for Democrats who have always said these have been apoplectic about the prospect of government shutdowns. I put a video out about an hour ago on on social media. I encourage you to go see that this is their. They have been their own words. You don't need to trust us on this.

You don't need to trust them on this. Schumer says the GOP doesn't have the GOATS votes to pass the funding bill as shutdown fights moves to the Senate. Right, because they passed the CR in the House over the the objections of guys like Thomas Massie. So he ended up being irrelevant in that fight as far as it goes. He's just a guy who stands on principle. That's his thing. Guys picking that fight is a bad idea, OK? Johnson says.

We're going to listen to their own words on how much they hate it. I've got both. I've got both Schumer's current response and his previous response to previous government shutdowns under previous Trump administration. So we're going to play that for you as well. The key here being look at the way that it is phrased. You know that one of the things

we like to do is meta analysis. I want to look at how things are being phrased so that when you go to CBS News, which is what we're looking at right here, and it says Schumer says the GOP doesn't have the votes. It makes it seem like Schumer is not the problem. And yet Schumer is the guy who does have the votes and he has chosen very specifically not to

be part of this. Here he was in 2019 with a previous government shutdown possibility, and he is talking about how very, very important it is. And they always go to that sick, sad example of the one aggrieved individual and they go out there and make it about feelings. Here they are talking about feelings why we should not have a government shutdown in 2019 when we did for a little bit. And by the way, it was fine. I was part of it.

I lost a paycheck for like a day or a week or something and I never even noticed it because I'm financially responsible and I knew that the government pay is not guaranteed. It gets voted on every year. Here he is. We made a plea to the president once again. Don't hold millions of Americans, hundreds of thousands of workers hostage. Open up the government and let's

continue the discussions. I pointed out to him, for instance, a call I got in my office this morning, fire dispatcher from upstate New York, wife is pregnant, signed a mortgage, can't get the FAA to approve it. Now FHA to approve it because the government is closed. This kind of situation is happening in millions of instances across the United States. That sounds very, very important. It sounds like something we should really be worried about,

I'm sure of it, right? Like you should definitely not have people who have pregnant wives or new babies suddenly not get their paycheck like they had no problem doing to Gerardo Boyle. And they obviously wouldn't go out there and lie about something like that, right? OK, so there's that. And then there's this. This is him actually on the floor standing up and saying how we're not going to fund the government, Mr. President.

The Democratic leader. Funding the government should be a bipartisan effort, but Republicans chose a partisan path, drafting their continuing resolution without any input, any input from congressional Democrats. Because of that, Republicans do not have the votes in the Senate to invoke cloture on the House CR. Our caucus is unified on a clean April 11th CR that will keep the government open and give Congress time to negotiate bipartisan legislation that can pass.

We should did. You hear what that's about. What they said is the current CR would fund all the way through the end of the fiscal year. So in other words, instead of passing a brand new budget, what they're going to do is they're going to continue the budget that was basically set up and has been kicked down the curb from last year. And they're going to keep doing it.

And theoretically, there's a little bit more money or a little bit less money, depending on whether you believe the Congressional Budget Office or people like Tom Massie. I don't really care. They're going to kick it down to September. So that's what it would do. I don't like it. I don't like running on ACR. I think it's a bad plan. I think it's bad policy and I think it's not what Congress has put in office to do.

Their job is to make a budget. And theoretically under a Mike Johnson, we were supposed to see single issues, single funding issues passed as single bills. They don't do that. They never do that. But what, what the the Senate is holding up right now is that they say they only want 4 weeks and not for the rest of the financial year, the fiscal year. That's what they're trying to do. So that's what this fight is over.

If only these people actually had the courage of their convictions and if they actually did things like, you know, the way that they claim, then they would actually care about that poor guy. You think there's not a MIC air traffic controller who has a pregnant wife? I assure you, there are some pregnant wives who are married to government employees who are about to find themselves on some sort of like whatever they want to call it, furlough.

They can call it a sequester, they can call anything they want. Government shutdown and not getting paid for a couple days. I assure you that will happen and they won't be able to buy their houses because the FHA won't be open and it won't be processing things 100%. That will be the case in the 3 + 1,000,000 government employees plus all of the different contractors that are either you're not going to get paid and so on.

So there's that. I wish I could take these people at their word that they weren't just complete liars and scumbags. And yet they basically are just liars and scumbags. Here's Chuck Schumer talking about the other thing they really hate. What do they hate? They hate doge, right? Why? Because they're trying to get rid of fraud, waste, and abuse. And they think that fraud, waste and abuse it just cannot, we just cannot take it out at the way that we're doing it. I have back-to-back clips.

We're going to attribute this to to Maze MAZE over on X, who's done a great group of this, saw all these clips on Gutfeld the other night. So if you're a Fox News watcher, you probably saw this. But The funny thing is, is that a lot of people go into this well and and pull out these clips. And the folks that do it best on X are really quite good at like digging into the archive. So give credit where it's due. I'll put the I'll put the the

handle up in just a second here. This is Chuck Schumer talking about healthcare and how there's tons of fraud, waste and abuse and we should go after it as much as a third. These are the same people that don't want doge. Right. About a third of all of the spending that's done in Medicare and Medicaid. I would imagine a lot of it's in the private sector as well, doesn't go to really good healthcare, goes to other

things. And the real nub of this is how do we ring that waste out, that fraud, abuse, duplication without interfering the good care that we want every person on Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance to get? The average citizen knows this happens. How many times when you look at your medical bill, you've undergone a minor procedure and you see Doctor Smith, $4000 and you sort of vaguely remember he just waved and poked his head in

the door. If we're going to eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare, it does mean we're going to cut some of that out. And when I hear my friend Dave Camp say you cannot cut money out of Medicare, well, we don't want to cut the good stuff that you point out or not or prevent add the prevention. But if we're going to, we'll let if one third if what Senator Coburn says that 1/3 of Medicare

doesn't go to patient care. You can't just get up there and say we don't want to cut anything out of Medicare. We want to cut the bad stuff and keep the good stuff. And I think that's where we can find common ground on. Shouldn't you find common ground on things like that that make perfect sense? Like, isn't that what you'd want to do? There's the handle right there. Maze Moore, MAZEMOORE. Check out Maze Moore's page. If you're not familiar with Maze, outstanding stuff.

Really, really good archivist and bringing up some of these old clips. Here's another one. This is Bernie Sanders two years earlier. That was from 2010. That was during the Obamacare debate. Here's 2010 Bernie Sanders, our favorite commie, right? Self-proclaimed commie, I think, as far as we can call. And what's his problem? He also thinks that fraud, waste, and abuse is not the thing the government is supposed to protect.

They just all say the thing that's most convenient to them when it's convenient, and then when it's not, they just completely ignore it. And so this is useful to show that these people are all full of it. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about the AO CS or the Schumer's and the I've got a Pelosi one as well, Same story. They're all full of crap and they all have zero principle. This is why I'm going to constantly find myself on the

wrong side of things. The Republicans do the same problem. They all have no principles, right? We were supposed to have single issue spending. We should have had this no problem at all. We should have seen exactly what the money was going to be for each individual issue. Republicans don't do it either. So when you sit in the middle and you think hey, just do the thing you said you were going to do like 5 seconds ago, then you're the enemy.

Because God forbid you hold them to the to a standard of any kind unless it's a double standard. There is no question that there is an enormous amount of waste and fraud and abuse in this government. There is no question to my mind that Congress has not been vigilant enough in rooting out that waste and fraud to the tune of billions and billions of

dollars. I would simply say that while it is absolutely appropriate to condemn the Congress, it is also important to note that we have an administration in this city, in Washington, DC, DC, and the function of it administration is to administer. When we are talking about the word administrate, we are coming from the root word of administrator and the all of administrator must do the administration of the administrations of the administrative policies, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Yeah, that's all nonsense. 2008. So that was under GW Bush, right? Yeah. OK, got it. OK, so you guys don't think that straw fraud, ways and abuse is good unless you want to defend it for some damn reason because doge is really, really bad and you want to shut down the government and you might be playing right into their hands. Here's one more. Nancy Pelosi also has principles in 2010. Except when she doesn't have principles. Another clip out of Maze's archive here.

Again, can't can't play it enough. Here we go. We cannot keep our promises on Medicare. We simply must make the cuts of waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare so that the benefits and the premiums are untouched. We. Owe it to our seniors. We owe it to our country. OK, yes, we do. But you know what I like most about that? That was only 15 years ago, man. She has aged a lot in those 15 years. Here's Kyle Seraphin's take on that.

I believe that Nancy Pelosi is actually just a human skin being worn by a skin wearing demon and that that demon is sick of the Nancy Pelosi suit and ready to shred it and get rid of it. So it's just let everything kind of fall disarray, kind of like when you're on the way out of a house and you just don't care anymore. I've never been like that, but I get that people do that and they just let everything fall apart and then they're like, whatever, this is a cell job.

We're selling it as a tear down. We're going to destroy it. I think Nancy Pelosi, he has gone that route. It's a shame. But anyway, there you go. OK, from the outside, it looks chaotic, but you think that there's not a plan. Here's Litnik again saying, hey, yo, there is a plan. When you see things like that, you think are chaotic, wild tariffs being thrown back down the down the pipe. No, they were announced that

they would be reciprocal. You know, reciprocal means you do one thing on one side, you do it on the other side. It's a balancing act. Actually, when I look at reciprocals, right, you're flipping things upside down and you're giving it the inverse. So here we go. Gary is talking about like this is not on accident people.

They're doing this on purpose, which makes me actually believe not in the the 4D chess nonsense, but in fact, there's a plan and they're playing like, you know, regular chess, which is that you set people up for traps. And it sounds like the Democrats might actually fall into it, which would be great. So you're saying when it looks chaotic and unpredictable from the outside, that there actually is a master plan when it comes to these tariffs?

It is not chaotic, and the only one who thinks it's chaotic is someone who's being silly, he said. We're. Nobody expected him to announce 50% tariffs this morning. He needed to break some guy in Ontario who said he was going to tax American energy 25%. The president of the United States in the White House says Oh no you won't and breaks him. Breaks him in what? By a tweet and a truth. And you think that's chaotic?

You know what I think that is? I think that is the, thank God we have a president who's taken care of us. Because if you were in one of those States and you thought your energy prices were going to go up 25% and you said, where's the president? And all of a sudden he came down like Thunder to make that end. You'd say, cool, I'm glad that's the guy in the White House and that's what we've got. And that's what we've got. OK, here's the take. This is coming out of a Fox News panel.

I guess they have like this like 5 on one. I don't like this where you like gang up on one person. You're like, we're going to bring on one Democrat and smash them. But in this case, I do like the point being made, which is that a lot of people have been kind of quietly whispering at me, hey, the idea of a shutdown actually gives doge some some emergency powers that wouldn't

previously exist. And so if they actually want to go and eliminate some things, they can do so when the government shut down because you get broader executive because someone is still running the government, turns out the president is not shut down, just a lot of the funding for the executive agency. So maybe you can do some broader cuts. This is the point being made over on Fox. And like I said, it's not new. I've heard this a couple places and it sounds like this may be

the play. I hope Jessica is totally successful. I hope she's completely successful. And I hope that this, I hope that this goes the way that you want, because I can't wait to see what Doge will do when the government is shut down. If the government shuts down the amount of things that you can do that where the traps just open up, where they can just cut even further than they already are, you'll find out and it's going to be a lot of fun. How?

Many people are enough for you to get fired. What's your goal? How many 10s of thousands do you want just fired? Can we, can we, can we start with half? Is that, is that like, is that a reasonable number? No, look, I think, I think that you are making, I think you're making, I think that you, I think that you are making a monumentally stupid decision in terms of whipping in this direction.

And I think that Chuck Schumer is, you know, quite correctly trying to prevent Hakeem Jeffries from making a huge mistake that would only benefit those of us who think that the government is just full of pork to be cut and that bureaucrats absolutely should be sent packing. We got the sense that we were disposable, says fired Education Department worker. Yeah, we actually think that way. We look at you and think 50% is an opening bid. Half of the government.

I would say the idea that even one in two people is doing work, it's way less than that. In my experience, it's probably 8020. There's probably 20% of people in the government that are doing not 80% of the work, but doing 98% of the work. Most people in the federal government are not doing things that either matter or doing it in efficient enough way that you couldn't get someone to come in

and do it for better. And you could actually actually take 3 salaries, pay one person 2 salaries and still save a 50% savings on this kind of stuff. That's my opening bid on there too. I would say get rid of a 2/3 of them easily. You just have to get rid of the right 2/3 or not and higher back. I don't actually care. When you shut down the government, you guys are going to find out the government's actually not that impressive and it doesn't actually do that much

for you in your daily life. That is your own lived and honest experience. Now we've got one more little thing I wanted to cover in principles, something we're big on here. I always talk about it. I believe in being consistent. I have some interesting kind of flavor on this. The Trump administration has been coming out and talking about this guy, this is Mahmoud Khalid. It's going to it's going to

court right now. So you're going to see probably some leftist judge talking about green card holders and their rights. This is the argument that we are not seeing. The argument was made that he was supporting a terrorist organization, providing material support to terrorism. All of that stuff actually has to be fleshed out. You have to prove that. OK. And so here's my problem.

If you want to prove that somebody is in material support of terrorism, you have to actually one look at the the, the definitions of it. There's a definition for international terrorism. It turns out it's almost identical to that of domestic terrorism. Those are defined by statute in 18 USC 2331. So you have to prove this stuff. You can make the allegation, but in order to actually make it stand, you have to go through

the court of law. So removing a green card and doing the and all that kind of stuff is kind of iffy for me. There's a stronger argument that was made and Marco Rubio actually made that. So I'll play you with that in one second here, but just for your understanding, if you can't read on the screen here, let me read from the statute. The definition of international and domestic terrorism, almost identical. It goes like this.

The term means activities that involve dangerous acts to human life that are a violation of criminal laws in the United States or any state. So state or federal violence,

that's a big deal. And then B, appear intended to, because it has to be both, appear intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of government or intimidation by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of the government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or primarily occur inside the

territorial things. So there's a little bit of iffiness in there, but essentially, you can either try to coerce the civilian population or government policy. Those are all definitions of terrorism. And you have to use violence and violation of law to do so.

That's why I found it really interesting because what you're seeing is arguments on CNN claiming that attacks against Tesla, Superchargers and so on are not in fact, terrorism, as Donald Trump said they were in front of the White House the other day. And of course they are because they're using acts of violence that are actually violations of

state and or federal law. These are infrastructure attacks that are going on that help charge up electric vehicles, which I don't have a lot of love for, and they are meant to intimidate or coerce a civilian population into an action that is domestic terrorism by the definition under 18 USC 2331. Not negotiable as far as I can tell. You'd have to prove it in a court of law, which is why you'd arrest them for a domestic terrorism statute.

But I also know this. The FBI was using these statutes to go after people who are praying outside of abortion clinics and they were, they were making investigations under the domestic terrorism header. Why? Because they said praying outside was coercion or intimidation. That's how broadly this thing can be done. This is why weaponized government is a problem. It's why I stand against it

completely. We are going to talk about that foreign guy in a second because I want you to understand the other thing, which is the stronger argument that Marco Rubio went the other day, which is fraud. And fraud is actually something that is much easier and it makes more sense to me and it goes back to the underlying cause.

But first, let's go here in the argument against domestic terrorism for Tesla. And of course, we got Scott Jennings, who makes the great argument doing like 4 versus 1 as usual on CNN. I'm assuming you agree because as a Republican strategist, you wouldn't have advised him to go in front of the White House and drive a Tesla. Wait, why? Because. Of course I would have you know why?

Because if I were advising a Republican president, I would say, let's support American companies that have thousands of American workers and thousands more workers who make indirect products for it. Yeah, I think it would be a good idea if American companies did well under my. Oh, OK, so you're going to go ahead and support a billionaire, but not support the American worker? And not necessarily. Who do you think makes Tesla's Sochi American workers. It's good.

But it's very much as American and that mentioned. It on his base she's trying to quibble about something no American workers make Tesla's that's a fact that's up for that's not up for debate and the fact that it's an American company and you're going to go attack them to try to coerce or intimidate using violence. This is the nature of what domestic terrorism looks like nothing wrong with any of that.

So I don't know why that would be an issue but that's the situation now how to revoke a green card. I actually went to Rebecca Black as her immigration law. This is a immigration attorney and she made the number one reason why you could have a green card. This guy is not just a student visa holder, he's a student visa holder that eventually got a green card, which means legal permanent resident. If you're a legal permanent resident, theoretically you actually have a little bit more.

The way that you get rid of this is actually going to the underlying issue, which was fraud. And Marco Rubio should have come out with this right away. They should have said this was about Hamas protests. It was that we believe he engaged in fraud and that fraud was that he misrepresented what he was going to do when he came to the United States. That is a specifically different argument. It's a messaging issue, not a not a procedural issue. I'm sure they charged it

properly. But when they came out and said it was about terrorism or Hamas or all that kind of stuff for student protests, No, no, no, it has to be about the thing that is the underlying reason. The number one reason is if you are committing fraud or you misrepresent yourself during the application process. I would very much like to see this involved with someone like an Ilhan Omar, right?

We'd like to know about that. Maybe the brother thing, all this kind of story, but examples of fraud if you do marriage fraud, if you have falsified document, if you omit relevant facts. I've investigated cases like that. The consequences are that they could actually go back and face removal proceedings and deportation because the underlying piece has to be in good faith. And if you lie on a federal document, then you're also talking about, yes, false

statements. False statements is not just to the FBI. It can also to be to CIS. So you could be dealing with an 18 USC 1001 charge as well. Here's Marco Rubio making the articulate argument, which is what it should have been in the first place. President Trump appealed to a lot of Americans during his campaign on free speech arguments and not suppressing speech, especially from the government.

But your revocation of the green card to many is seen as one of the most anti speech actions a secretary can take with his powers. How do you respond when you enter the? This is an important point, and I'm glad you asked this question. When you come to the United States as a visitor, which is what a visa is, which is how this individual entered this country on a as, on a visitor's visa, OK, you are here as a visitor. We can deny you that visa.

We can deny you that if you tell us when you apply. Hi, I'm trying to get into the United States on a student visa. I am a big supporter of Hamas, a murderous, barbaric group that kidnaps children, that rapes teenage girls, that takes hostages, that allows them to die in captivity, that returns bought more bodies than live hostages.

If you tell us that you are in favor of a group like this, and if you tell us when you apply for your visa, and by the way, I intend to come to your country as a student and rile up all kinds of anti Jewish student, anti-Semitic activities, I intend to shut down your universities. If you told us all these things when you applied for a visa, we would deny your visa. I hope we would. If you actually end up doing that, once you're in this country on such a visa, we will revoke it.

And if you end up having a green card, not citizenship, but a green card as a result of that visa, while you're here and those activities, we're going to kick you out. It's as simple as that. This is not about free speech. This is about people that don't have a right to be in the United States to begin with. No one has a right to a student visa. No one has a right to a green

card, by the way. So when you apply for a student visa or any visa to enter the United States, we have a right to deny you for virtually any reason. But I think being a supporter of Hamas and coming into our universities and turning them upside down and being complicit, see, I think he should have shut it right there. Being a supporter of Hamas and doing so vocally.

If you actually actively support groups that are listed as US terrorist organizations, that are listed as FT OS, foreign terrorist organizations, that's the disqualifier. The messaging should be tight because otherwise you're going to get a foul of people that are really interested in things like free speech and you're going to get people like me a little bit concerned that we're out there trying to adjudicate what is bad

or good speech. Once you're here, once you're reasonable, once you're doing things. If you become an LPR, you want to be involved in political protest. I shouldn't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with it. It's not a big deal to me. But if you were previously asked these questions on the documents, if you were lying to the federal agency when you came here and got your visa, that is

where the problem lies. Let's be very, very specific lest it be about, well, it's anti-Semitic versus being anti Palestinian. No, you lied to the federal government when you came in. You came in under false pretense. That is all it's about. We don't care what you said. So we should be very careful on messaging. And I think Rubio did a pretty good job. I think you could do a slightly better job because it shouldn't ever be about the content of

what it was. It should be about the fact that he made false statements, came under false pretense, he engaged in fraud and misrepresentation as he came in. And that is the number one thing. By the way, I looked at multiple immigration attorney sites. They all agreed, but if you are, you are misrepresenting yourself to the federal government when you come in. You came here for a job, but you came here as a student visa. That also is grounds to be removed.

At that point, everything underneath it is destroyed. The foundation of your movement here, which means your LPR status is in jeopardy and they can revoke it. And that stuff is administrative and it can be done without nearly as many court processes. I'm just saying if there's going to be a 5D or A4D administration, make sure that they are playing this game the way that it needs to be played and not doing things Willy nilly and half assed.

I didn't give you guys a palate cleanse the other day. I have kind of an interesting one. It was a a discussion about this molecule that's known as a myokine. If you guys are seeing right now on the screen, you're seeing both the rumble chat, you're seeing the the YouTube chat. We really appreciate you guys joining on YouTube. We just crossed 8000 Subs over there. So that's really cool to see that you guys are actually seeing it.

I know we're probably still search ban, but if you want to share it, I would very much appreciate it. So before we go on the way out, share the program wherever you're at. Tell a friend or two. You can be like Babs, our ice queen, who tells everybody. That would be fine too. I'm, I'm cool with it. I really do appreciate you guys sharing the word. We're growing the program. I'm going to give you something that's kind of interesting and helpful.

And this is actually not about standards, but it's about how everybody is rediscovering reality. The Trump administration has been sort of pretty interesting about that. One of the things is apparently doing workouts and going out and being physically fit the way that I was when I was a kid. You just went out and played like, that's what you did. You spend all your time outside, like, doing stuff, right, Climbing trees. My kids are climbing trees now. That's fun to watch.

I told my daughter to go Sprint around the pond behind her house. She did that. And it's like, yeah, just go out and run. I don't know. You're a kid. Like, run, ride your bike, go climb stuff. It turns out that's all really good for you, and they're discovering it. You don't need any antidepressants. You don't need any special medications to be happy. You just need to be physical and a human being that lives in God's creation and goes out there in the world. So here you to go.

This one's kind of fun. It's kind of a neat little clip about a new molecule discovered, which is just the thing that we always knew, which is go out and play and rub some dirt. In it, the most interesting finding of the last decade in all of science that your muscles are basically an endocrine organ that secrete hormones into your bloodstream that affect every

system of your body. And from a health point of view, your muscles, they secrete chemicals and proteins when you exercise that are also really good for your brain health, that when you contract your muscles, they literally secrete these these proteins into your bloodstream that make you resilient to stress and can protect you from depression. The scientists called them hope molecules. This idea that literally your muscles are manufacturing like

antidepressant molecules. You have to contract your muscles like that's it, but your muscles are, it's like a pharmacy in your muscles and anything you do that contracts them, walking, hiking, running, dancing, weightlifting, going to be dumping hope molecules. They work as an antidepressant and they also help people recover from trauma.

That's like a miracle. Of course it's wonderful when medications work for you, but for so many people, medications don't work or they don't do the full job. And the idea that your your muscles could provide you with the the equivalent of something like an antidepressant medication like that is just, I think it's. I think it's just proof that God loves us and that's why our bodies are built the way they are. Follow us on rumble.com/kyle Seraphin.

It's YouTube at Kyle Seraphin at Kyle Seraphin over on X and the local channel. If you want to see any of the articles, go to kyleseraphin.com. Anything that we referenced today will be up there. If you're listening after the fact, you don't like the pop up ads, go to Spotify. Real easy. Kyle Seraphin show. I should put that on the little disclaimer down there, but Kyle Seraphin Show is how you find

that. Yeah. For all of you that are feeling like you're having a rough time, knockout, a set of push ups, I don't know, do 10 of them every hour on the hour. Just set your watch and you'll feel better. I've done this many times in my life and it is really, really, it is a boon. And isn't it interesting that there's science behind it, science behind the thing that we all kind of have faith is real out there. All right, God bless all of you. We will actually have Friendly Friday tomorrow.

It is actually Thursday today. Not like I said yesterday, Don't call your wife's and tell her to put the garbage out just because Kyle Seraphin said so, just because I don't know what the hell day it is, but we really appreciate you being here. Look forward to seeing you tomorrow with my buddy Steve. We'll be talking about whatever's going on then and have a fantastic rest of your day. God bless. See you soon.

Thanks for listening to the Kyle Serafin show, streamed live weekdays on rumble.com/kyle Serafin. Follow Kyle on Twitter, Truth Social and Instagram at Kyle Serafin.