PIRATES! "Take what you can, Give NOTHING back!" | Ep 751

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 enthusiast. 2nd Amendment defender and recovering FBI agent Kyle Seraphin. Hello my friends, welcome to the Kyle Serfin Show. Today is Thursday, it is March the 5th, and I appreciate you guys being along for the ride.

We are going to be talking today about the interesting case of Christy Noem, who has made a second appearance in front of our elected representatives to talk about some really troubling stuff. And I have this kind of sensation that at least a significant number of the, the, the high Trump administration are like pirates.

And I have this, this memory, which I'm going to go dig the clip up for you guys in a second here of a scene from Pirates of the Caribbean where Johnny Depp and the, and his, his buddy, the round faced guy, they're, they're deciding to go and get all the treasure or something like that. And they go, you know, take all what you can get and give nothing back, you know, And then they have this little clink of the glasses, which are made out of wood and they drink their

beer. Mr. Gibbs, that's his name. And and then, and then they go and they try to go be pirates. They're gonna and but they're honorable pirates, right? Do we have honorable pirates that just run this country? Is that what we're dealing with here? People that are just looking and saying Americans are useful idiots and they're basically an ATM that we can just write checks out of. We can take everything from

them. And as long as we're the Lords of the Ashes when everything burns down, then we'd rather have that. That seems to be the case, and there's a story that was written in Pro Publica in November that I think we covered at the time, and now it's getting coverage in congressional testimony. The funny thing about a way that these stories work is some scandalous thing will happen and then everybody will go, Oh my God, like, Can you believe that

thing? And then they move on to the next thing 'cause we have this sort of goldfish memory. The new story moves real quick. By the way, did you know that Nancy Guthrie still missing, still still not found, mostly decomposed in the desert somewhere or something like that? Not to be flippant, but that I mean, where did that story go? It was wall to wall Fox News coverage right up until everybody had a freaking war

boner. And so they they they play on this attention span that we move on from so quickly and Christy Noems chaotic, you know, use of of our federal funds is absolutely absurd. And under any other administration, people would be losing their ever loving minds. But because we've come into this like ultimately highly divided tribal moment where people are they, they, they literally put their political slogans in their, their bio. They put it on their head, they put it in their clothing.

They're mad at you if you don't describe yourself by a political slogan. MAGA make America Great Again was a slogan that a man ran for office on. And then you people define themselves that way. Like I'm MAGA, you're not MAGA, you're not MAGA enough. You're too MAGA. Like how about you just be an American and go maybe an elected official shouldn't send $220 million out to do an advertising campaign that comes from our pockets to boost their public image.

Because they have this like mis misguided belief that a overly made-up woman with questionable morals and significant amounts of of public expenditures that seem to be beneficial for only her like that person would make it as a president. We actually have some some good news, at least in the the sense of people understand a little bit more about the mission. We have a senator that has decided to retire and or not seek re election Steve Daines up in Montana.

He's 63 years old today and he is a mediocre Liberty scorer. He has like a mediocre sort of compliance with being an actual conservative that may actually be appropriate for Montana. When I talk to my buddies that live up there. Yeah, the the statement was something to the effect of is that Montanans kind of are like, leave us alone. But they also have kind of like this hippie type mentality about

certain things. So they're not like some staunch hardcore right wing group, especially considering that they have cities that are very, very left-leaning. But how about someone who understood the mission? You're 63, you're coming up on 65. What a great time to just walk away and go do the rest of your thing. You got 13 years in public service. It'll be 1415 by the time it's all said and done. Great. And then you just step out and you go be a regular person again

because it's time to retire. Wouldn't that be nice? So I've got just this mixture of kind of like sloppy, gross pirates who can't wait to take everything we have and, and a couple of people that understand that it's maybe, you know, whatever it is, your time is over to, to, to be part of that. You get to go back to being a citizen again. At some point, we will all leave whatever job we have. We will leave whatever role that we think we occupy.

And we will all end up just as regular people who are underneath the crushing burden of federal government. This is something I always knew when I worked for the FBI. And if you guys don't know that if you're a police officer, if you're a firefighter, if you're a paramedic, if you are in the military, if you work in federal law enforcement, state law enforcement, if you extend federal authority from the United States government over your fellow man, that will one

day leave. And so if you don't look around and recognize that you are a maybe a person, you're a husband, you're a wife, you're a sister, you're a brother, you're a family member 1st and you're an American citizen second. That can be taken away, but it's pretty well rooted in for most people that are Americans, especially if you're listening to this in America, there's a small number of people that live in outside and then then whatever job you do is a distant

third. Whatever role you occupy is a distant third. That was something that was always right at the forefront of my mind. I was like, I don't want to operate in such a way that I'm going to live under some tyranny that I'm willing to be part of because one day it'll come back on me. It'll be revisited on me when I'm just a regular guy again. And it turned out that was a lot faster than I expected. I thought I was going to get 20 years of being a federal agent.

That was not the case. Here I am sitting here, I got six years, but it was always front and front, center. And it seems to me that these short lived pirate type attitudes, maybe they don't, maybe they don't know that one day you'll be back underneath the crushing weight and you'll be susceptible to hearings and potentially you'll have to answer for what you did or you'll just have to live under people who do exactly what you do. And how do you, how do you universalize that?

It just seems very short sighted to me. So let's, let's get into that just in a second here. Let's start off by talking about the folks over at Undertac. I haven't heard from them a little bit. Undertac is a website. So you go to it. UNDERTAC, period.com under tack.com. You've worked for maybe long days. You've been on your feet, you've been in gear, you've been in real world conditions. You've gone out there and you've dug ditches with your hands and maybe you work on a factory.

Maybe you are just a dude who has to walk long sales. I saw some people that were doing door to door sales the other day and I remembered what a rough gig that is. Maybe you're just on your feet moving around. The small stuff matters, and one of the smallest things that matters is like, are your underwear serving you in a useful way? Are they doing the job they're

designed under? Tack was designed for guys who do really hard jobs, Special forces operators that know that a base layer cannot fail, especially one that's right up on your junk. They use premium fabric, it's cooler, it's moisture wicking, it's better than cotton so you're not overheating halfway through the day, you're not running around with monkey butt or whatever else people like to call it. There's a lot of colorful terms

for that. It moves with you and it doesn't bunch up. There's also a hidden E&E pocket. So if you're like Steve friend and you need an extra almond to snack in the back there you keep emergency gear, handcuff keys, I don't know, cash, microfilm, tiny little flash drive of of your Bitcoin locker. I don't know. Whatever it is, whatever you keep in your undies that you need to hold on to right now, you can get 20% off on everything they have go site wide. It's Kyle 20 is the the promo

code. So use Kyle, Kyle 20. You get 20% off absolutely everything. They've got American made shirts, they've got hoodies, they've got Marina wool socks. I wore those the other day with my boots when I was out shooting and I very much appreciated that. Make a switch check them out. I've worn the same sort of undies for like 16 plus years and Undertack are the only ones that I've actually integrated in to my to my little regime there. If you guys are looking to make

a change. They also make like, I don't know, lady booty shorts type stuff. They look they look comfortable, but then again, I don't have a woman's body so I don't know. Check them out. They're a good product and they work well. They're gear that's designed to stay out of your way and just let you do what you're supposed to do. Undertack.com again, UNDERTAC k.com promo code Kyle 20 easy to remember because it's 20% off. There's a link in the show description. Check them out today.

Let's get into let's get into pirates. Let's do that right now. OK, Should we do the pirate thing first? Just because I'm thinking about it? I, I think I should. OK, so let me go grab this clip, which I downloaded, I think, and then we'll we'll go back. I have another video clip that's entitled Donald Trump is great. It's the White House spokeslady just saying that Trump is great. I think this should be the pirate clip. We can might even need to be

sized here. Let's let's do that little short scene, give nothing back. OK, So that that that was the scene. This there's like 8 seconds to it. That is the motivation for at least some members of the cabinet who are out there looking around and saying can we get all the things? Can we take everything from everybody around us? I don't know, like, again, short sighted, that'd be the nicest way of saying what I'm talking about here. I don't know how you operate that as a, as a universal

policy. It doesn't make any sense to me that you would go out there and look around and say, I understand that everyone's going to do this to me too now that I've done it, but I've got an opportunity, so I'm going to seize it. There's been these discussions that I've had with some friends too, about about people who make a ton of money, and they do it by being very unscrupulous. And we look at them and we're like, oh, do they have some special skill? It's like, no, there's special

skills called dishonesty. Being highly dishonest is actually not. It's not a superpower. It just means that you're a scumbag and the people around you are trying to play by the rules. And you're like, oh, rules are for people who play by them. I don't play by them. It's gross to kind of look at that. Yeah. All right, let's jump into another story that's sort of disappeared for I want to focus on some things as as overwhelmingly the discussion is still about Iran and what we're

doing there. And I've got obviously some coverage of that too, because I think we should continue to hear what people are saying. The new words have gone out by the way, the the new words which it used to be the first one was a nuclear threat and then it was ballistic, short range ballistic missiles. And then it was we need to attack their Navy. And then there was they were threatening Donald Trump. And then it was back to the nukes and it was back to the Ballistics.

And then some of the things, the new kind of talking point the Trump administration has marched out is imminent, OK, imminent threat. Iran was an imminent threat to us for 47 years. Iran was an imminent threat. Everybody knew about it. And also people didn't want to do military action. The reason Donald Trump was the president of peace is because people thought the military wasn't strong. That's another talking point that's got marched up. Some of that's kind of weird.

How about some of the promises that people thought were going to be taken care of? I voted pretty transactionally. I think I've said that to you guys a a number of times. My transactional vote was how does my friend Steve Baker, who's an investigative journalist, not go to prison? How do people who are J Sixers who just showed up at a rally, a First Amendment protected activity, showed up to protest something they thought was wrong, whether they were correct

or not. I tend to believe that there was problems with the 2020 election. There are people that think they have proof. I'm probably not sophisticated enough to analyze it. Many of you are not either. But I think you should be able to show up and ask for the the government to redress your grievances. And if somebody were to go forward and bring good faith arguments about that, kind of want to see them made whole kind of see want to see them get their lives back.

That was what the election was about for a lot of people. Unfortunately, we still have 12 J Sixers that were not pardoned. They were commuted. So they're not in prison. But now they're just screwed on the outside. And Joe Biggs is one of them. Stuart Rhodes is one of them. You know, people that I've personally spoken to who wanted the same things that everybody else want.

That was the transactional vote. They're not squared away and neither is Tina Peters. And it's interesting to me that this popped up in my news feed as I was kind of like looking around. I've got a I've got a congressman from Colorado who even though he's a lefty, he's making some really good points about Christie Noem. We'll play those in a little bit here.

What about this situation? There's there's anger and frustration and confusion about whether or not they're going to reduce the sentence for Tina Peters, who, what is she in her 70s at this point that this is a big cause for some of my friends, Joe Altman thinks this is a big deal. I tend to agree that whatever the punishment is in this case, it doesn't fit whatever we believe the crime was there.

This to me also seems like a weaponization of government where you go out there and say, if you're trying in good faith to live in a world where you don't want to see corruption and you try to say, I think something bad happened. I like to bring it to the public's attention in some way, want to preserve evidence of it. And then the government goes, well, you're not supposed to talk about that and you know better, so we're going to toss you into prison.

And then, God forbid, the governor of your state decides that maybe this is a little bit unjust for the age and the appropriateness of who this person is. And then that causes a major backlash. And that's what the story is. This is something that came out of my NPR reads this morning. So this is a local station, as far as I can tell, that's out of Colorado.

Colorado Governor Jared Polis latest comments on the prison sentence of Tina Peters are worrisome, his Democratic colleagues said, And that any attempt to commute the former Mesa County clerk's prison sentence would be, quote, a big mistake as well as a gross injustice. That does tell you how divided we are in this country right now. It tells you a lot about the

division. Colorado Democrats, as well as the Republican District Attorney who prosecuted Peters, issued a flood of statements in response to poll's latest musings that included top Democrats vying to replace the term limited governor. There's a current senator named Michael Bennett and then the attorney general, which is Phil Weiser. All of them say things against Tina Peters because this is a really big deal for them. Remember, we need to have justice it.

It should not matter who you are in theory, unless you're on one side, then you don't need to have anything. What do they say? Nobody's above the law and they believe that right up until they want to do things that are not in comports with that. And then we're supposed to forgot that. Forget they said it. Quote, Tina Peters knowingly broke the law, undermined our elections and was rightfully convicted by a jury of her

peers. At a moment like this, we cannot capitulate to a lawless administration. I guess that's a reference to the Trump administration, which is not lawless as far as I could tell, any more than the previous administration was lawless. Although we are finding out that the Trump administration is limited just like every other that they they don't tend to keep their promises, although the teams like the left gets a lot more of their promises kept.

Weiser, who will prosecute Peters and secured her conviction on 7 accounts, said, quote, reducing the sentence of convicted former clerk Tina Peters for tampering with election equipment would be a grave miscarriage of justice and dangerous for free and fair elections. Well, there you have it. Bringing forward information to the public and quote UN quote tampering. That's the dangerous thing. Free and fair elections can't

happen. So the free Tina Peters movement still not getting what they asked for. And more importantly, what we've proven is that our federal government can more easily do a rendition of a foreign leader in Venezuela, grab them in the middle of the night with Black Hawk helicopters, or can decapitate A regime 700, you know, 7000 miles away from us, but can't get 1 old lady out of a prison cell in Colorado. And yes, that is our system.

It seems like they only care about the way the system works when it's working for them. And I don't know. And the they is like whoever it is that wants it. This is this is universal. This is not like a left or right issue. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue. This is as long as my team is doing what I want, then everything is good. And that's when I can invoke things like the Constitution. That's when I can invoke steaks, rice.

But if, God forbid, the things that I want happen to be in conflict with actual principle, then I don't care about that at all. That's just then. Those are just things in my way. I watched the video clip yesterday, which I felt was very telling. And it was a young Indian man who looked like he was in his 20s, I don't know, probably early 20s. And he got up in Frisco, TX, which is a very, it's a very up and coming suburb outside of the, you know, it's in DFW.

It's outside of the Dallas Fort Worth metro area. It used to be nowhere. Frisco used to be like the boonies when I was a kid growing up, but now it's a place where there's a ton of people, There's a lot of tech workers. From what I can tell, it's radically changed.

I haven't been there in probably 20 years, but having seen friends move through there and having friends that live in that area, you got a young 20 something year old guy stepped up in front of the City Council with a bunch of people wearing matching blue shirts to back him up. And of course, the video clip is now gone. I was going to play it for you guys.

And he got up and he made a complaint about the Second Amendment. You know, that thing that's in the Constitution that in theory, if you become a citizen of this country or if you actually are born here and raised in, you know, some other kind of tradition. He talked about getting up in his 20s and coming downstairs and hanging out with his parents and having a Saturday morning breakfast. And he was really, really terrified because he heard about the shooting that happened in

Austin last week. And he was really worried that, or I guess last weekend that he was going to know somebody who had been shot. And then the punchline was that he didn't actually know anybody that was shot. It was just a fear that he had. So he got up and he read his fear. And because of the way that he felt about something that didn't end up being true, we shouldn't have guns in Texas. What's amazing is, is that Democrats love this. People on the left love this.

People that want more of whatever the totalitarian type push is want that. And then so you vote for the other side, you go out there and you go, oh, well, can I get a Republican to represent me? And that's going to stand for gun rights and it's going to stand for minimal government. And then they go, no, no, no. We also think the solution is government. We just have a different expectation of the size of the government that we want to go

with. If you guys want a good example of how minimally functional all of this can be and how theatrical it all is, the story of of Samantha slash Nancy Guthrie is worth bringing up. So here I have it. I saw this this morning and it was way, way, way below the fold on ABC News. I scrolled through all the Iran news. I scrolled through the controversy with Kristi Noem, which we'll get to in a second.

And I scrolled through like the things that are being pitched and they're all the same across all the news networks. ABCCBSNBC, there's a a story about the autopen investigation going away. We'll cover that in a second here from NBC. Couple other people covered it as well. And I kept scrolling, scrolling, scrolling down. And then all of a sudden I saw this, the Guthrie name, and I went, oh, what about that? Is there an update? There is in fact an update,

guys. It was wall to wall on Fox News. Somebody sent me a meme this morning of a dog. It's a shadow of a dog taking a poop. You know, so the dog has like that characteristic squat where the back hind quarters are like hunched underneath the squatting rear legs and the front legs are kind of stiff. And then the the nose is up in the air. So you can imagine a dog nose in the air going to the back, tail is up, butt is hunched down and the dog is standing over the top of a man. And it's.

Pooping directly onto, I don't know, his face or mouth, which is gross, super gross. And then somebody filled in Fox News, which is the dog. And then it was like Trump voters. This is perfect proof of that because Fox News ran Nancy Guthrie like it was the end of the world. Because their audience basically meets the the demographic concerns that a 8 year old woman who got kidnapped like this might be a real thing for you.

It's not a real thing. Nancy Guthrie, 84, taken from her home early on February the 1st. We are now March the 5th. We are now five, what, 5 1/2 weeks away? Six weeks away. Here's the headline for those of you who are just listening. Person who left DNA on recovered glove has been cleared. Do you guys, do you remember the excitement? The I've got the clip somewhere of Jesse Waters going like we've got the backpack and it's a Walmart backpack for $10.84.

The most commonly sold backpack in the largestly distributed store in the United States. Literally anybody anywhere could have this backpack. And then they were like, we got a glove. It was found 2 miles out in the desert. Like randomly we found some fucking glove. Excuse me, man, I got to do better. I did not mean to let an F bomb slip out there. They found a freaking random glove. And they were like, it kind of looks like a glove that we saw on the video that was not

supposed to be saved. But we found out that Google was saving all the Nest footage. Remember that? Yep. And then they clear it as the search for Nancy Guthrie continues into its second month. I think it's now in a, you know, you know, when they have those, those really bad situations where something bad happens and it's in the water and then somebody's been theoretically like underwater for a day and then they go, unfortunately now, you know, it's like some grave announcer voice.

Unfortunately, now the rescue efforts have turned into a recovery. Pretty sure we're in the body recovery stage of the Nancy Guthrie search now that we're in the second month. One lead that hasn't panned out for investigators is the glove. Shockingly, that was recovered 2 miles away from Nancy Guthrie. I got to put this on the screen. OK, I'm going to highlight it for you. The lead that didn't pan out was a glove that was found 2 miles away from her home. Imagine where you live just for

funsies. This will tell you the theatricality of all this stuff wherever you live. Imagine the amount of trash that is on the ground if somebody were to search A2 mile radius of your home. I don't care if you live a rural. I don't care if you live in the suburbs. I don't care if you live in the city, imagine what sort of random garbage is on the ground within two mile. Do you think that we could find a glove? Within 2 miles of your home, I guarantee you, you could find a

glove. 2 miles of my house and your house and everybody's house that lives in America, we could find a glove. And the fact is that they grabbed this and sent it off to a laboratory and thought we might find the guy who did the thing. It shows you how ridiculous we are. That is, that is a ridiculous moment. DNA on that glove, traced back to a person who works at a nearby restaurant, had nothing to do with the case. But it was a Fox News headline.

There were endless speculations by former FBI agents who turned out to be complete fools. It was a discussion of how dark and dangerous and desolate the desert. You remember all that, the Jimmy Gags, former New York supervisor and FBIHRT guy who I don't know how many kidnapping cases he worked, but likely very few. We're just living in such a a comically stupid moment where people just, they just forget. They don't, they don't have that anymore. I have this clip from Caroline Lovett.

What is Fox News feeding people? They moved on from the glove. They moved on from the Guthrie story. Anyway, it's, it's a really sad story because the woman is gone and likely forever. I don't know if they'll ever find her. She's like one of those stories you'll find like 30 years now when I'm, when I'm in my 60s, I'll be reading some news story. They'll be like, oh, they found the, you know, the desiccated remains of Samantha Guthrie.

She actually just fell down a hole in a well that nobody knew was out there or something. Right. Like we'll find some really sad thing about it. So Fox News has moved on from that. They've moved on to letting you know that just Donald Trump is super awesome. He's the best. And that's how we're going to justify the new thing. The new thing is that like there's a war. It's not our fault that we're at war. It's actually the fault of the people who are being attacked.

The reason why we attacked the people is because we knew that they were going to attack us. And then we proved it because after we attacked them, then they did attack us. That's kind of where we're moving. That's kind of the, the circular logic that I guess this administration thinks the supporters fall behind.

And I guess that's the same group of people that were super excited about finding a random glove that was in the trash 2 miles away from a missing lady's house like 3 weeks after the lady was gone, they found trash. And for no particular reason, they believe that it might be, it might be related to the case and it turns out it wasn't, which I think if you were going to put money on it, everybody could decide. Anyway, Donald Trump is awesome. He's done a great job.

And anybody who says otherwise is wrong. This is where it gets really hard. And I've actually got a really kind of emotional clip from Alex Jones that I want to share with you guys. If you didn't watch this program yesterday, it's the reason why I like Alex and I'm going to help you guys understand it. Here we go, deep breath. President Trump has done more to crack down on illegal immigration and to strengthen our legal immigration system than any president in history.

Several months ago, he announced a travel ban on 19 Third World in failed state countries around the world. Secretary Gnome announced tonight she's recommending that travel ban widens and covers more countries around the. Globe Special Immigrant Visas, which we know many Afghans have used to come into our country. There has been a complete suspension. And pause on all of those.

If you look at the entire visa process in general, we have greatly strengthened and heightened the vetting process and requirements for that Under Secretary Rubio's leadership at the State Department. And he has used his authority, which is unprecedented, to actually revoke the visas of many individuals who, yes, came here legally but still pose a risk to our country and should have. Never been allowed in in the 1st place and I would just.

So all that's really great news. It's all really good to know. You probably didn't know that, but here we go. Breaking exclusive, breaking exclusive. One more breaking exclusive. Oh, the House is going to vote again on DHS shutdown because the DHS is not open for business. And it sounds like the things that Carolyn Levitt was saying are great is that they closed the barn door after all the horses are out. And by the way, everything else that lived in the barn is also

out. So we brought in 100,000 Afghans, but we've now changed the vetting process in case a couple others want to come in. And then also, we've really tightened up our visa program. But it turns out that that we can't even, we can't even get that organization funded. The House is going to vote on a government shutdown bill. They're going to try to open up DHS. Did any of you know that DHS was shut down?

I mean, you did maybe intellectually, but did any of you actually like go out in your day and go like, oh doggone it, I was going to do fill in the blank activity, but DHS is shut down so I'm unable. I would love to know if some of you actually experienced the DHS shutdown in any in any way. Do any of you have an example of that? If you do, I beg you. I rarely will do this, but I, I have no examples of it and I can't even figure out what those

examples would look like. Will you please put a comment below, Put one in on Spotify. If you're on Spotify, put one in on on on Rumble or YouTube. Will you please tell me what you experienced with the DHS shutdown? If you're listening to this right now, that's my ask of you. I would very much appreciate it. You might as well hit the like while you're doing it as well. We're going back to the story in just one second. You're watching a Rumble YouTube. Subscribe to the channels there.

Hit the like. Follow us on Spotify. Kyle seraphinshow.com. We'll play a Spotify ad if they want to do it right there. OK, the House is going to vote to send funding after a weeks long impasse and the GOP is the GOP is stressing the urgency of this Iranian war situation. It's very urgent now that we've started a war that you fund our Homeland Security program because we're not funded currently and we may have homeland threats. Had a conversation with my buddy George Hill.

You guys who listen to this program know George is a former NSA analyst. He was an FBI supervisory analyst. He also worked in military intelligence for something like 26 years with the Marine Corps and the Navy. Our discussion was as follows.

If we do not see sleeper cell attacks in the United States within the next probably 2-3 weeks, then all of the things that were being told to us about the threats, all of the dangers that were being briefed to the American people for literally 2 decades, are complete and utter bollocks. They're completely fake and they have to be because this is the greatest reason to activate some terror cells. This would be you've got a Homeland Security shutdown. You have an ineffective FBI director.

You have a kick off where now there are missiles that are flying. And whether you're on one side of the Sunni or the Shia divide, you've got Iran has attacked. And then Iran is now sending stuff all over the place. And all of it can be directly tied to the president of the United States who, quote, UN quote, had a feeling, I'm going to play that in a second for you as well. You had a feeling that something needed to be done. So he acted whether you like it or not.

But if there are no sleeper cell attacks and one random guy from Sudan, which is a pretty weird movement, and a lot of people think that it might be a, you know, false flag. There's lots of crazy people out there, folks. So whether he's legitimately mentally ill or groomed by the

FBI or whatever, doesn't matter. One guy taking an AR down to 6th St. in Austin, he is not the same as showing the conclusive proof that we have a massive enemy infiltration of jihadi type terrorists hanging out in the United States waiting to attack us. And if they don't take this moment, not that I want it, I mean, but I'm just telling you, when I travel now, I travel extra armed compared to my normal thing. Normally I'm like a handgun guy.

I don't need an extra magazine because if I need an extra magazine, I need a plate carrier. If I need a plate carrier, I need a rifle. If I need a rifle and a plate carrier and extra magazines, why am I going there? Like I'm a free citizen that doesn't have to go anywhere. I'm not in a war zone. I don't have anywhere that I have to go. I'll go somewhere different. So I don't do that. I generally don't carry an extra magazine.

For those of you who've never heard this logic, go listen to DJ Shipley and the podcast he did with Sean Ryan. He makes the argument about the the escalation of your everyday carry, which is something I'm borderline obsessed with, and it was the most coherent argument. If you're not rolling around every day with a rifle and a plate carrier and extra magazines, then you're normal. And that's normal.

So fine. But now might be the feud minutes for the next couple of weeks when there's a window where you might see this sort of thing be necessary unless it doesn't happen. And here's the crazy part that we have to recognize. If we do not have a sleeper cell terror attack that we have been promised forever, and then we've got to really, really, really seriously ask the question, why have we seated so many civil liberties in this country?

Why have we funded a absolutely massive intelligence capability? Why are we putting so much money into the federal threat detection systems of the FBI and DHS and so on? If they're actually turns out when there is an opportunity and there is no more opportunity that is more like profoundly motivating then a another war in the Middle East, then ADHS shutdown, which is a huge chunk of our national security apparatus. Why, why would why have we

seated all these freedoms? Why have we allowed them to have like incredible amounts of surveillance on our digital life? We created SISA under President Trump's first term, right, The Cyber security infrastructure Security Agency. You know, it's important because it has the word security in it twice. SISA which wanted to to regulate your thoughts. Do you guys remember how crazy some of this stuff was?

I'm going back to like in my mind, Trump one point O Biden now Trump 2 point O. The things that we have ceded in this country for the sake of security is shocking. And if we don't see a terror attack and I and I and I pray that we don't actually all it should make everybody do is go, hey, why in the hell are we actually funding this crap? And again, the DHS is shut down. So they're going to vote today

on legislation to fund DHS. The Republicans are stressing the urgency because the partial shutdown amid the war. Republicans have pressure Democrats to support an agreement that appropriators have reached on a bipartisan basis earlier this year to fund DHS through September. But there was a second fatal shooting. And so they reacted and they were able to get their base

motivated. And so Democrats decided that funding an organization that took the life of two people under very different circumstances, one of which looked like a one was trying to run a guy over or at least could be easily articulated. The other one of Alex Pretty looks a lot more suspicious and a lot more problematic. Still may be justified under the law, which may bother a lot of you. But the questions still remain. You know, how fast we moved on from that.

That happened in January. We went regular lesbian soccer moms who are also wild political activists are trying to run over ICE agents. Then hero VA nurses are carrying guns to protest, and you don't have a right to carry a gun to a protest to where is Samantha Guthrie And how can we find out what the backpack and the glove look like?

And by the way, Google is downloading every single thing and maintaining a bunch of files on you that come out of your camera that you're not supposed to be recording to. Don't worry about all that stuff. The president had a feeling and it was time to go after Iran because there's no other way about it.

That's where we're at right now. Mike Johnson said that military action Iran makes it all the more urgent and critical to have a fully staffed, fully funded Department of Homeland Security across all departments, rather than own the possibility of defunding some part of government and shrinking the sides of some part of government when you have an opportunity to do so. Mike Johnson, Republican Speaker of the House, has decided that this is a reason why you must

fund all of it. And so This is why you'll never find me as a Republican again. They think that the answer to the problems with government are just fixing the problems with government, with more government. The people on the left think that the problems with everything can be solved with with more government. And so they are both on the same Rd. going the same directions. It just turns out that government, you know, the, the, the pro government forces of Democrats have their foot on the

gas all the way down. And the people that are on the Republican side, they have it on cruise control. Their foot is off the gas and they're maintaining the speed limit, but they're all going the same direction. It's really hard to find anybody to support when that's the case. You guys want more excuses? I mean, sorry, You want more examples? Excuses, examples, excuses. Let's do that real quick. Here we go. DOJ, this is the news of the yesterday afternoon.

DOJ quietly shelves the Biden autoped investigation that Donald Trump demanded. So this is the, this is the pattern. I told you that my sense of this, this administration which has been very PR focused is that they will start off with a strong statement like APR, you know, press release. This is the press release, this is the public relations attempt to get you to back up what we say. We are going to hold everyone accountable. We are going to investigate

these people. We are going to make sure that nobody is above the law. That's why Tina Peters has to stay in prison, and that's why everybody who did the Biden auto pen is going to prison, except nobody's going to prison. They'll probably have now a really nice congressional hearing about this. That's the plan. So first announce the investigation. That is the entirety of the outcome.

Quietly close it when no one is looking, and then do a big hearing about why nobody went to jail about it. And that is the end result. Is that about right? I'll go to the chat over here. I'm pretty sure that's the pattern. Recognize a problem, message strongly that it is a problem, open investigation, and that's the end of it. Quietly close it and hope no one

notices. And then when anyone notices, like a headline in NBC that announced congressional hearings where there is in fact no ability to do anything. And then when Congress is done, they might even make a referral for prosecution. Too bad the story is already closed. Or maybe they open an investigation, Maybe they announced A reinvestigation and then we can do the circle jerk all over again in another circle. Government by this is a great

line in the chat. Government by executive order, Government by press release. Both of them are awful, it turns out. Fiat, dictate, etcetera. So all that's bad. All right, let's do do a couple things before we get to Christina and let's touch on the war. By the way, here's another story from CBS that did the same thing. The probe on the use of the auto pen is going to be closed,

according to The Who is it? Oh, Jeanine Pirro, federal prosecutors in Jeanine Pirro's office, the same woman that is fighting the FOIA that I have with the FBI, the same woman who is defending the Bureau in multiple places. You know, the people that were supposed to go in and reform, they're not doing that. Why would they do that? Because it's not Trump's DOJ, it's nobody's DOJ. It's DOJ's DOJ, just like it's the FBI's FBI. They're not running things either.

I actually saw a really nauseating post the other day on X from CPAC. The, the like the organization that puts on the C PAC conference put out a tweet and it was a video, like a hype video of Cash Patel acting like he was going to do something and nobody liked it. Nobody. It had 200 + 1000 views and three comments and they were all like F Cash Patel. Two sources confirm the existence of the prom, with one telling CBS News that the matter has since been closed.

We're talking about the autopen probe because prosecutors were never actually able to find a legal hook that was able to pursue the matter further. Let's go a little bit deeper into this for one second, just so we're all on the same page. Just because something is wrong doesn't make it illegal. Wait, just because something is, is immoral, unethical, doesn't make it illegal. And that's the major problem. The messaging and the PR is always like, this was wrong.

This was treason. And then you look up and you're like, that's not what treason means. How many people have told me that? Joe Biden committed treason. The people in Biden's administration committed treason. That former members of the FBI committed treason. And then nobody recognizes that treason means giving aid and comfort to a declared enemy during time of war.

And the last time we charged it was like in the 1950s because it was a World War 2 crime when we actually had a declaration of war. The problem with people being ignorant of like what it is and using words sort of like in artfully is that they are also doing the exact same trap. They're falling into the trap of the PR messaging sounds really good. And then we think that something

should happen. And the reason they think something should happen is because they don't even understand the thing that they're asking for. There was literally no crime, apparently. That's why they couldn't prosecute it. The elements of no crime fit the information they were trying to do. And by the way, I thought we were trying to get away from that in this organization, in

this administration. Rather the whole, the whole point of when we talk about weaponized government is that the government presupposes that somebody is guilty of something, you know, in violation of due process. Then they go out and find a crime to be able to charge them with in order to get it. I didn't vote for that. I think that's the scariest thing ever. And if you live through the last five years, you also should think it's really scary. It doesn't matter who's in

charge. You shouldn't want that. All right, let's do some imminent threats, shall we? The threats are imminent. That's the talking point. Here's Tom Cotton. He's going to let you know that for the last 47 years now, you probably didn't know this in the same way that you didn't know that the DHS was shut down until I brought it up again. You're like, Oh yeah, yeah. Got it. The DHS is shut down. Yeah, the government shutdown thing.

In the same way you didn't recognize DHS was not being funded, you probably also didn't wake up every single morning for the last 47 years. Apparently for the entirety of my entire lifetime, every minute that I was awake, the United States was under the imminent threat of the regime in Iran. And so we've always been at war with Iran. It feels very 1984 ish, Brian. No, not at all.

I thought Secretaries Rubio and Hexa, Chairman Cain and Director Ratcliffe did a very good job of laying out the intelligence and the current state of operations. The the simple reality is Iran has a vast missile arsenal fought that far exceeds the combined missile defenses of the United States, our Arab friends and Israel. And it gets much worse every

single month. That is an unacceptable risk for the United States. It's an existential risk for our Arab friends in Israel. And it wouldn't get better if we waited for six or 12 or 18 months to find a more imminent risk. In fact, Iran has posed an imminent risk to the United States for 47 years as they've maimed and killed thousands of Americans without that vast missile arsenal. The president was right to act

when he did. OK, Rodger, that I think Orwell had a warning for us. The past was alterable. The past has never been altered. Oceana was at war with East Asia. Oceana has always been at war with East Asia. Kind of the same jam there, isn't it? And that what Tom Cotton just said. By the way, did he also mention that it was about Israel? Got to love that, Got to love it, got to love that. Israel comes into play and it's look, I don't need Israel to be involved.

I don't know why they keep saying it, but they keep saying it. I just found out that the junior, the junior senator from Montana, which is the place I'd like to go live. Fortunately they have like some real sketchy representatives. Steve Daines is their is their senior senator and he's going to be stepping away and not seeking re election. So good on him. Kudos to someone who recognizes I'm in my mid 60s, it's time to

go live the rest of my life. I very much appreciate that even if his liberty score is a C and he only has like 74% of his votes go with the conservative side, that's still fine. The junior senator is a former Navy SEAL who apparently had like a questionable discharge that happened in Glacier National Park. There's some stories about that. Started asking my friends in Montana like, what's up with this dude? And they're like, Oh yeah, he had a huge loan grant thing that showed up.

He started a company and immediately had like $100 million infused into his company. And then they were going to investigate it. But then they didn't investigate it because he was able to get marched out by the GOP. And he's got nice hair. And so he says nice things and he does what they want. He may or may not have shot himself in the arm when he was out doing screwing around with a weapon system in Glacier, may or may not have. I don't have any proof of that.

There's just stories about it. Said some things to Park Rangers that are questionable and don't really line up. And then he said some stuff like this. So remember, it's not about Israel. Again, I don't need this to be the answer. They just keep saying this stuff. And this is the same guy that broke a man's hand yesterday who was an anti war protester who also probably was doing dumb things. He was dressed up in his Marine Corps uniform and he was trying to interrupt a hearing on the

war powers. More on that in a second, But yeah, so Navy SEAL, former Navy SEAL senator decided to step in and drag that guy off. Let's see a little bit about who he is. I'm Tim Sheehy. I'm a recently elected US senator from the state of Montana. And I'm here as my first act as elected senator to show our allies in Israel and the broader allies throughout the Middle East that America still has a

commitment to this region. And there's no question that America stands with Israel, stands with the men and women of Israel. And of course, we'll do everything we can to make sure the IDF and the men and women, the IDF had the best gear, intelligence, technology and support they have to get this done. And of course, we've seen recent events unfold continually from the events in Syria to, of course, broader geopolitical events in the region, that this this is still unfolding.

And the next couple years are going to be very pivotal for the future of the Middle East and the world. And we need to make clear that the United States has a strong, consistent foreign policy that projects strength and projects the certainty that we're going to be involved here. We're going to support our allies, most importantly the men and women of Israel. I'd say finally, Israel's got a friend, friend in me and America's Got your back 100%.

And most importantly, we've got to bring those hostages home tomorrow. We're not going to stop. We're not going to relent until we bring them home. We're going to have your back 100% as you pursue that, as you pursue that aim. And it's an hour of the year. AIPAC brought to you by AIPAC, actually brought to you by actual AIPAC as their watermark was on their GOP senator joins the police in ejecting an anti war protester from a Capitol Hill hearing. This happened yesterday.

Republican Senator Tim Sheehy of Montana, you just saw on the screen, assisted several police officers and physically ejecting a man who interrupted a Capitol Hill hearing on Wednesday as he objected to the US and Israel's war in Iran. The protester was Brian McGinnis, a Marine veteran who's running as a Green Party, Green Party candidate in the South Carolina Senate race. Probably doesn't have a huge chance, but he's definitely got some notoriety after that.

I mean, that was probably a, that was probably a, a very high impact PR stunt that he did as well. Shortly afterwards, he said his arm was broken. During the clash with the police and the senator, the US Capitol Police accused him of violently assaulting police officers. The incident took place at the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee, a hearing that featured testimony from senior military officials on military readiness.

Just under 30 minutes into the hearing, McGinnis began yelling at one point, saying America does not want to send its sons and daughters to war for Israel. Members of the US Capitol Police attempted to remove McGuinness, who was wearing a military uniform, from the hearing. And during the struggle, he fought with the officers at some point looked like he shoved his hand inside of a door, try to hold on to it. And then she he came in and then tried to pull him out of it by

basically like breaking his arm. It's all on camera. It's all on video. You guys can go see it. It doesn't look like anybody was necessarily in the right on that. But, you know, maybe not be the senator who decides that you have to step in. There are people who do it. Sure. That's super important. I actually have a little clip here from Tom Massey, who was talking on a war powers discussion that was going on in the House.

God forbid, God forbid we actually bring up like the way that our country was set up. This is why people hate Tom Massey. He has things like books and he reads things from people who, I don't know, helped set up our system of government and thinks that there are some answers that have already been debated and determined. You know, like the Article 1 powers of Congress are meant to hold the ability to declare war and that it's not supposed to

just rest in the executive. Now, there's some obvious problems with that because what if people don't agree to go to war and we already agreed to go to war? It's Tom Massey. This is a 5 minute clip. I'm only going to play a little bit of it. Mr. Speaker, James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1789. The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive branch of power is the most interested in war and most prone to it.

It has accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature. The Constitution is clear. Article 1, Section 8, Clause eleven of our Constitution provides Congress initiatory powers of war. Article 2, Section 2, Clause one of our Constitution, gives the President operational powers of war to wage that war.

Even if this body were to pretend that the 1973 War Powers Resolution supersedes the clear language of the Constitution, the President still has not met the conditions required by that

law itself. The 1973 War Powers Resolution states plainly that the President may only introduce US armed forces into hostilities pursuant to three conditions either 1 declaration of war, 2. Specific statutory authorization, or three a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States. None of those conditions exist

today. Iran has not attacked the United States. Congress has not declared war, and Congress has not granted specific statutory authorization beyond the OK, that sounds really boring. So Tom Massey is like reading things from the law. And that seems like that has something to do with the way that Congress does business. But like, none of that's particularly cool. And what do you mean there's been no attack on the United States? There's obviously been an attack on the United States.

Here's Speaker Mike Johnson explaining to you that after we bombed Iran and after we killed their supreme leader and after we've sent military forces into the theater and we've been sending like a bombing campaign. And not just on Operation Midnight Hammer where we sent some B twos over to take out

their new program. No, I mean, like recently, a couple days ago when we started this aggressive bombing campaign on behalf of ourselves because Donald Trump had a feeling and had nothing to do with Israel, especially when all that happened. Like, guys, you're not going to believe this. This is actually kind of shocking. Let me put the chat on the screen. We bombed the crap out of Iran and killed a bunch of people. There have been reports of casualties, like numbering over 1000 so far.

Guys, they're now firing weapons at us. They've attacked sovereign embassies. Do you understand? Like now they've declared war on us after we bombed them. So now the now the War Powers Act applies because, you know, they, they started it after we started it. Iran has attacked three of our US embassies in the last couple of days. OK. Those are sovereign territories of the US. They have declared war on us. I don't believe in the semantics. We've talked about the language this morning.

We're not at war right now. We're four days in. To a very specific clear mission, an operation, Operation Epic Fury, which has two components, as you know. That we have articulated over and over, the president has the, the commander, Joint Chiefs, everybody is is explained. Look, everybody's on the same page. This is all about whether or not they're going to have access to a nuclear weapon system. And then if they had an access to that, then they also can't have access to short range

ballistic missiles. But they also cannot actually have a Navy, which could cause problems for us. But they also can't say that they are going to attack us if Israel attacks them. So it's about this. It's also has nothing to do with the Epstein file roll out or any domestic policy failures. It's not about that. And the reason we can't get a a statement from our elected representatives who show up to represent the American people.

The reason why we can't get a declaration of war is because some people might not want it. And listen to me, if some people don't want a declaration of war when we're not at war because we're not at war. But they declared war on us after we did some warlike stuff to them.

Can you guys imagine if, like, I don't know, like Iran or China or Russia, like flew a bunch of long range bombers over the top of Washington, DC, did a decapitation strike, took out the White House, took out a bunch of members that were sitting in for a hearing in Congress. And then they flew home. And then they just started bombing a little bit of crap out of like, I don't know, New York City, which is not even as as densely populated as Tehran.

And then and then started bombing, you know, I don't know, Philadelphia and a bunch of other cities that are up in the communist territories of the Northeast. They just started doing that. And then and then we were like, that's not going to, that's not going to be good. So then we started bombing things in Russia and some of the friendly countries to Russia. And then they were like, well, we're not at war with you. You are at war with us because you started coming after our embassies.

You could see why this would be a problem, right? Yeah. It's an imminent threat. Like we got to, we've got to get our our ducks in a row. The thing is, is that they were two weeks away from having a nuke, even though they've been saying that for 30 years. They were this time for sure. If we didn't hit within two weeks, they would have had a nuclear weapon. If we didn't do the B2 attack a number of months ago, they would

have a nuclear weapon. And when crazy people have nuclear weapons, bad things happen. So we're in very good shape now. I want to let you know that. And we will continue forward. But it's a great display of military strength and I'm very proud to have with some of the people in the room, both senators and congressmen, we rebuilt and women. We and women. This came out of my NPR reading as well. I thought this is pretty interesting. This is coming from WBUR. Why declarations of war?

War declarations are a thing of the past. It was written yesterday before Donald Trump. President Donald Trump launched a massive military campaign against Iran on Saturday. He collaborated with the Israeli government, but he didn't ask Congress for permission to strike another country. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, designates the president as the commander in chief of the military. And this has long caused political conflict.

I think Tom Massie explained why those reasons were there. There's, there's plenty of contemporaneous writings that went into this. Declarations of war are long gone, though, says Princeton University historian Julian Zesler Zelizer. Zelizer. That's kind of a fun name. It's not since World War 2 that Congress has done that. An authorization to use military force is different from declaring war. In 1950, the United States sent troops to South Korea.

Why was that a turning point? It's a real turning point. That's former President Harry Truman. And he was relying on directives from the United Nations rather than the rather than the US Congress. And it was called a policing action rather than a war. And historians say that that was the real change because that's when presidents felt freed up to avoid the request for a

declaration of war. From that point on, they didn't do it. There's five other points on here talking about LBJ, the War Powers Resolution of 73. All of these things are kind of irrelevant at this point because they're ancient history. What's relevant is, is not everybody would necessarily agree. And if everyone doesn't agree, then we're not going to have the question. Listen, if I don't think I'm going to get your vote, then I'm not going to hold an election.

That sounds kind of totalitarian, doesn't it? No, that's just what Mike Johnson says. This is democracy at work. The idea that a few colleagues here would try to move a war powers motion and resolution to the floor right now is dangerous. Imagine a scenario where Congress would vote to to, to tell the commander in chief that he was no longer allowed to, to complete this mission. That would be a very dangerous

thing. You see that Iran is firing almost seemingly indiscriminately at targets. They're trying to intimidate America. They're trying. To, to, to test our resolve and the idea that there's some members of of this legislative body that would play along with that plays right into the hands of the enemy. And I, I think it's shameful. I. Yeah, that is shameful. That is totally shameful. I mean, after all, they attacked us, guys. They attacked our sovereign

territory. They went after our embassies. You can't do that just because we bombed you. You can't go after our embassies. Iran has attacked three of our US embassies in the last couple of days, OK? Those are sovereign territories of the US They have declared war on us. I don't believe in the semantics. We've talked about the language this morning.

We're not at war right now. We're in four days in to a very specific, a clear mission, an operation, Operation Epic Fury, which has two components, as you know, that we have articulated over and over. The president has the the commander of the Joint Chiefs, everybody is is explained. Mr. Burns said that Oceana has always been at war with East Asia. It's it was at war with East Asia, always has been at war with East Asia.

And they came after us first. And that's why there was an imminent threat, because they were always an imminent threat, going back to the 1930s, in which somebody had done something then about Iran. Let's put a war boner on the screen. It's been a little while. Let's do that. The big questions that I think you're going to hear from a lot of the senators is why now there was no imminent threat. We know that's what Mark Warner is already saying. What will you say to that?

And what do you expect that Trump folks will say to that? I think that's a ridiculous idea that there's no imminent threat from a regime who chants death to America since 1979. There's no imminent threat from a regime that sponsored Hezbollah who killed 220 Marines and 18 sailors in 1983 in Lebanon. Go tell it to the families of the of IED victims in Iraq and Afghanistan sponsored by Iran that this regime is no threat. You know, in 1939 out of 35.

I don't know if he was an imminent threat, but I wish somebody would dealt with him any me too. I wish in 193935. He's having a hard time getting some of his words outlook. Give Lindsey Graham a break. OK? It's been a long time since he's had a priapism. A priapism like that. If you guys don't know, that's like a a medically long term erect phallus. That's when the blood flow is diverted down there and it can be in a medical emergency.

It's what happens if you take too much Viagra or if the United States actually goes to war. After years and years of trying to stroke a war boner. Boom, suddenly it hits you and you can no longer think straight. Look, there was a totally reasonable discussion, and then Donald Trump had a feeling. Maybe it was more than a

feeling. The president had a feeling, again, based on fact that Iran was going to strike the United States, was going to strike our assets in the region, and he made a determination to launch Operation Epic Fury based on all of those reasons and. Got it. All right, got it. So it was more than a feeling. There was a there was a feeling based on facts. Anyway, I'm, I'm, I'm beating this up because it's just like the, the messaging is ridiculous.

You don't have to. You can want good things for American troops, which I do. I want them to come home safely. You can also look out there and say, didn't you say the opposite of this for a long time? And that's also true. That's also true. But also then you look at the messaging and you're like, what kind of convoluted garbage are you guys trying to sell us? And why would you think that we would listen to you? You're not even making sense.

You're not having a, you're not having a coherent message. Maybe the reason that we can't do, we can't do military action is because people think the military is too woke. Is that a talking point that's coming out? Here's Stephen Miller. I'm going to do that in just one second. Stephen Miller said the reason that people didn't want war, it wasn't so much that Donald Trump promised peace. He said he was going to make the

military strong again. And people thought the military wasn't strong, so they were afraid to go to war because they didn't want wussy people going to war. But now that we have like bad asses that are back in there, then now we can do the war game. We can do the war thing, right? God forbid, OK, give us a like on Rumble if you're watching, give us a dislike if you like it to, I don't know, engage with the post, subscribe wherever you're watching.

If you're on YouTube and you haven't been there before, if you're on Rumble and you haven't got a backup on YouTube, like we get screwed with on on Rumble occasionally join us over there. Very much appreciate the audiences. We'll play something from the Spotify archive ads if they want to play something. Now you can find the Spotify show. It's Kyle seraphinshow.com. It looks like this Kyle seraphinshow.com. It gives you the access to video and audio.

So if you're listening anywhere else and you don't have video, then you might as well get it. It's free, it costs you nothing. It's way easier, it's way better. Everybody who switches over and starts using Spotify is like, Oh yeah, it is better. Look, I didn't use Spotify before. I used their hosting service, but it is better. OK, So it's always been at war. Let's see, The reason we were worried about the war is because we thought that our military was a bunch of wimps, and now

they're not wimps. So here we go. One of the reasons I fear, Sean, that some people in this country lost faith in the military and the capacity to use that military to defend us is because we had a woke Pentagon, because we had a military who at the very highest levels, not the war fighters, was forced to fight a less than full fight.

What you're seeing now, Sean, is a military that is unleashed in all of its lethal prowess to go out and seek, destroy and kill the enemy, which is what militaries are for. Yeah, Merca, maybe somebody should ask some veterans what they think about that, because that's kind of gross. I don't think that Steve Miller has served in the military. He claims that Americans think that we weren't capable. I think Americans always knew what they were capable.

They just kind of wanted a judicious use of the military. You know what sucks? When Donald Trump makes Kamala Harris correct. This clip was dug up. They're going to be able to play all the clips of Donald Trump saying I am peace. I am the president of peace. I'm the only guy that ever started a new war. That's not good. You're going to make Rachel Maddow and and Kamala Harris correct about this guy. It's just a really bad look. It's totally unnecessary.

He did have a feeling though. Tweeting out, you know, this bravado about, you know, lock em, lock and load it. What the what does that mean? OK. And also well. It's an implicit military threat, the. US is, yes it is. Yes it is. Yes it is. And again, you know, listen, as far as I'm concerned, this, this president is, is motivated by his his personal insecurities more than he is our national security.

If this president is thinking about putting us in a position where we're in a war with Iran, the consequences will be absolutely. Unacceptable and and and tragic in terms of the young men and women who are American soldiers who would be sent and deployed into something that was completely avoidable in a Harrison. It doesn't make me like Kamala Harris anymore. I still don't like her. I think she's a moron. I think they would have sent pallets of cash.

They would have tried to appease and buy off the Iranians. But interesting that she was calling that out. Kind of not great. Again, it gives people on the left fodder to be able to say, look, we warned you. We told you told you was going to do this thing. Does she care about American soldiers and lives? No. She was part of the Biden administration when they abandoned Afghanistan and had 13 people killed at Abby Gate. Do you think they really cared

at all? No. Do they come from the same tradition as the Hillary Clinton types that did Benghazi and said what difference does it make? Yeah, they do. So do I buy what she's saying? No. I'm just telling you that her words line up with fact now. And that's not great. It's just a talking point that gives them an opportunity to launch in. Told you back then.

Look what I said back then. You want the worst possible thing you could do is, and I, and I'm not even exaggerating here, the worst thing you could do is try to motivate the talking heads. You could try to get the, the most trusted quote UN quote conservative Con Inc types. And if you could just set them up with an opportunity to interview, what would our founding fathers have said?

Now we know what the founding fathers would have said because they actually had debates about this and we know what their letters said and we know what the discussions that were had at time. And we understand what The Federalist Papers did and the anti federalist wrote against. And So what there was a robust discussion about how should the the the United States exist and what should they do? And there were court cases and speeches and all this kind of stuff. But you know what would be

better? Because we're just dumb Americans who need to have slop fed to us. We need to be told that there was a glove found 2-2 miles away from some lady's house. And it could be the solution. We'd like to see an AI version of George Washington invented, created, and then give propaganda into that AI bot's mouth. What if we could get Glenn Beck to interview fake George Washington that comes to the conclusion that Donald Trump is correct?

No matter What Could we do that? Would that have like a really good reception? There's a reason why Glenn Beck's new project, which is called Torch, is not taking off. Maybe interviewing a fake George Washington bot is not the win. Are you guys ready for this? I saw this on X this morning and it is getting destroyed by everybody because it is super freaking weird. It might be the weirdest thing that I've played this year, George. We are trying to not fight foreign wars and not be involved

in an in the world's policeman. But there are times that we have to demonstrate strength in order to prevent conflict. But I I don't know where the foreign entanglement begins and where it ends. When I was president, I did not crave power. I didn't strut in my uniform dreaming of conquest. In fact, I begged several times to not be the general and not be the president.

I didn't want it, but I understood my responsibility, and I also understood that some things that that are easy to forget when you're staring down bayonets. Peace is not the default. It has to be guarded deliberately with foresight and strength. My generation lived through a fragile independence. Our New Republic was surrounded, literally and figuratively, by instability. Most of the founders believed that we would not survive to 1820. We thought it was an interesting experiment.

European powers were sniffing the opportunities. States were threatening to splinter. Loyalists were lurking. None of this was hypothetical. It was the daily background noise of early America. So how did you protect that freedom? Well, you said it through strength. Weakness didn't just invite disagreement, it invited disunion. And I had already seen what happens to authority when it is too diluted. The Continental Congress couldn't pay the troops.

They couldn't enforce unity or act decisively. That kind of vacuum doesn't stay empty. Either Chaos fills it, or another power does. And that's why. What in the actual hell is going on right now? That was a fake George Washington created by AI that talks exactly like Glenn Beck. If Glenn Beck pretended that he was 200 years old, like, what? What are we doing, man? And also the music in the background sounded like he was going to break out and Pat Benatar, we belong at any moment.

Many times I tried to tell you, many times I cried alone. Like what was going on there? That's the weirdest, sloppy, gnarly propaganda that I've ever seen, and I am not exaggerating even a little bit. He created a fake George Washington to be the answer to what he was. This was like that was that might be the most masturbatorial thing that I've ever seen by a by a talking head. I can't fathom interviewing myself. Yeah, he just interviewed himself.

Where he was himself and George Washington. And so he did the Sean Hannity where he told the guest the answer, except the guest was himself. Wow. Cool. Anyway, take a deep breath. Acknowledge that we live in a strange, strange time when that just happened. That was real. That was real fake. That was a real fake thing that just happened. Good God almighty. Let me make sure I'm not missing any other ridiculous moments or clips about this.

Oh, Tucker Carlson, another talking head, but someone who tends to be closer aligned to what I think. I think Tucker is brilliant. I think he's really smart when he speaks. He did this and it was really well done. This was on Piers Morgan. And maybe a moment of just sanity going like, hey, we could all be wrong. We all may be wrong at some point in time, but some things just end up always going the

wrong way. You know, like assuming that you're going to have a short military, short military interaction when that's not going to be the case. So here's Tucker and Piers Morgan, who's awful, but Tucker and he have a debate. A Brit tries to own an American and an American pulls a George Washington. Is that the segue? And let's call it that, where Donald Trump decided to attack Iran. What did you feel about that, given that it ended so

apparently quickly? Do you think Trump was vindicated in his short, sharp strategy there by by bombing Iran? Or do you think that this will come back and haunt him down the line? Well, of course, I can't say. I mean, my, my life is a kind of unbroken chain of bad predictions and, you know, embarrassing analysis. And I've been wrong so many times. And I will be in the future

without question. However, it's just a fact that, you know, events have consequences that we can't foresee, often for years or generations. And I think it's very unwise to use military force without a clear, achievable object objective that serves the American National interest. In fact, it's not. It's not allowed to use it under any other circumstances. And in that case, I was concerned and remain concerned that this focus on Iran is not actually connected to our

national security. How many Shiite terror attacks have there been in the United States in my lifetime? Let me do the math 0 So don't tell me that the greatest threat we face is Iran. That's a lie. You're telling it on behalf of a foreign power. Maybe they feel the greatest threat they face is Iran. It's not the greatest threat we face.

It's not an endorsement of Iran. OK, Doesn't make me a simp for the Shiites. It just makes me an American who's trying to think clearly about what our problems are. And our problems would include 10s of millions of foreign nationals living illegally in my country. Nobody knows their identities. They would include a collapsing economy that makes it very hard for my children to have children and would live the life that they grew up with and and their

friends and all American kids. It would include a drug crisis that's killed millions of Americans over the past 20 millions of Americans over the last 20 years. Iran is not even in the top ten list. So you can scream at me all you want and call me names and call me a bigot or whatever, but I just, there's no evidence to support that. And so if the energy of the US government is focused on a threat that's not the primary threat to us, it is by definition ignoring threats that

are. And that's a kind of negligence. And so I pointed that out. I was, you know, roundly attacked. My family was attacked, whatever. I don't care. It's true. And everyone kind of knows it's true. And being bullied by Ben Shapiro into pretending that it's not true, it's just not on the program for me at 56, I'm just not not doing that anymore. That sounds kind of reasonable. I had this theory about gun control people because there's a lot of people that are

completely irrational. They're very emotionally involved in debates where they don't understand the actual things that are at play. And so I just break it down to a scientific level. It's like, OK, here's the deal. There are threats to people's lives in the country I live in. Let's look at what they are. Let's look at them by number. Let's rank them by number so that we have a priority list.

And when you get down to the thing where we've sold all the other preventable causes of death and me owning guns is is the next on the list that I'm willing to have a totally rational, reasonable conversation with you on whether or not I should voluntarily disarm. I'll have that conversation with you right after you solve heart disease, right after you solve obesity and chronic pulmonary disorders and all of the dietary and metabolic symptoms that that

destroy people. When you start removing all the ability to to end accidental death, many of which are predictable. When you start solving that, when you, when you end medical malpractice deaths where 500,000 people die at the hands of surgeons and physicians and the wrong prescriptions giving out and the wrong medical procedure

being done. When you get there and you've done all those things and you end up down there in the bottom, you know, 15 of the list, and you go, hey, we solved all the preventable causes of death, and the last thing that's going to keep people from dying now is you and your guns, which could be used to kill them. Then we can have that conversation. But until we get there, I don't want to talk about it. And I think Tucker Carlson's point is there's a domestic policy.

There's a whole bunch of things that matter to regular Americans way more than anything that has to do with Iran, feelings aside. Then maybe we could talk about Iran when it makes the most sense and it makes the most sense only when we get down to that level. I've got a I've got a story here that came from the New York Times of all places, which should illustrate to you where real priorities look. This is again New York Times archived.

I'll put it in the in the, the, the comments for the two video platforms we normally do. Why does childcare seem less affordable than ever? It's always been expensive, but but recently prices have risen and faster than inflation. The funny thing is, is you have a got. You cannot make this stuff up. Guys. If you're listening, you're missing out. Join me on Spotify. Check that out first. If you're watching, look at this lady over here.

This is Sherri Pica. She runs a child care center in Lacrosse, Wisconsin. Unless you think this was somewhere in New York City or San Francisco, CA, anything. OK, here we are. She has a second job because working at the child care center pays so little and she has legit purple hair with a streak of white. I don't know if it's because she's naturally white haired or if she's dyed it white, bleached it out, but purple and white hair. And she has a hard time making

enough money. And then they go in to talk about how childcare is really expensive. The craziest thing is, is that if anybody could actually do math, and this is always a tax on math. If you have someone who's looking and going, gosh, it is so expensive for my wife to go to work. We have to pay most of what she makes in childcare.

And then you don't consider what's the value of having my wife home to be able to help raise my kids and make meals and all the things that go on because it's not just child care. The minute you start putting your kid into child care, the additional costs stack up. There's taxes on any earnings. There's the fact that you're paying for the child care. There's the loss of being able to actually raise your own child and be there when they get home.

There's the the preparation for food, which can be very expensive if you have to eat out or if you have to buy pre made meals. It's way more expensive to buy something that's pre cooked than it is if you're going to make it yourself, right? And so as you go down the list, you can find that a lot of these things, if you were to just do a straight financial analysis of it, it's like, it actually doesn't make sense for a lot of spouses to have two incomes.

You get more money on the on the top end for your, your gross revenue, but your net is actually so low that it actually doesn't actually pay out. There's plenty of people in that scenario. Obviously some people will be exceptions, but most people don't actually know how to even look at the stuff and do a, a, a, a sober analysis of am I getting my money's worth by sending my wife to work? I know my parents did this discussion at one time when I

was younger. The deal was is because of the income tax bracket that my dad landed in. Like almost every penny my mom would have made by going to work at a certain point would have just been taxed out. She would have made 1/3 of whatever the salary was. Then there's the opportunity cost that you have to add on top of it anyway, just really interesting. But this is a real American problem.

Affordability for whatever reason, whether it's talking about childcare or whether the fact that Americans are just struggling to be able to to put food on the table or all the other kind of things, right. There's lots of different domestic priorities that are far more important.

And guess what? Your money is going to get stretched because as we talked about yesterday, we're spending money on a war effort, which means we're building bombs, we're building munitions, we're fielding, all these things that are disposable. In time of war, we tend to move into theater and then leave, you know, 10s of, of billions of dollars worth of material and equipment. We have to build out infrastructure that gets exploded and then we have to build it again.

And that's just what militaries do. But all that money comes from somewhere and it comes from taxing you and it comes from taxing you. That means there's an opportunity cost. Either we're going to just keep spending more money on military plus the things we want, or they're just going to do it in a deficit and we're going to get taxed so that our kids are going to pay for it, which sounds awesome.

Anyway, Tucker's point being there are seriously more important priorities that we could be looking at and we are not. And that's what's called opportunity cost. The opportunity cost of focusing in our our energy and our media coverage and all the other kind of nonsense that goes along with this. It basically comes down to what are we not working on? Oh, we're not working on the domestic agenda.

And more importantly, we're not covering this story, which I know we've covered before, but I'm going to do it today again because it's freaking wild day #2 yesterday of Kristi Noem being grilled about this Pro Publica piece. And kudos to Pro Publica, which doesn't have a normal place in most people's news cycle. They're not really well publicized, but they are doing real good work, real decent work. This firm tied to Christy Noem secretly got money from a $220 million DHS ad contract.

Switch out Christy Noem and put in Alejandro Mayorkas, the DHS secretary under Joe Biden. It took $220 million to do advertisements with his face on it. Are you pissed off? That's all I want to know. I want you to do the mirror test. Hold it up and say it's not my guy, it's their guy. Am I pissed? If the DHS secretary is doing a propaganda pro campaign and attempting to fluff his own image up the same way that we're paying for Cash Patel to have a personal publicist, would you be pissed?

And you should be. This story was written November 14th of 2025. It was published first thing in the morning. The company is being run by the husband of Christy Gnome's chief spokesperson. A woman named Trisha Mclaughlin's husband got a huge chunk of a no bid contract. And then it sounds like she may have misspoken Underoath when she was talking about this stuff. So that's freaking wild.

So let's go ahead and pull up a really good exchange with Christy Gnome. This one might be the most salacious version of it. And notice she doesn't answer. She dresses what I think. I think my buddy Steve friend refers to as the Fox News like a boomer sex doll or blow up doll. It's not a very nice thing to say, but she's so cosmetically made-up. She's got hair extensions.

She's got a face full of makeup. If you ever see a high, you know, definition zoom in of her face, you look like you could paint a canvas of it and get a really nice beige smeared across a large, large space because it's caked and piled on there. Her real skin is nothing like what they actually show her at and how interesting that the what is he? What does he call her? The Fox News, the Barbie blow up sex doll or whatever she is the gross.

She can't answer whether or not she's been boning one of the guys who works for her. And then she goes on this tirade about how he's a quote, UN quote, special governmental employee. And there's bunches of them and it's allowed all. That's super gross. And if it was anybody else in any other administration, you'd be horrified by it. But because people are so tribal, we've got to the point where people are going to actually ignore this and they're going to be mad at the Democrat

lady. I side with the Democrats on this one. They're correct, by the way. So did a bunch of Republicans, including John Kennedy. We played it yesterday. Here's a question. Are you having sex with your employee? And she has no answer. That's not it. Here it is. So, Secretary Noam, at any time during your tenure as director of Department of Homeland Security, have you had sexual relations with Corey

Lewandowski? Mr. Chairman, I am shocked that we're going down and peddling tabloid garbage in this committee today. Reclaiming. And ma'am, one thing that I would tell you is that he is a special government employee who works for the White House. There are thousands of them in the federal government. So, reclaiming as an advisor. But wait, were you boning him or were you not boning him at any point while you were working there? Super easy question.

It is OK for you to be no authority by the question. It is OK for you to be no authority by the question, but it is also a real question. So what I would say and you should be able to answer what we do at the Department of Homeland St. every single and without any hesitation every single day is to protect if someone is asked to make decisions you or any federal official is sleeping with their subordinate that. Are you sleeping with your subordinate? Yes or no? Should be absolutely not.

Thank you for the question. I'm glad to clear that up. I'm, I'm cringing right now with everything I have. Look at that face. Look at that pause. You asked me something and I cannot. I She can't tell a lie either. She's in modern George Washington. She cannot tell a lie. She chopped down the Cherry Tree, but we're going to talk about a different kind of tree. She was like, there are no pecan trees in the orchard that anyone has said could not be touched.

And therefore, Oh my God, just say no or don't. Here's The funny thing. When you don't say the answer to a really simple question like this, the odds are is that somebody probably has the proof on it. That's probably where it gets really shit and sketchy. So OK. I have the easiest You should be wanting to answer that question because it is not about your senses. It is about your. That kind of garbage. It's about reclaiming my time so

that I can hear my recognize. Belongs time belongs to the general lady from California. The the the time does belong to her. But what I love is imagine when you're in the right. Have you guys ever been in a question where someone asked you something really offensive? I did this with James O'Keefe. They said something really dumb during one of the depositions I did with O'Keefe. And they're like, have you ever talked dirty to your wife?

And my, my attorneys like objection, like, you know, it doesn't need to be answered. And I was like, no, but I'll answer you. No, The answer is no. I have a ton of respect for my wife. That's not the kind of relationship we have. So this is not really a big deal. That woman is married. Did you sleep with one of your employees? Should be like, thanks so much for giving me the opportunity to address this. No, I know there's been a lot of rumors.

They're all false. I can say that unequivocally. Thank you for the time. Do you have any other questions for me? This is super easy. I'm not offended by the question. I think it's offensive that you think it's important or it's really, really bad. And I'm I, I welcome the opportunity to straighten the record out. By the way, this goes on for a little longer on you, but it'd be nice if you would let her respond.

I will. I want to let you know it is about your judgement and decision making. It is about the 260,000 employees that work under you that want to make sure that you are giving information and making decisions clearly. It is about conflict of interest. That's all true. It's about a national security risk.

Also true. Department of Homeland Security was created right after 911 to protect the homeland, and DHS has circulated an internal bulletin to law enforcement partners warning that the conflict of the war we're in could inspire lone actors or small scale cyber activity inside the United States, according to a memo obtained by ABC News. So American lives are at risk. The people who work for you are at risk and they want to know that the person at the top you, they're making decisions

clearly. That's a great. Without any sort of cloudiness and that they're your decisions because you're the secretary who was confirmed. That's what this is about, saving the lives of Americans and not costing them millions of dollars. I mean, it's hard to argue with what she's talking about there. That's not the most salacious thing. That's just the thing that it should have been an easy slam dunk answer. By the way, that's a great opportunity to say great messaging.

Like, no, I don't. I'm faithful to my marriage. The reports are all false. Thank you for giving an opportunity for me to say it. Really welcome it. Do you have any other questions that I can answer? I'd love to be, you know, clear these people are bad at PR and they're supposed to be doing PR. And the reason why people are bad is that when you catch me on my back foot because I know I'm in the wrong, then it's really hard. Then I then I start making counter accusations, right.

This is the the thing one of my buddies used to say. It's the it's the number one rule they teach you when you go to spy school. I don't think he was a spy, but he used to say this. He said, what are you supposed to do? Confirm nothing, deny everything, make counter accusations. You guys ever heard that before? Because that's what just happened. Confirm nothing, deny everything, sort of make counter accusations. She left to deny everything because she couldn't even do it.

OK, now let's talk about money, $220 million seemed like a lot of money. Seems like a lot of money to spend on an advertising campaign to put that lady's face out there in the world. Seems like something that I don't need as an American. I don't need faces and pictures. I was always irritated when I saw Ali Henry Orcas's face at the airport. I was like who made this damn

video? Why do I have to look at this bald freaking Weiner standing in front of me telling me that I'm about to get touched by TSA and how happy he was that we're traveling. Like F you bro stop making videos. At least they were made in Adhs studio from what I can tell. Maybe I don't know. Here is the here's the congressman from what's his name. His name's Nagus, I think from Colorado. And I've been watching some of his questions and he's very sober.

He's very articulate and he seems to be pretty squared away. Like I probably disagree with all of his politics, but I don't disagree with people asking reasonable questions and reasonable ways that are not stupid gotchas there. He's not like a falling asleep at the table where you've got some of these other kind of dirt bags that are 1000 years old. He's young, he's sharp, he's honed in.

He kind of reminds me of like a like a left wing version of Brandon Gill, who also does a really good job of like honing in. This is what we're talking about. These are things if you're going to do a gotcha, do it well. This is a gotcha. That doesn't sound like a gotcha. And the reason it's a gotcha is because they probably did what's called fraud. Nasty, disgusting. Hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud.

I want to discuss in greater detail the expansion of advertising in your department under your tenure, and I believe you testified regarding some of these matters yesterday in front of the United States Senate. In particular, I want to discuss the department's 200 million dollar, $220 million ad campaign. This is the ad campaign that featured you at Mount Rushmore. You're familiar with this ad campaign, correct? I am familiar with it. It was an ad. Campaign that was.

I'm going to ask you some questions about it, Madam Secretary. So as I understand it, this is a $220 million ad campaign. It's split between two contractors. One of those contractors got $143 million. That contractor is called Safe America Media, correct? Correct. OK. That company is affiliated with a former political director of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Now, yesterday you testified, I

think I'm quoting you, right? You said, quote, in reference to this contract, they quote, it went out to a competitive bid. Do you stand by that statement? It was a no bid contract where two vendors were. It was a no bid. Contract It would have been a. Maybe if you did less time putting your makeup on and your hair extensions you'd know the difference between a no bid and a competitive bid. Which by the way is a world of difference. Very funny that she switched it up in 2 days.

I don't know if somebody read back her testimony and was like yo lady, you said something that's not true. You may not have meant to but that was factually inaccurate. Now you're going to have to go out there and act like you didn't say what you said. If it would have been a no bid contract, if I'm using that correctly, it would it goes out to two different vendors. Correct.

So it was not a competitive. Let me let me try to explain what the discrepancy because a competitive bid is very different than a no, no competitive bid and I'll just explain why we know that your testimony yesterday when you said again I'll quote it went out to a competitive bid is untrue. The reason we know it's untrue is because under federal law, your agency is required, whenever the agency decides to skip competitive bidding, to file a notice with the public explaining why.

And in this case, your agency filed a notice. Yikes. So she claimed it was a competitive bid and the first thing you can get things wrong, it happens. Then you have to be confronted by your own agency's notice saying that not only was it not competitive, but it was a non competitive. And here's the reasons why it was non competitive. And by the way, the non competitive reasons are freaking atrocious. And they gave it to a company that had been in existence for like 8 to 11 days.

And the person who ran the company was an RNC operative. OK, he's about to explain all this stuff. She's getting hit in the face with her own words, with her own agency's movements. And her action was is to flip hair behind her. There's multiple pictures that were online when I was looking. I couldn't find a high red version of her flipping the hair. But that actually seems it's like, but I'm pretty, that seems like the the fence right here because there is no excuse for

what they did. And she's trying to explain away something where they gave $143 million, handed it to a company that just got created and that company turned around and then hired one of her political buddies who ran $8 million worth of advertising for the state of North Dakota. We talked about that yesterday. We played some clips about that who was also married to one of her chief spokespersons. Trish Mclaughlin's husband is the one who received that.

Trish McLaughlin is the spokesperson that we saw the most. She's the blonde haired lady we've seen talking on on behalf of DHS. This is exactly what basic fraud and corruption looks like. This is like this is corruption. There's no other way to describe it. And the case is really, really clear and it's being laid out in this testimony. And her answer is to flip hair and blink a lot.

Aware of that right justification and approval for other than full and open competition, your agency made a decision not to proceed with competitive bidding and one of the contractors that got the award was this Safe America Media company that received $143 million. Many vendors got the chance to look at that contract and to participate in it, so that is why the two of them. Were Madam, Madam Secretary, I'll read from the notice from

your agency. Yesterday, she said that the career staff at DHS are the ones who determined which ones to go with. Now, suddenly she knows how it was selected. Given the immediate action to significantly reduce illegal immigration and border crossings, DHS invited, excuse me, identified 4 companies, four of the hundreds of thousands of companies in the United States, but you identified 4. One of those is this Safe America Media company. Where is Safe America Media

headquartered? I don't know either, Madam Secretary. We can't find it. We can't find a website. We did find an address that's registered for this company. Do you know where that address is? Is there a problem with this contract? I'll tell you about Madam Secretary, The address is registered to a political operative. Madam, Madam Secretary, the company, and then I'll give you an opportunity to respond. The company is registered to a political operative in Virginia.

Do you know just by way of example, whether this company that received $143,000,000 in taxpayer dollars, has it ever done work for the government before? I don't. Don't know, I can't. We pause it. He just said that the company has no website, it has no public face. It received $143 million contract with the federal government, and it's based out of a dude's house in Virginia who worked for the RNC. This is where it gets really wild. Have they ever done business

with the federal government? Did you guys choose them because they were the best choice? Because we've previously had really good success? That's what he's asking the. Answer is it has not. And do you know why we know that? Because it was incorporated 8 days, 8 days before this contract went out.

You want the American people to believe that this is all above board, that $143 million of taxpayer money just happened to go to this one company that doesn't have a headquarters, doesn't have a website, has never done work for the federal government before, and is registered apparently, or attached to a residence from a political operative.

And of course, one of the subcontractors of that contract, as you know, is a political firm that's tied to to you back when you were governor of South Dakota. The reason why I ask these questions is that this is taxpayer money. That's why, and I presume I don't know this for a fact, but Senator Tillis noted yesterday the way in which your agency is blocking the Inspector General from 11 different investigations that it is trying to conduct. I don't know if this happens to be one of them.

I certainly hope it is because eventually the facts will become public in this regard and there are serious laws implicated, conflict of interest laws, federal procurement laws, that I believe. All done correctly. All done, all done. She's probably right. They probably did everything according to the law. They probably did everything according to the procedures, because that's how they do this stuff. And they fleeced you for 10s of millions north of $100 million.

You, the taxpayer, me the taxpayer, saw a question in the chat. Sometimes I see you guys scroll the stuff by. Would that man who's asking the question, Negus or whatever his name is, would he be asking the same questions if it was Alejandro Mayorkas, if it was a Democrat that was sitting in that chair? I don't know. I don't care because if anybody that works for the government is doing the thing, it's not about team. That's the whole point here.

The truth has no agenda. The truth has no team. It has no side. If you're involved in corruption and somebody says, well, it's OK because it's our people doing the corruption, screw you, please leave. I don't want to be dealing with you. Here's John Kennedy, he's a Republican. He's asking the same questions. Why would that be? Why would this woman be allowed to continue doing this job when she's fleecing, taking money hand over fist, pushing her own agenda? And why does she want it?

Why does she want to have her face out there? All the indications that I have from folks that are working inside DHS is that she intends to run for president. If this woman runs for president, first I'll be nauseous, and then second, I will do everything to point out what a corrupt piece of garbage she is.

John Kennedy from yesterday, This is when she was in front of the Senate. The thing you just saw was in front of the House where she wouldn't answer whether or not she's banging Corey Lewandowski. OK, very simple. If you are involved in scumbaggery then you are being a scumbag and you should be called to account for it. How do you square that concern for waste, which I share with the fact that you have spent $220 million running television advertisements that feature you prominently?

Sir, the President tasked me with getting the message out to the country and to other countries where we were seeing the invasion come from, with, with putting commercials out that told them that if they were in this country illegally, that they needed to leave or we would detain them and remove them and they'd not get the chance to come back to America the right way. That has been extremely effective. Ask you to run these advertisements, is that right? We had that conversation.

We had that conversation. He's trying to get to the point, which is to say, did Donald Trump tell you to run these ads? That's all I want to know too. Did the president tell you to do these things? And if so, then he's also part of the problem there? Or did you have that conversation and you got no answer and you decided to go back and do it? Because if it's way better to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission in something like this, wouldn't you think?

Station, Yes, Before I was put in this position and sworn in and confirmed, and since then as well. OK. Did you, did you bid at those, those service contracts? Yes, they did. They went out to a competitive bid and career officials at the department chose who would do those advertising commercials. OK, that is a false statement. While she's underoath. We just know it because the DHS released contrary information.

Long prior. She made a definitive statement about something that was not true. Now you can make false statements and you can go back and try to correct the record. She needs to be issuing a correction of her false statement and she probably should resign because you shouldn't be banging your subordinates and you shouldn't be doing things like, I don't know, doing a presidential campaign on the public dollar, $220 million is a lot of money. Even if it's not a lot of money

compared to the federal budget. That's like that is a a shocking amount of money for regular people to think about. And the people that you ended up picking were people who had formerly done your political work back in South Dakota, is that right? No, that's not correct, Sir. I No, it's not, Sir. We, the individuals who I believe the careers who they chose, were two different media firms. What she's saying and she's

going to finish her thought. You know, we didn't pick people that had previously worked with us. We picked people and those people picked people who previously worked with us. We had a cut out which made it legal. It's kind of like putting on the Marshall Star because you just got sworn in as being a deputy and then you can go do the doc holiday routine. And this time it's legal, right? Getting I got a badge.

So now we can do the shootout. I can legally give money to somebody who's going to give money to the person I want. I can't give it to the person I want, but when I threaten the career people that work for me to pick the right folks in a no bid contract and part of the deal is, is that they turned around. Can we get those emails? Can we get all the comms on this communication like all the other background knowledge and all the people deposed?

Shouldn't there be a federal investigation, maybe by OIG, maybe by the FBI? Shouldn't we doing that game? Shouldn't somebody be looking into where what this this what looks like obvious corruption because it's so blatant. There's only one step in between them, and if the Democrats did it, I would be equally appalled. I don't care who does corruption. I care if you take our money and do something that serves your own personal interests. And if you want to do it through one, cut out gross.

There's been conversation about their subcontractors, but we have no legal authority to look into subcontractors on work like that. OK. And you're saying that you're testifying that President Trump approved this ahead of time, so I'm understanding. We had conversations about making sure that we were telling people. No, ma'am, she's done this three Times Now. Did Donald Trump approve this? We had conversations. Did Donald Trump approve this action? We had conversations.

You guys get it? She's a shitty liar. I'll swear on this one. She's really bad at this. She's also trying to dance around saying a lie underoath even though she's already said things that are underoath. I'm asking you, sorry to interrupt, but the President approved ahead of time you spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently. Yes, Sir. We went through the legal processes. Did it correct? Did the President work with OMB? Yes.

He did. OK, now we've got the answer. Cool. OK, Also, shut the F up. The Dow is over 50,000, or at least it was one time. The Dow hit a record 50,000. We should be talking about that. The S&P was over 7000, We should be talking about that. She would have been better off making those arguments.

Even Pam Bondi is smarter than this woman, and that is terrifying because I think Pam Bondi's IQ hovers around just under 100. Donald Trump keeps putting women that he thinks looks nice and then they end up doing this like just awful job. If you're going to be a liar, just at least be good at it. They're not even good at it. So that that disappoints me in a big way. You know what else is really disappointing? We're going to end with this. I thought there might be some

good news. The good news is, is that Congress held a vote to decide whether or not they were going to expose their slush fund. That pays off people who've been sexually harassed or sexually abused by members of Congress and members of the Senate. OK, they held a vote.

Nancy Mace got in front of her. I don't like Nancy Mace all that much, but Nancy Mace got a vote out there on deciding whether or not we, the people who pay for this crap, would be able to see what goes on and how much we paid and to who and what the allegations were supposed to be against these members of Congress. What they did, we finally got

the vote. It went like this all right, I support representative Mace Mace's subpoena here as well as the amendment to it. And I just think it's really disgusting how this institution protects itself because y'all just half of them voted to send this stuff to House Ethics where you know it's going to die. We know that members of Congress are using taxpayer dollars to pay off sexual harassment.

We just had a member of Congress literally sexually harassing one that then lit herself on fire and you guys all protected him. You guys all protected my my own side, your side. And so if you guys want to talk about about victims, if you want to go out and virtue signal and then you guys are you're going to kill her stuff on the floor and then try to pass, Yeah, of course we should subpoena all this stuff. But just I'm not going to sit here and play games.

I think it's a complete fraud. I think that's why the American people hate us. I think the midterms are coming up and everyone should go on record for this. And I hope that members are exposed for this. I hope it goes back, I think it to the 70s. Because it's wrong that it's happening. It's wrong that we cover up for. It's wrong that we can't center our own side because people are busy making deals because you guys want to center your side. It's a deal that's been cut,

people. Hate us for it. So yeah, I support it. OK, good. Well, she supports that resolution. She forced a vote to get it done. And then what happened? Oh, it lost dramatically and overwhelmingly. It lost 357 to 65357 in that in that House decided that they didn't want to reveal the congressional slush fund that pays off for sexual malfeasance and misconduct. And there's probably like $17 million in payouts is what we know so far. Guess who's on the right side of things?

Tom Massie was turns out so was Nancy Mace. That was Anna Paulina Luna, who is not particularly articulate when she doesn't have talking points or a script, but she did it as well. So there you have it. That's what it ends up looking like. That's freaking nauseating people. It really is. It's just like the worst possible news. It's super frustrating. If you guys want to support a company that doesn't suck, check out my friends over at Shield Arms.

I was just putting one of their rifles up on the on the Tackleberry project wall. shieldarms.com promo code Kyle will save you a couple of bucks. I'm not sure what the percentage is that changes. Sometimes they have soft goods if you want to look at a like a chest rig. If you don't wear body armor, which most of you probably don't wear body armor, but it is a nice way to be able to reload or keep batteries or medical stuff or have a radio or whatever else

you might be doing. It's good for hiking and all kinds of stuff like that, but it carries your munitions and things like that. So check out shield arms for their soft goods. Check out the rifles. They make the single best folding lower for an AR. If you build your own rifles, you should be using a a shield platform. If you buy one completed, they make a really good one too. There's an affiliate link in our in our show description. You guys can click through

there. And I don't know what it pays me, but it pays me something and more importantly, like they make a really good product so I can 100% get behind what they're selling. I've been to their factory people who run the company are good people and what you're seeing on the screen right now is my local gun dealer and the product specialist kind of walking through it at the SHOT Show two years ago. I think I've got some video from their from their space this last SHOT Show as well.

All right, we need a palate cleanse of some kind. Good God, don't we ever. Let's see if we can figure out what it make us laugh just a little bit. How about people waking up, finding out that we're at war with Iran? They were like, man, I just want to have breakfast. I was just trying to get through my day. I'm going to go back to bed. I think many of you guys probably see these shows and then wish you could just start the day over.

Maybe we could do like a reset like a couple weeks ago. A little time travel would be nice to not have to be pointing out all this hypocrisy. But that's not an option. So here we go. the US dropped Tomahawk missiles on Iran. I just woke up in retaliation. Iran will block off 20% of the world's oil. So expect oil prices to go way up. And I get breakfast or at least a cup of water first before you ruin my day with this horrible

news. 35,000 troops have been deployed or will be deployed and the US president has said to expect casualties from the death of American hero. I thought the airstrikes in June on their nuclear sites wiped out that capacity based thing that they still have it. Well, they're trying to rebuild that nuclear capacity so that gives them a one free voucher, all inclusive freedom package. I, I thought he was a no wars president. What happened to that?

Well, make no mistake about it. This was not a limited air strike. the US is at war with Iran and oh, did I forget that we're trying to send a freedom package to Cuba. I haven't even pooed yet. Well, it's actually pretty cool. the US is trying to start an insurrection so that the Iranian people will overthrow their own government where the people are so oppressed. I mean, women can't go to school. Acid is thrown on their.

I'm going to just go back to, yeah, if you listen to this program and you work in an office, then you're probably that guy who's out there spitting facts at people and they just want to go back to sleep, literally, figuratively, etcetera. Sorry. I mean, the world, the world's got some sketchy things going on it right now. So we should at least be open minded about it and we should also be fair minded about

principles. If you're on either team and you suck, then we're going to call them out here. So we do anyway. Hopefully you're more informed. Disagree with me with all the things. Use facts. Don't just say I don't like what you said because it doesn't help me any. I actually am open to hearing your perspective.

Include links if you like, especially if you're doing something on Rumble or if you're doing it on on YouTube, you guys can drop a link in there and say here's some evidence of what you said was inaccurate. This is why I support a different opinion. I'll rate it. I will. Thanks for being part of it. Bacon Cheeseburger National for the win. If you guys want to just, I don't know, do regular things that normal Americans would have done 30 years ago.

That's what I keep hoping will happen, but there's no evidence it's going to work. So we'll just keep doing what we're doing here. I think we'll probably have a friendly Friday tomorrow with Steve friend. You guys can look forward to that. Share the show call in shows tonight starts at 8:00 PM.

We will be doing that for the locals members, for the members of our YouTube channel and you guys can sign up there at the various places, Kyle seraphin.com or go to our YouTube. It's youtube.com slash at Kyle Seraphin. See all tonight or I'll see you in the morning. God bless you. Thanks for listening to the Kyle Seraphin show, streamed live weekdays on rumble.com/kyle Seraphin Bobble Kyle on Twitter, Truth Social and Instagram at Kyle Seraphin.