Are you familiar with FBI Special Agents Kyle Serpen? I'm familiar with the name. Is that? Yes, I'm familiar with the name, familiar with the name, familiar with the name. Let's bring in Kyle Serafin. He's the FBI whistleblower who helped expose government censorship of our First Amendment rights. Now, we only have this memo because a recently suspended FBI agent called Kyle Serafin brought it to the public, and we're grateful that he did. Kyle, thank you so much for
joining us tonight. He's the host of something that, strangely is called the Kyle Serafish. Kyle Serafi, I can't thank you enough for speaking out. I knew you guys were out there, and I knew it was just a matter of time. But you got a lot of guts put in your face and your name today. So you're doing a service on behalf of the American people. And from the bottom of my cracked and broken heart sometimes, thank you very much. 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. Today is Thursday. It is December the 5th. A good morning to all of you. Good afternoon. For those who are listening on the replay, want to welcome you and thank you for being part of
this program. We got some fun news from Spotify yesterday, which I will show a little bit later, but got a little wrap up on how the year's been going. And it's not, it's not too bad over here. We are in the small percentage of podcasts that they recognize top 5% of all video podcasts. So thanks for sharing it, Thanks for liking it. Thanks for being part of the program. For those of you who are in the live chat right now, I do appreciate it.
And if you're watching on X or if you're watching over on Rumble, if you're watching on locals, good time to remind you if you go to kyleseraphin.com, Kyle seraphin.com is how you get to our local channel. You can sign up and you can be part of our call in show, which will happen this evening where you get to call in and tell me whatever interesting weird things you have on your mind. We can talk about real topics. We can talk about aliens, we can talk about whatever you like.
And there are no rules on the call in show. It's just whatever you're into. So we look forward to talk to you guys tonight. That happens at 8:00 Eastern Time. Before we get to deeper the Weeds, let's talk about what today's going to have. We're going to talk guns, We're going to talk suppressors. We're going to talk about boosters, Pistons and devices, which you may or may not understand.
We're going to talk about, obviously, the assassination that happened in New York and the manhunt that is ongoing. What else we got. We're going to talk about some shady drops going over on the mainstream media, talking about maybe some diseases coming our way, some attempts to derail the new Trump agenda. We're going to talk about trannies. Why not?
We're going to talk about the case that is going on in the Supreme Court that was argued yesterday regarding, quote UN quote, transgender rights for children, which equals child manipulation and mutilation. Really weird stuff. Before we do anything deeper, let's say thanks to folks that make sure that we can tell you what we want the way we want the guys who sponsor our program. And we're going to do that right now with our friends over at Patriot Mobile.
Thanks so much to them. Let's let's do this thing. So if you follow me on any of the social media platforms, you'll know that even though we talk politics and even though we talk guns a little bit, mostly the thing that I care about is talking about firearms and technologies and gear. And I don't really like politics.
Like so many other people that were interested in one thing, we have to talk politics because politics is the thing that's going to come in and screw with our rights and screw with our civil liberties. And yesterday was one of those moments that only America can have if somebody was gunned down in New York City. His name is Brian Thompson. He was the CEO of United Healthcare. And he was killed by an assassin wearing a hood and an expensive backpack with a suppressed pistol on video.
And there's this just doesn't happen. It's the equivalent of people getting killed with machine guns that were legally purchased in America. It just is not a common experience. Everybody sort of thinks that the the National Firearms Act, which was institute in 1934 and limited the ability of Americans to get suppressors. Hold on a second. This is a suppressor. I have 13 of them. OK, so that's not that many for people who have tons of them,
but it's more than many of you. I've got 13 suppressors. They are a pain in the butt to get. They take the first ones. Took me 14 or 15 months of waiting for the ATF to do a basic background check, and all they do is find out that you're a federal employee and you work for the FBI, and then they sit on it forever. They collect your $200 for the privilege of it. And then I paid the government to own my own stuff. This is a little Sig suppressor for a 9mm, which is what we're
going to be talking about today. They think that the idea of the National Firearms Act, this 1934 act was created to stop assassins. If you were to ask anybody on the political left that knows nothing about guns, they think suppressors and silencers, which are the same thing. The legal term, by the way, is silencer. The industry term is suppressor. So before any of you get bent out of shape, I know what I'm talking about here and I'm just
trying to help you out. The legal term that the law uses is silencer, and that's the name of the original patent as well. When they went to go limit these, it wasn't about people assassinating people. In fact, I would say this, if gangsters and losers that are trying to commit crimes would all use suppressors, every law enforcement officer would win that gunfight. Why?
Because just like the Joker, just like that, that 55 inch long barrel on the revolver that you saw in the original Batman where he goes drawing it out, the Tim Burton one, right? He draws it out of his pants and it just keeps coming out. Keep coming out. If you have to draw an extra, what is this, 7 inches, 8 inches? Yeah. Like if you have to draw an extra 8 inches of a gun barrel out of your pants to be able to shoot at a cop, I will beat you in every single gunfight all the
time. I will outdraw you from a holster, from concealment. It doesn't matter. So it's not about assassins. They actually put this law in effect, and they included suppressors, silencers for one reason and one reason only. Poaching.
Let that sink in. The federal government banned your ability, limited your ability, restricted your ability to own, possessed, transport, and otherwise hold onto after your death and give to your, to your, to your progeny a device that is not a firearm, classified it as a firearm. You can tell this shoots 0 bullets. This is a tube. It's a tube that is made out of
3D printed titanium. That particular device is limited because of poaching, because they thought that they would be able to, that people would be able to frustrate game wardens and take game out of season. It's already illegal, all right? It's already illegal to do that. So they created another thing to try to make the technology that would allow maybe some people. It also is crazy because there's no reason why you wouldn't want to limit the sound of a gunshot.
It destroys hearing. Anybody who's been around gun ranges, they have problems with it. Tinnitus, those who serve in the military. In any case, first, I want to start with the actual story, which is right here. This is the United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, fatally shot outside of the Hilton Hotel. He was attending a conference apparently in Midtown Manhattan, and this is a target attack. So this is the timeline. You're seeing it up on the screen.
This was a little piece that was put together by the folks over at CNN at 644. He's walking alone towards the building. A couple seconds later, he is actually jumped and shot. Then you see that the shooter runs between an alleyway, 54th and 55th St. in New York City. You can see the distance to the park if you're looking at the screen here, it's only a few blocks away. So that's about 1/4 of a mile and maybe a little bit more than
that. You've got from 56 at the park, starts at 59th St. So there you kind of are. And he's on the north side of 55th, just South of 56th St. OK, so maybe three blocks, maybe 1/3 of a mile on top of that. Then they see some other things. He jumps apparently on an electric bike and beelines it directly to the park. Does a costume change, most likely, and then disappears and is now on the run. Let's hear what the experts have
to say. You guys are going to enjoy this a lot, at least I am. Let's hear what the experts have to say. A former FBI agent talking to Jake Tapper on CNN about what happened and his assessment of the shooting. And then we're going to laugh at him. So let's do that first. A suspected gunman has now been on the run since just after 6:45 AM this morning. He's believed to have used a silencer. What is the with the information we have? What does it tell you about the
sophistication of this attack? Well Jake the the details and nuances of this attack are extraordinary and they do betray an astounding level of pre planning of organization and it should also save cool headedness. And all of those things together would point towards a very competent assassin and potentially even someone who does this for hire. We know first by his use of the weapon he's carrying a 9mm semi automatic pistol. It appears to be equipped with some sort of silencer or or
suppression device. These are not things that you see on everyday ordinary homicides, drive by shootings, things like that. This is a this is a pretty advanced piece of equipment. He uses it with great precision. His timing is impeccable. He waits behind this the SUV until the target walks past. He steps out behind the target so as not to be seen. He shoots once and then follows it up with two additional shots to make sure he's got a, you
know, a complete kill. And of course, he's able to recycle the weapon to clear an ammunition jam in the middle of the attack. That shows a high degree of training on firearms, training that in in which you practice over and over how to clear a jam from a gun in the middle of a firefight. He's clearly adept at those skills. And I think the timing and the way he conducts himself also really lend to this impression that this is someone who is very serious and spend a lot of time
thinking this through. Wow. Andy, that's really good analysis there. They must pay you. Well, Andy McCabe was an FBI agent. He stopped being an FBI agent in 2003 when he became a supervisor. So he hasn't been an FBI agent that worked cases in over 21 years. And Andy didn't work on violent crimes from what I can tell. He probably has zero death investigations. Based on this. It sounds like he's never shot a suppressed weapon before.
Doesn't know anything about the things that we are talking about today. How shameful. But he did say that he thought this guy was a professional assassin, that he had a high degree of competency, that he was doing a bunch of things, you know, precision with the weapon. I'm going to go the other way with that because I know what
I'm talking about. This guy definitely thought this through, definitely has a high degree of premeditation and is absolutely not a professional and definitely doesn't do this for hire, at least not more than once, because he's going to be found after this. The odds are very high. What would make me think that maybe the people that saw him hanging out all night waiting to do this. This has personal written all over it.
All of the signs are there, including literally signs because he signed the ammo and wrote things like deny, depose, defend. It sounds like a personal vendetta against someone that has denied an insurance claim and he went after the head of this insurance company. That's the most probable thing. This is somebody that was pissed off, that made a relatively decent plan because he did get away with it, but is not a shooter.
He didn't understand the device and clearly didn't actually check his gear prior to getting involved. You know how I know that this guy's not a pro? Because you wouldn't have had this information happen. Here we go. He was here in this corner the whole night. Yeah. Who was on the corner? The guy who showed the guy. The driver told me he was hanging around the whole night waiting for the guy to shoot up. And he just inside the car waiting for him. Soon he see him.
He just shot him. There you go. That's what he knows. OK, So what he knows is, is that the dude was hanging out there all night waiting on this guy. People saw him. There's two witnesses. There was another witness who was right next to him. And let's get a little deeper into it because this is what CNN said. This is my favorite. CNN has two different pieces. Detectives believe the gunman operate in a way that suggests he was an experienced marksman.
Except the fact that he decided to shoot a guy from distance without accurately presenting the firearm using a suppressor that didn't allow the gun to cycle because he didn't test his equipment. It's really amazing. And then what you're seeing on the screen is something I grabbed out of a screen grab of that CNN video, which they they didn't want to actually show you the shooting. It was too graphic. We will show you that. Obviously. Let me throw this on the screen
a little bit bigger. This is a screen grab from the CNN video outside of that Hilton Hotel, directly the way that the shooter would have approached Brian Thompson from the rear. What you're seeing with those little dots, those circles, those red things, those are cameras and they are so visible that you can see them when it's dark outside. 1-2 and three, catching the entire angle of everything.
You know, how many professionals want to go and do a hit in front of a bunch of cameras that are going to be immediately able to be pulled by law enforcement and then used to identify them? None I'm going to play you something kind of fun right here let's see here let's let's get a little deeper into it. This is another piece that kind of tells us this is not a professional and that it's 100% personal.
The police are examining critical evidence at the scene, notably shell casings and bullets with the words deny, defend and depose written on the casings. They also found live 9mm rounds. If you believe the New York Post, and there's no reason not to, the story of the New York Post says is that essentially every single time that you see him working the slide, he's actually ejecting around. And what that tells us is a couple of things. It tells us that he approached and waited all night.
So he was seen, He went in front of a witness and multiple cameras, and then he used rounds that were written with information that he was going to leave as a message. And he had a gun that didn't cycle properly. OK, all of those things are there. So this is the actual video. I'm going to play you a little loop of the guy doing the shooting. Let's throw it on the screen here and take a look. This is Brian Thompson in the blue suit.
He goes walking past the doors. The guy levels the gun in what I call the tomahawk motion. More on that in a second. Fires one round, has to has to re racket, fires another round has to re racket, slams the gun from the back, which means that the gun was not going into battery and then goes and finishes him off with another shot. Now, all of this is horrific. And I'm I'm truly sorry that this is something that we are morbidly fascinated by.
I really am, because being fascinated by the stuff is a distinctly American weird moment. But this doesn't happen in our country. That's why people don't do St. side assassinations the way that you see in Latin American countries. This happens all the time in Colombia and in Venezuela and in places like Brazil where people are going to drive up and some guy on the back of a motorcycle levels a pistol, drop somebody on the side of the road and then drives off on the motorcycle or
whatever. And they're wearing a hood and they're wearing a helmet and they're wearing a backpack and they got a handgun to make it happen. That's a thing that happens in Latin America regularly in all kinds of different countries. We don't have that happen. Let me tell you how I know this guy isn't a pro. Here's the loop again. Look, if you just followed this man for another 15 steps, you are now out of the camera and then into the dark. You're standing.
Look at the witness sitting there that just turns and runs completely. There's no doubt that this is premeditated and there's no doubt that this person is is focused in on. There's no robbery. There's no care about the witness, but we're talking about somebody that didn't know what he was doing with firearms. So let's get a little deeper into it. There's a man that goes by the name of Mr. Guns and Gear.
His first name is Mike. And Mike is talking about the problem of not having a Nielsen device, which is why this guy is not a professional. It's why he didn't know how to test his gear. Seriously, if you, if you make a suppressor illegally, which is what we're talking about here.
If you illegally create your own suppression device and you mount it onto a pistol and you were going to go do an assassination in New York City of all places, which has a police force like close to 50,000 men and women strong. And you didn't test out your gear with what I would call a yard pop? Or you didn't fill up a bucket with sand and drop a couple rounds in there to make sure the gun cycled? How nuts are you? Should you be shooting in your yard?
Probably not. Should you be dropping it into the He could have gone over to the Hudson and dropped it off. He's not far enough away. He could have done it in Central Park for God's sake and seen that this thing actually worked. Like behind a tree. There are places that you can go if you're if you have a decent suppressor and subsonic ammo, which is the claim he had subsonic ammo and it won't cycle
the gun. There's all kinds of idiots that are making this claim that could be true, but it doesn't have a problem on any of the weapons that I have. The guy's not a pro. OK, We're going to show you the Nielsen device. I'm going to show you a video of, of it being used. So you'll hear a bunch of gunshots if you're listening and that the, the clinks of the
steel. And then on top of that, I'm going to show you there's a, a graphic that I'm going to direct your attention to. And then I'm going to show you the actual device because I've got 1 sitting right here. So you can see how these things work, how they don't work. OK, so you're seeing in the corner the way that little device works. That device looks like this in real life, OK. And it's on the bottom of this little SIG suppressor that I've got. And I want to show you it's a spring.
Let's go over here. It's a spring and it's a piston. This is where the threads are that lock into the barrel. This is what locks up with the actual suppressor. This is the spring that moves it. And this is a little kind of canister that holds it all together. This is the Nielsen device. If you have one of these, it will run your Glock pistol, your semi automatic striker fired stuff, OK. The big difference is this, if you know what you're doing, you're not going to use a gun like that.
Let's do guns. I brought some. OK, this is a clear Glock pistol. The difference is, and this is probably what he used, something to this effect, a striker fire. That's either M and PA Glock. It doesn't matter if it's a Sig or anything else. The way these things work is that when you push them backwards to cycle, the barrel drops downward. The barrel has to drop out of the way in order to cycle the gun, which is what happens when it goes back.
If it doesn't come all the way forward, the gun will not seat. It'll put the bullet in the chamber, but it won't chamber the round fully and you won't be able to strike it. That's why. Why? This guy had to pull the gun backwards and he's rejecting live rounds, which is what they found. Multiple live 9mm rounds on the ground. The alternative is using a gun like this, which has a fixed barrel. This is a Sig P322. So that was a Glock 17 clone. This is a Sig.
Look, you'll notice the barrel doesn't move anywhere. It's the slide moves on its own. People that are serious about doing something like this, if you were a professional, you would make sure that your weapon system was actually competent and capable of delivering the round that you wanted to do so you don't have to wait. This guy's not a pro, OK? Regardless of what anyone has to say about it, it doesn't make any bit of sense. He sat there. He got picked up by the by the cops on the video.
And the best thing is, is CNN ran Andy McCabe and then also 20 minutes later ran this story, which makes me laugh. This is not a professional killer. Finally, a voice of sanity, a guy named Zeke Unger was brought on. He's a liaison of the United States Marshall Service. As I said, the marshals are the manhunters. They are capable of doing this kind of work, and this bounty hunter says that there's no way it's a pro. His mannerisms do not reflect
that of a professional killer. Obviously, if you've been around shooters, you understand that the presentation of the gun like this here, let's lock this thing back. If you do this tomahawk motion, it's very movie like.
It's very Larpy. Writing your messages on a bullet is very Larpy. It's very much like something you'd expect to find in an action movie, but it's not what real serious people do. If that guy was serious, he would have walked twenty more feet, shot him in the leg in the dark, put one in the back of his head and left and you would have never even heard it. He would have never introduced the pistol into the visual range of cameras or witnesses.
You would keep it as close to your body as possible. I'm not telling you how to kill people. I'm just saying there are better ways to go about doing this stuff. And for all of the amateur like assassin sleuths that are out there, and Reddit's full of them, and I know Twitter is as well, they don't know what they're talking about. So let's just be real about it. Let's just be honest. It's a really sad moment for that guy's family. It's a really interesting moment
for American law enforcement. And the worst part of it, which I'm sure is going to be the only thing that we're really going to see out of any of this. Hopefully they catch the killer. I don't want that guy to get away. It's a terrible decision to go kill somebody that runs a
company. But the most likely thing is that we're going to see a bunch of pressure from people on the political left talking about how dangerous silencers are suppressors and the reason why that's critical as we get Donald Trump in the office for the second time and he's looking, you know, Pam Bondi, you guys can say what you want about
that. But when it comes down to it, his son, Donald Trump junior, he's very pro gun, he's very pro suppressor, has talked about moving legislation forward. We've heard Trump say concealed carry reciprocity. All of these things are good indications for those of us that
are Second Amendment types. You're going to get the left bouncing up and using an argument that was never made in the National Firearms Act. There's going to be a push that suppressors create assassins, and they have this great video that is going to push it forward. It is an object of opportunity for the left. So I want you to know why it was created and why that law was there and why it has nothing to do with potential assassins on
American city streets. People carrying suppressed weapons are actually a benefit to law enforcement when it comes to actually engaging with those people. And if somebody ambushes you with a suppressed or otherwise weapon, you're already screwed. Ambushes work for a reason. It's because they get outside of what they call the OODA loop, your ability to make decisions and be able to protect yourself. And so you have these things. They're a real problem.
Any ambush will take down more skilled, more capable, more trained people if you catch them off guard at the right time. All right. And as kind of evidence of that, I'm going to pivot to one quick story here because there is something that's going on right now on Capitol Hill today, in addition to getting the Daniel Penny verdict, which will be very interesting. Again, a New York City story.
They're in the news quite a bit. The Secret Service director, the guy who stepped in since the last one stepped down, Ronald Rowe, is going to be grilled over the Trump assassination attempt and where they are in the investigation and what they found with the failings and the faults of the Secret Service. So you'll remember this happened in Butler, PA, July the 13th. How recently was that? And it is out of the news because we have moved so wildly and so quickly on to the next
story. The ability to rebuild public trust in the Secret Service is a critical thing. We haven't heard Donald Trump say that he's going to name somebody new to run the Secret Service. So it'll be interesting to see how that plays out.
And I don't have any insight information and I'm not here to give you any of it, but it's worth knowing that in this insane time that we are living, that this story is kind of out of the news and maybe it should bring it back in, especially with the Secret Service director talking out there. We need to know that the people that are in our political offices, the JD Vance types, the the Donald Trump's, we don't
need Joe Biden assassinated. We don't know anybody assassinated in political office. That is the third world stuff. And that is the darkest reason. The fact that the left was not upset about this, that they were people, including people in the FBI like Jenna Howell, who we've exposed on social media, people who were cheering on the assassination attempt of Donald Trump, it tells you how sad our
our dialogue is right now. It lets you know that we are not a country that has any potential of healing. It's one of the reasons why I think Cash Patel is going to be so important for FBI director because he actually can heal some of the agencies that have sown that distrust, my former agency being one of them. It'd be really nice to see that.
So while I'm talking about the the New York stuff, there's also a pretty decent chance that Mark Naughton is going to be covering the verdict delivery if it's delivered today in the Daniel Penney case. God willing, that man will be acquitted and let go and go back to his life and he will move away from New York where he can own weapons like a regular
person and not deal with that. But for those of you who are in New York, whether it be New York City or New York State, if you're captured by New York City and they're terrible politics, the penny verdict is going to be a very strong indication to you about where your fellow citizens in that state lie. We're going to talk a little bit more about states rights. I guess. They do have the ability to regulate certain things. There's a reason why you should
vote with your feet. There are plenty of people who are commentating. The number one other show that people listen to, if they listen to me, is Dan Bongino. And you guys know he always asks, is it bad enough? And that's a reasonable question. And when you see this verdict come down, like I said, God willing, he will be acquitted. But on the on the chance that they do what New Yorkers often do, because there were people chanting the word guilty outside yesterday in a protest.
Truly atrocious, truly awful to think about that that he may end up being not just going through the the process here, but actually being found guilty. And and I don't have a lot of faith in a New York jury as as most of you probably don't either. It's a good reason I would think to move. Let's go ahead and do a quick read for our sponsor Patriot Cooler because they are people that we believe in and that we do appreciate. Guys, it's Patriot coolers.com. The the Black Friday sale is
over, the Cyberweek sales over. Many of you guys took advantage of it. I haven't even got the numbers yet yet. We're going to do a live reading. I will announce it before we do it and I will make sure I play it on the social medias as well in a clip. But we're doing a live reading of the giveaway for all of you that use that promo code during that time. Go to patriotcoolers.com if you're interested in getting anything on there like this.
The 19 oz coffee mug. This one is my favorite for keeping as much much coffee as necessary warm even during the show and it's currently warm as it sits next to me. Promo code Kyle saves you 10% Kyle. Just my name Kyle. Like most of our promo codes, it will save you a couple of bucks. If you guys spend 50 bucks or more, you'll get free shipping. It makes an outstanding gift.
And since they ship from the United States of America with the warehouses that I believe they're in Houston cuz that's how fast it got to me like overnight. I actually told them once and they sent me something and I got it there in the morning, which is crazy. Check them out and you will be able to use them even for your last minute gift shopping ideas. Patriot coolers.com. Again, stick around for the idea that we will do the giveaway.
It's going to be two tumblers and a small cooler for anybody who used it. And last but not least, you can always find the Kyle Seraphin show collection in the show notes. If you don't know how to do that. If you were looking on Rumble, just hit expand or show me more and it'll give you the notes that all the links are right there. OK, so let's go. Let's go to states rights because we're talking about Daniel Penny.
We're talking about some of the things out here that go on that things are supposed to be a little bit different in each state. The left, oh God, that went too fast. Oh, they hate it. They hate the idea that the federal government can't come in and tell all people to do the thing that they want unless the state is doing the thing that they like already.
So whenever states rights benefit people on the left, they want to nationalize it. And whenever the national platform is or whenever the state platform is not good, they want to nationalize it. So they want to make it go and get pushed down. So they're all about bottom up, top down, as long as it favors their position. They don't actually have any principles on this. I'm kind of OK with some of these horrible things going on in states that suck because people will vote with their
feet. They're allowed to and they're able to and they need to. The Supreme Court, being reported here by CBS, is likely to uphold Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for kids. I've got a couple of the arguments being made by the dumbest member of the Supreme Court. How do I know she's the dumbest? Because she says the most. They've done a quick analysis of the the the highest number of words spoken by Supreme Court justices and arguments in this term and the lowest number and
you can basically rank them. How smart you are equals how little you say. It means you're concise, it means you are thoughtful, and it means you are listening. You already know what the argument is. You'll be shocked to learn Clarence Thomas, the least number of words spoken, as usual, and Ketanji Jackson Browne, the most number of words spoken. Here's a little clip of her from that hearing that went on yesterday, the oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court.
And she's going to make the argument that transgender identifying children, which is kind of like trans housing by parent, is it not by proxy sick people who decided to mutilate their kids so they can show off to their friends at brunch. It's a lot like trying to marry a black lady or a black man if you're a white person in the 1950s.
Anytime that you see a lawyer in the Supreme Court using the expression back in the day, I feel like that's probably an indication that we have someone that is too young and maybe not serious enough to be on the court. Here's KB JKJB take your pick giving her take about how it's about something called The Loving Decision, which was a strike down of interracial marriages being outlawed at the
state level. They sound in the same kinds of arguments that were made back in the day, fifties, 60s, with respect to racial classifications and inconsistencies. I'm thinking in particular about loving and I'm wondering whether you thought about the parallels because I see one as to how this statute operates and how the anti miscegenation statutes in Virginia operated.
Yes. And and I think the court has recognized that the equal protection clause was was intended to force some changes in society and get us to think more closely about the way that people were being classified, including when that was based on overbroad generalizations of how we expect them to to live and order their affairs.
And the court has made that clear in the sex discrimination cases as well, where it said sometimes these laws operate to disadvantage someone who falls outside the average description and that person needs the protection of the court. Well, and everything I thought what was most interesting about the potential comparison to Loving is that in that case, everyone seemed to concede upfront that a racial classification was being drawn by the statute.
That was sort of like the starting point. The question was whether it was discriminatory because it applied to both races and it wasn't, you know, necessarily invidious or whatever. But, you know, as I read the statute here, the, excuse me, the case here, you know, the court starts off by saying that Virginia is now one of 16 states which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications. There's more of that.
The name of this case is the United States versus Committee, which is a reference to the Attorney General Jonathan's Committee of Tennessee. I want you to understand that our tax dollars, that's why the US Solicitor general was the
person. The US solicitor general was the one that was making that argument on behalf of the American people because that's what we want our government doing, getting involved in suing the state for having a law that the people of Tennessee wanted that their legislature through the democratic process that you always hear about on the left. That's what they pushed forward. That's truly incredible that that's what's going on here. Now this is even funnier.
Double down. Same thing, same justice, same argument, making even more and saying, hey, look, I, I think I'm making the right comparison here. Can you can, am I making your argument correctly? It's nice to see these non partial, non partisan justices, right? Of course they're not. Of course they're not. This is an advocate on the court for insanity and we are actually listening. I'm going to show you something in a second, actual little
transcripts. I'm not going to give you the the voice and maybe I will, maybe I will of the of the lead ACLU attorney, but we've got we're actually taking this like this is a real discussion that anybody should be having. It's completely absurd. Listen to this. Maybe I'll just ask you to react to my loving parallel because I'm getting kind of nervous. Is that in loving those same kinds of scientific arguments were made.
So I'm, I'm reading here where the court says the argument is that if the Equal Protection Clause does not outlaw miscegenation statutes because of their reliance on racial classifications, the question of constitutionality would thus become whether there was any rational basis for a state to treat interracial marriages differently from other
marriages. On this question, the State argues the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt and consequently, the Court should defer to the wisdom of the state legislature. Oh. OK, and they're going to talk about science in training surgeries. As you guys said in the chat, Sotomayor was the first dumbest and now she is relegated to the second dumbest. And you'll be shocked to find that she said the second most number of words.
These loony Lib women just talking on the court, they're bad at this game. So not to be outdone, we now have Matthew Rice. He's the solicitor general for Tennessee. He's defending this on behalf of the people of Tennessee, on behalf of the attorney general of Tennessee, being asked really simple questions about medical treatments and saying, aren't these substantial the same? And then he just lays them out in a way that is it's incontrovertible that they are not the same.
How about how does puberty work for boys and girls when you give cross sex hormones? This is overwhelming here and I'm going to show you a little bit more. They cannot get their heads around the fact that this is not even a close to scientific argument. It's nonsensical. Individual level that if there is a line that is being drawn based off of race, like in Loving where you had a white male who could not who could not marry an African American female under that law that is a race
based line. You are creating multiple groups of permissible and impermissible behavior based off of race. Where we differ from from our friends on the other side is we just don't think that there is any sex faceline in this I. Don't understand why not. I mean, these laws, the law here operates in the same way. There, there, the question of can you marry this other person depended upon what your race was. You could marry the other person if it was the same, consistent with your race.
You couldn't if you couldn't, and I take your law to be doing basically the same thing. You can get these blockers if doing so is consistent with your sex, but not if it's inconsistent. So how are they different? We think it's different because we think in their use of inconsistent with sex and all these examples that they have in the briefing, those actually do create separate categories of conduct that is permissible either based on sex or based on
race. But in this case, the only way that they can point to a sex baseline is to equate fundamentally different medical treatments. Giving giving testosterone to a boy with a deficiency is not the same treatment as giving it to a girl who has psychological distress associated with her body. These are this is. This is not only.
Your faces for saying that, I'm sorry, is it just because of the why they're asking for it or is there some kind of medical I I took the SG to be saying that it operates on the body in the same way. So what? What's your basis for saying not the same? I don't think it operates on the on the body in the same way.
Take testosterone. If you give a boy with the deficiency testosterone because he has constitutional delayed puberty that allows him to go through the the and develop the reproductive organs associated with being a male. If you give it to a girl, it renders the girl infertile. So we have a into. If you give it to a girl, she's infertile, she's sterilized. If you give it to a boy, it
makes him normally develop. This is the stupidest, the fact that we were even discussing it. But that's probably why I think I've got a little clip here so you can hear the voice before I show a little bit of the transcript of this Chase Strangio, a female dressed as a man taking hormones in order to have like, a mediocre little mustache. Beard I would say nobody has to provide this this medication to.
OK, so I didn't, I didn't even size the video properly, but like, just so you guys know, that is the voice that is reading the following transcripts. Justice Alito asking counsel, I don't think you had a chance to answer, to finish answering my question whether transgender, sorry, I better say this properly because it's important whether transgender status is immutable. This is the big question here. And I'm getting this from my buddy Etam Heim. You cited a bunch of other
criteria, but is it immutable? The question is transgenderism, is that an immutable thing? Because, you know, you're setting up a trap here, right? We've all watched the left get so stupid about things that they call gender, which they think are differential from biological sex.
And now in that tiny little weird voice that you just heard, I, I, I, I think that the record shows that that the discordance between a person's birth sex and gender identity has a strong biological basis and would would satisfy the immutability test. Man, I'm having a hard time getting some of these words out. OK, sex, gender, strong biological basis, immutable. This is the argument. Are you ready?
And then I think that the distinguishing characteristic is to have a birth sex that does not align with or a gender that does not align with one's birth sex. So it may include people who have different understandings of their gender identity, but I think it's still the distinguishing characteristic of birth sex and gender identity that are incongruent. This doesn't make any sense to a normal human being. What you're saying is that gender fluidity, which is something the left continues to
argue. It's all based on your thoughts, your impression, your feeling, which could change. That is by its very nature not immutable. You're making an argument that's really obvious to the Supreme Court justices that are not absolutely out of their damn minds. It can't be because these people change back. It's like enter the D transitioners. What about those people?
Did they have an immutable gender that was not changed when they decided to cut off their body parts and then they regretted it later and they've come back. I get that you don't like them because they destroy your argument. Once again, it's a number of of of the objection from liar, liar objection. Your honor, what's your what's your what's the reason for your objection? He says because you're totally destroying my case, not because there's any reason.
I just have a bad argument. My argument cannot stand. On its own, that's what we're dealing with. We're dealing with wild people saying stupid things we can't help. But here's the nicest version of this argument being made, something that people should just listen to. If you're one of these folks that is like, well, I have a lot of sympathy for people that want to cut off their own penis or want to just, you know, cut off their breasts and, and, and have some sort of surgical necrotic
tissue turned into a phallus. If you're that person, here's Coleman Hughes on CNN making a very reasonable argument. Far too nice for my taste, but appropriate for the audience of people that probably listen to CNN are looking for something a little bit more balanced. How about this? There's no consensus, so maybe just hold off on destroying children's lives. Coleman, your thoughts on that? Yeah, well, I think it's a it's a controversial procedure we've
seen in the past few years. Places like Norway and the UK have re evaluated their guidelines on it, which goes to show that the science is not settled on whether this is the best way to approach gender dysphoria in minors. You see, in states, you know, states are allowed to regulate lots of things. You're not allowed to get a tattoo. You're not allowed to get certain procedures. You're not allowed. You know, states have banned all kinds of medical procedures for
minors. And so I think it's an issue that is probably best left with the states at this point in history until the science becomes much more settled on what actually is the very best gold standard scientific protocol for kids with gender dysphoria. What do you mean? I think we, I think we have that gold standard. This is medical best practice as determined by a number of national and global health organizations that says this type of Healthcare is life
saving and medically necessary. So there you go. It is life saving except the fact that it relates to, and it was brought up in the discussions at least as many suicides, if not more suicides. So it's not life saving. It might actually be life taking, but it certainly is life altering to the point where if you sterilize somebody, their life will be decidedly different. Of course, the left took this in stride.
They decided to go to their friends in the halls of Congress and stage what I've been reasonably told is called an insurrection in the ladies room. They're really mad about Nancy Mace trying to say something. You don't have to let like Nancy Mace, you just have to know that men are men and women are women, and if you can stand up to pee, you have to go and do it at a urinal in the men's room. The end.
If you're a dude, you got to go to the men's room or you should see dudes dragging you out of the ladies room because that's appropriate. Instead they decided to do a political protest which resulted in zero FBI by attention. You guys will be shocked to learn. And here is a weird meet me in the ladies room meeting. That wasn't it. Where is it?
Stand by. OK, so you've got a bunch of men here, creepy men, queer identifying females or whatever the heck this stuff is. Dancing, laying out, obviously making a scene, staging a TikTok video, women who shave their heads, men who have long hair, and they're doing what I think is generally referred to as insurrection. If you do it inside the United States Capitol. This was done yesterday. Again, no attention by federal law enforcement. You don't see any Capitol Police
officers in there. Nobody's getting hit with rubber bullets, nobody's getting tear gassed, nobody's being arrested or LED out. And Bill Shipley accurately pointed out the federal statutes, which would be improper parading. It's a trespassing charge. It can be punishable by up to six months in jail, particularly if you're in Washington. DCI guess that's only if you're
a conservative. It seems like something that should actually be taken into account if we believed in fairness, but obviously we do not. And we obviously know, we totally know that this is the reason why Donald Trump got put into got put into the next spot. He's lined up. Oh, they're, they're they're touching the toilets. We're doing fake pole dancing. That seems gross. There's people licking their hands. Did you see that? You really want to lick your hands in a government clean
bathroom? There's something wrong. That's another type of mental disorder. All right, so that's enough on that. I got a little deep into the weird transgender thing here. And because it was a protest that was going on across the world from Washington, DC, which is not America, into Montana America, which is America, at least part of it is, but certainly not in the areas like Helena where they have the state Assembly. Here you have Montana lawmakers
crossing the aisle. So some Republicans went over as well. This bothers me in a big way because I want to move to Montana. I want to live in Montana. I love Montana, I love what Montana is about. I despise that urban areas in Montana are like urban areas everywhere else. They're full of weirdos, sketchy weirdos like this one called Zoe Zephyr. Zoe Zephyr's name is actually
not Zoe Zephyr originally. That's a man with a big Adam's apple, very long neck and a bunch of long hair standing there getting a bunch of folks to go and stand in the bathroom to say you cannot ban me from the bathroom because trans
nonsense. You'll be shocked to learn that the story comes from NPR, who believes that at least 60% of the world's population are trans, including those in Uganda and Canada, Kenya. If you listen to the NPR, you will get a solid smattering of like between 40 and 60% scent of transgender news from across the globe. Lawmakers in Montana crossed the lines this week to reject a measure that would have banned transgender representatives from using the women's bathroom in the state Capitol.
I don't understand how this is even remotely controversial. The proposed rule would have designated 2 bathrooms located in the House chambers and the Senate chambers as male and female and require the legislators to use the ones that were assigned with their sex chromosomes that they got from their parents at birth, which is to say the innate nature of their humanity. They didn't name Zoe Zephyr, but Zoe Zephyr was of course the person that they were targeting
with this bill. And then I started getting really curious, What the hell is Zoe Zephyr's real name? The name Zoe Zephyr by itself tells me that we are talking about something called Woman Face. It is dudes pretending to be women in the way that only men could think about women, which is that it's about some silly name like a damn cartoon or a, or a drag, you know, dance off Zoe Zephyr would be a really bad drag queen name.
And the fact that a human being who was elected to state office uses that as their moniker, it's bizarre. So who is the real Zoe Zephyr? This is an article from a guy named Jeremy Karl. He's at the Claremont Institute. He's a senior fellow. And this is the radical transgender activist who held the Mons Montana legislator hostage. Kind of an interesting little story here. Who? This person is Zoe Zephyr's true name, apparently when when dug into is someone named Zachary Rash RAASCH.
So who's Zachary Rash? Zachary Rash was a high school wrestler, apparently a gay man because he's married to another man that dresses up like a woman. We're talking about woman face. We're talking about decorating yourself in the vestiges of what a woman might be externally like putting on high heels and pearls. That has nothing to do with what women are like. My wife never wears high heels, not ever, not ever. When she does, it freaks me out because I don't know what she's
doing. I don't know where we're going, but I know I better be in a suit. If my wife happens to have the one pair that she probably has of heels, If she has on makeup, it gets called out like her mother goes, you put on makeup, what's going on? She's like three times a year I do that. So what? These people spend all their time putting on the vestiges of what a woman is.
So this guy who who wrote the article again, Jeremy Carl lives in Bozeman and wanted to write out, he says that that Zachary Roush was born in Billings, Mt, grew up there, went to Washington state where he was a champion high school wrestler, didn't take his new name until 2019, which is why it's hard to find much about who he was as a young person. He was disowned by his conservative Christian parents
when he decided to transition. He abandoned a master's thesis at the University of Montana that he was working on that was interested in transhumanism and the melting of man and machine through technological enhancements of the human body. This is a person that sounds deeply disordered, not because you're interested in transhumanism, although I think
that's pretty awful. This is a rejection of all all the things Christianity, conservatism, rational things that happen in the world, and probably like all the cautionary tales that some of us learned about mixing men and machines. Like maybe he never saw the Terminator 'cause he's too young. He's been dating slash married to a guy named Anthony Reed, who goes by Aaron Reed, another prominent transgender person, both in Montana.
I don't know how people end up weird and sick like this, but they do. So there you have it. And so there are pictures of little Zachary you can see here. That's young Zachary and that's him today and is pretending it's a it's a national crisis that it made it to. I do think it is it's a national crisis that we have that being argued in front of the Supreme Court. I I constantly make the argument we are not a serious nation. We are we used to be a proper nation.
The same people that would have been sort of like up in arms about women shooting bikinis in the desert because they were machine guns and like outside of the Las Vegas in Nevada in the 80s are the same people now that would celebrate this idiot dressing up with fake boobs and long hair and pretending to be a woman and using like standing up and pissing in the women's bathroom with his Dong hanging out.
It's craziness. I don't know how we got here, but we did and we are far too gentle about it. Let's go to a couple other little things. Some some of the craziness. The meltdown continues about the Biden pardon. Apparently the the folks in the Democrat Party now are getting told to go out on on national television and tell everyone that they were behind it and they were always behind it and they supported it.
So here is James Clyburn and he's a representative from South Carolina. He's one of the reasons why Joe Biden got supposedly the votes that he did with the black folks in America when he did. If you believe that he did, which we don't necessarily, but here he is saying he actually not just is OK with it, he actually encouraged it. He said he should totally go out there and pardon his son.
Kind of fun. Then I'm going to have the alternate take, which is Dumber from New York by Dan Goldman in one second here. OK with the pardon of Hunter Biden. Well, first of all, thank you very much for having me. I am absolutely OK with it. I don't know how many people urged him to do so, but I did. You did. Yes, I did, because I know he was targeted. We all know that. But for the fact he was Joe Biden's son, he would never have been taken through these gyrations.
Gyrations. I like the idea of gyrations. We saw some gyrations in that bathroom video, didn't we, where they were gyrating on there trying to dance. This guy's a clown. Let me just tell you something that is very true. Depending on where you live in America, you could find yourself not charged for very significant gun crimes at the federal level, or you could find yourself charged for the most minute thing that would barely even fit
into the statute. There is a huge degree of variance in the way that local prosecutors approach criminal activity. Now, he's probably right that in Washington, DC and in Maryland, you're probably not going to see that. I don't know about Delaware.
I didn't work Delaware. But the odds are in the lefty leaning places, you probably wouldn't see AUS prosecutor, United States attorney's office, OK, an AUSA, the assistant United States Attorney that the federal frontline prosecutors doing that kind of work, You probably wouldn't.
But where I worked in New Mexico, we had an AUSA who charged a known drug addict with violations of 18 USC 922, which is some of the stuff that Hunter Biden is looking at for having a single round of 22 ammunition in his pocket, no gun, and didn't have a felony conviction. But the statute is broad enough and can be applied enough. And that guy did prison time. And you can get up to 10 years for that.
So don't tell me that nobody would have targeted Andrew Biden. It's not that they targeted him because he did one thing bad and they were waiting as a gotcha and they sprung the trap. The dude is basically been dirty. And like we have video of him smoking crack with what looks like underage hookers. Give me a flip and break. They're making this argument.
The best argument is that the change in the administration is so dangerous to America that Joe Biden better run after and pardon all of his friends, from Doctor Fauci to his son to anybody else, maybe to himself. Dan Goldman's making the argument. The funny thing is, we've had the same political left tell us that the only people who need pardons are criminals. Why would these people need pardons if they weren't involved in documented federal crimes?
It doesn't stop the states from going after him for whatever that's worth too. Which is why the Daniel Penney thing is so bad. It's a state charge. So there's nothing that Donald Trump could do in January if he is not acquitted. Just be aware there's a difference. You can only acquit federal charges if you are the the US president. Governors have to deal with the state charges.
Here's Dan Goldman making a an argument that seems to say everybody that is in the Biden administration might be involved in criminality. That seems like something to look into. I think the fact that they have to have that discussion says everything about Cash, Patel and Donald Trump's nominees. There is no reason why any president must consider preemptive pardons because the incoming administration has made it so clear that they will go
after political adversaries. And Cash Patel has been incredibly vocal about that. And I hope that the Senate Republicans, who know Joe Biden very well and know he does not, would not take something like this lightly, really consider the fact that that's even part of this discussion about Cash Patel. He is unqualified. He is unhinged. He has made it very clear that he is out for retribution. He is sending cease and desist
letters and lawsuits. This is a dangerous person to head up our top law enforcement agency. And just the fact that this is even part of the conversation says everything that the Senate Republicans should need to hear. It says everything they should need to hear. You know what they heard? They heard that you just called him a dangerous person. That's the same thing that you called Donald Trump, who just won overwhelmingly in every single swing state. So there you have it.
That's what you should hear. He's a dangerous person, per Dan Goldman, dipshit extraordinaire. So let it be done. Bring on the Cash Patel. I've got this article here. This is coming from NBC. This is the first of like a semi hit piece. It's actually relatively fair for NBC. So good on them for at least kind of getting the story closer to correct than most people would. Cash Patel once said he would quote UN quote come after journalists. That now hangs over his FBI candidacy.
No, it doesn't. It just hangs over the things that you want to say. I had an NBC journalist ask me the same question and and I answered it in a very similar way, which is to say if there's criminality, then it then you should have someone come after you, which is exactly what Cash meant and said. Here is some relatively fair
quoting from the article. They said now that Cash Patel is running to head one of the most powerful agencies in the United States government, the question of whether he will be really able to come after journalists is troubling on both sides of the aisle and is likely to become a central point of contention. If he comes out for Senate
confirmation. It's only going to be a point of contention, by the way, because NBC is trying to make it 1, if we actually believe it. 1 Senator called his remarks vile. That senator is not named. Go figure. Go on record with that clown. Patel has privately conceded that he publicly needs to clean up that remark, according to an ally of Trump who's spoken with him. No, he doesn't, because he actually cleaned it up by talking to them. Because he said exactly what
normal people say. Take it in context. A hole. In a brief interview with NBC News in February, Patel laughed off the notion that he was hell bent on attacking reporters and even praised them as invaluable. Well, that doesn't sound right. At least they're reporting it here. He backed off his tough talk with where he he did it with Steve Bannon, saying that his words were blown out of proportion. Added that he meant for his threat to apply only the people
that had broken the law. That's actually implied. This is a guy who's been a federal what? Oh yeah, public defender, he said. Quote, I would love for you to go back and get the whole quote, and I appreciate you letting me talk about it. That full quote kind of speaks for itself. It was 3 words taken out of two sentences. But I basically said we're going to use the Constitution and the courts of law to go after people criminally and civilly dot dot,
dot, if they broke the law. I have to back off the mic on this. This is obvious to anybody. They're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. This was a question that was brought up to me while I discussed something with an NBC reporter. We'll see how that article turns out. I'm still waiting on seeing it. But the fact of the matter is, is I would be, I would be appalled if I found out that there was an instinct or a, or even a mechanism to target
reporters. For those of you that remember, I'm not a big fan of James O'Keefe as a human being. I haven't been a big fan of James O'Keefe for a long time, long before I met him. I just didn't think he was great. What I do know is that James O'Keefe, Project Veritas, people who do undercover type journalism like that, which I'm not a big fan of all the time, Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. They have a right to practice journalism.
They are the press in the same way that I am the press in the same way, damn it that you are the press because you have a social media account. And I would go to the mat. And I believe that Cash Patel would too because I've never had any conversation that would that would indicate otherwise. He would go to the mat because the Constitution is the overarching principle. If you're going to be a constitutionalist, you just stick by what it is.
It turns out some people incriminate themselves and they do dumb things. A lot of people don't and having tough talk and rhetoric is not that big of a deal. It really isn't. Let me drop a couple things on you that are developing in the background worth knowing. First of all, Trump's IRS pick. Kind of a little light hearted moment here. This is a guy named Billy Long. He's a former representative from Texas. He's also apparently an auctioneer.
This is the new IRS pick talking about the national debt. Worth hearing this kind of fun. We are one of the few people that can actually keep up with a national debt. Now I'm going to trillion, 2 trillion now three able to bomb 13 and 4. Four trillion dollar 5-5 trillion 6006 trillion 7 equal to 5-7 trillion 88 trillion dollar 9991010101111 trillion here. 12/12/2013 You're out of here. 13 trillion, 1414 trillion now 15.
I have sold at 14 trillion. Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, we also can say those numbers backwards so we get the spending under control here. I'll be back. It's pretty charming. That was in 2011, back when the debt wasn't nearly as insane. I've got some other stuff that I want to cover. We're going to go ahead and do
it tomorrow. Peter Hotez dropping some clues about what's going to happen in January and some of the influenza pandemic, dangerous viruses that are going to come and stop the American people in their tracks and try to stop the Trump agenda. We'll deal with that tomorrow. We got the call in show tonight. I'm also going to talk to you tomorrow about a Monsanto immunity bill in 737 is the House bill that is trying to get passed in there.
Let's go ahead and do our pallet because we've gone fairly long and I want to get to the American Radicals podcast. If you guys are not aware, they are going to be broadcasting right after us and I will dump you in there if you are watching on Rumble. And if you did not just go find them. They're at Amradpod on X, they're on Twitter and they are on rumblerumble.com/amradpod.
OK, here is your palate cleanse. We talked a little bit about LAR Ping and people who think that they're in a movie or whatever else with this assassin guy. How about people who go after Samuel L Jackson, who I love my. Son was attacked by because you saw you in deep blue sea. How's that even my fault? My son is a 22 year old overweight nerd living in my basement because you decided to do Star Wars and my son has a severe peanut allergy because of you.
There he is. Hey, hey, you stalking me? I have a son who's in prison because you were in Shawshank Redemption. I wouldn't need me. That was Morgan Freeman. Well, you anyway. I got a kid who's an insomniac because you never sleep in your movies. My 3 year old saw you in Django Unchained. Now she can't stop saying the N word. You let your kid watch Django? OK everybody listen, I know I play some bad dudes in movies, OK? But if my pictures on the poster, maybe your kid shouldn't watch it.
Don't you people read the descriptions of these movies before you show them to your kids? Huh. Look at the ratings that's. Your responsibility, not mine. See, I can be a monster. You could be a role model. No big deal. Yeah, look at the ratings. Take care of your own kids. Don't let them cut off their genitals. Go out there and love your neighbors. Go out there and get to know who the people are so that we can get some consensus in this country and stop having
ridiculous Supreme Court cases. And for God's sake, learn something about guns if you're ever going to go talk about it on CNN. Nothing worse than ignorance being propagated by people who should know and don't. Anyway, thanks for coming here to be part of the program. I appreciate all of you. I appreciate you sharing it. If you get a chance, make sure you leave a comment over there on Spotify as we continue to grow. And Oh yeah, I was going to show you this here. Do I have it? Boom.
Look at that. Your show was in the top 5% of video podcast on Spotify. That's the top 15,000 is what I can tell. They got about 300,000 video podcasts. So thanks for making the Kyle Seraphin show what it is. God bless all of you. Look forward to see you soon. And American Radicals coming up next. Thanks for listening to the Kyle Seraphin show, streamed live weekdays on rumble.com/kyle Seraphin. Follow Kyle on Twitter, Truth Social and Instagram at Kyle Seraphin.