Take a look behind the curtain with a real whistleblower, an American patriot. Prepare to embrace the uncomfortable truth because this program has no time for comforting lies. Here is civil liberties enthusiast, Second Amendment defender, and recovering FBI agent Kyle Serif. Well, hello my friends. Welcome to the Kyle Seraphin Show. Today is Tuesday. It's March 19th. I appreciate your patience. Yeah, man, we had some tech
stuff going on, huh? Couldn't get this thing to start on Rumble. Didn't want to go. I just started in safe mode, had to reboot all the programs. No particular reason why. And every time I tried to do an edit, it would shut it down. Well, we'll just take that as God wanted me to take a little breather. So today we're going to be talking about this country being
lit. And we're talking specifically about a novel concept in human history that people had the right to life, liberty, to pursuit of happiness, to own property. That they could speak as they wanted, that they could worship as they wanted, that they could, that they could defend themselves as they saw fit. That's that's sort of what this was all about. That's what this American experiment was.
That's the American dream. And then we got to this year, last ten years or so, we've been slowly eroding this thing at a rate that is kind of impressive. We've got federal judges that are trying to cut into your ability to speak to worship. You've got the judiciary and the and the DOJ kind of collaborating. We're we're locking people up for thought crime. It's pretty wild.
It's a wild time. There's a reason why they're coming for your guns, and coming for your guns is about trying to eliminate the ability to do the other things that come first. Let's get started with the sponsor friends of ours that have been keeping the show going, and then we're going to
get deep into this thing. So we'll start off with my friends over at Patriot Coolers. If you would also like to travel the country the way that I have and bring your hot or cold Tumblr with you, go to patriotcoolers.com. I carry this thing in my little sling bag. It actually fits in a little cup holder that I've got on the side of it, keeps my coffee going, doesn't let it spill hot or cold beverages stay hot or cold. That's a big deal.
Help me. When I was on surveillance, I used to bring them with me doing that while I work for the FBI going back to 2017. Good company, Patriot coolers.com. The promo code is Kyle. Kyle. Just my name and it'll save you 10%. You'll get free shipping if you spend 50 bucks or more. Here's what the best thing to do is go in and pick out two of the tumblers. Get yourself an alternative top because they make two different types of tops. One of them is a snap top and
the other one is attorney top. Allows you to put a straw in. I'm a fan of both of those. Once you've done that, you'll clear that $50 threshold. You'll get the free shipping. You'll get maximum value out of your order. You go to patriotcoolers.com using that promo code. Kyle, get yourself one of these things. Travel to multiple states. Start keeping track of where they are, just like I do. And I think I'm up to about 24
states. I'll have to go do account again, but I've been doing it for quite a bit. Folks. We had some challenges, tech challenges, but that's not going to slow us down. We're going to get started right now and let's talk about free speech because that's the fundamental first freedom. If you can't express yourself, then we're in bad, bad times and even the journalists these days, and I use that term in air
quotes. The so-called journalists whose job depends on the ability to speak and freely express themselves are now the ones that are fighting against free speech and being able to express yourself. How ridiculous is this time? I guess we were made as a for a time such as this. I guess we have. We have all lasted this long. So here's a little article on cnn.com. It's under their business section, I believe. I don't know why, And it's Oliver Darcy. I put a picture of Oliver Darcy
on purpose. He's actually sitting right underneath the article's title. The title is radicalized by the right. Elon Musk puts his conspiratorial thinking on display for the world to see. You guys are going to get a taste of how conspiratorial he is. What he believes is that you should be able to just speak the things that you believe, whether they're palatable to others or not. Now Oliver Darcy is a weak man with a weak face and weak
shoulders. That's why I took put a picture on there and he's defending or he is backing up or he is re reporting on Don Lemon, another weak man with a weak face, with weak ideas and an inability to articulate things. Don Lemon is sitting on the the the screen right now as well. Here's the article Elon Musk is showing the world how
radicalized he's become. The billionaire, one of the most consequential figures to walk the earth, spent another weekend swimming in the right wing fever swamps of X, formerly known as Twitter, a bad habit that was apparent when his interview on Don Lemon was released Monday. Oh my dear gosh, the contentious interview Musk equated, moderating dangerous and appalling hate speech, to quote UN quote censorship, bashing the press for legitimate reporting, a sale.
DEI programs without supporting evidence skewered advertisers who fled the X platform last year and gave credence to the races replacement theory, among other things. Well, look guys, there's more to this article and we can get in a little bit further, but if you pay attention, you know that they're gaslighting you. The replacement theory was actually something that was not coined by the political right. It was actually that was stated by the political left.
Anybody that's been listening to Dan Bongino, which is most of you or many of you, this is something that has been said in their own words. The New York Times has reported on this. The idea that if they can't get the voters to stand up and do the thing that they want them to do, this being the political left, then they'll just replace us and they'll just get people to show up from other places and they'll give them free things, they'll buy their votes.
So replacement theory is certainly not racist. I mean, the left is racist. I guess there's that. But you don't need to assail DEI programs without supporting evidence. The evidence should be that there is some in intrinsic value, that there's some sort of upgrade that we're getting simply because of the color of the skin or the sexual orientation or preference. That's not what diversity is. That doesn't mean those people
think any differently. It doesn't mean they're bringing anything to the equation that is a value. So it's actually on them. The burden of proof should be on those who are arguing for these programs. Simply the way people look has nothing to do with the the capabilities. It's the opposite of meritocracy. It's the opposite of the
American dream. The American dream being that you can do the things that you want to do, you can pursue them to the best of your abilities and if they are in fact not objectionable to those around you, that the marketplace of ideas will favor what you're into. When you have to start pushing it and you need the government to come in and the government has to force things down your throat that do not have value, that there's no transactional benefit to the person on the other side.
When they have to weigh in on the scales, then we know it's self-evident. You don't need supporting evidence. In fact, the supporting evidence should be on the DEI folks and they can't bring it because they're giving people a leg up that don't need it. We talked about it yesterday. We need more women in policing. We want to go from 11% up to 30% women police. Why? Simply because that's what they've decided is the goal. What's the value added?
What is the proposition for the taxpayer that increases their capability, that increases their safety, that allows the job, That is the that is asked of the police to be done better. There's nothing like having someone look like you is maybe the most shallow and unamerican thing that we should ask for, but this is what this guy's talking about. And the idea that hate speech or dangerous speech, that's the only speech the 1st Amendment was designed to protect.
The the thumbnail for today's show. What you guys saw probably a bunch of times as we were trying to get this thing booted up, it's it's a picture of those at the Constitutional Convention. It's a bunch of guys wearing powdered wigs. I'm not sure who specifically who is sort of depicted in there. But what's what's interesting is the joke is real.
The real joke is we're going to let these people say anything they want that's actually a part of the joke because they're not letting people say whatever they want. You have a right to that. That's what the founders actually embraced. They said that your right is God-given. It originates from the God of nature and the laws of nature, that human beings are allowed to express themselves. That's what they're saying. And then we're going to give them guns.
Hence, this country's going to be lit. I've got a closing remark and a closing joke about this. However, the political left actually used to know that defending this type of speech, hateful speech, inflammatory speech, is critical. Because when you let the government come in and decide what is and what is not an appropriate type of speech, then all things are negotiable. You cannot, you absolutely cannot have the government weigh in. It has to remain agnostic.
And that's what we've seen happen in the last couple years, is the government has ripped off the veil, not just in the blind sort of sphere where we're supposed to have justice. It's actually looking for outcomes, but it's also trying to decide what is good and what is bad speech. And we had an We had a Supreme Court Justice yesterday in oral arguments while asking questions in the Missouri V Biden case, wondering, well, aren't you inconveniencing the government?
The government only exists for one reason. The government exists to serve the people through the consent and the will of the people. That's the only reason it's supposed to be around. It's truly remarkable. That's someone who has sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, who is theoretically supposed to be an impartial mediator, is worried about the rights of the government. The government has no rights.
The government's only exists insomuch as it does what it is designed to do. And that is exactly what our Declaration of Independence said, that when you start pushing that envelope and you cross over the boundaries into tyranny, then you are no longer legitimate. And it's not just a it's not just an opportunity, but it's actually a duty to get rid of you. Our government is fast approaching this kind of stupidity. I don't understand why.
I don't understand that these people just don't know or if they're evil. There's a Little Mix of both. Probably There's a lot of people that have no idea, like that Lady on MSNBC we played a little bit ago, who who literally said these Christian nationalists think that their rights come from God and not from the government. Yeah, that's actually what our founding documents and our founding, our founding fathers said about this country. That's really what the American experiment is.
It's based on fundamental freedoms, which she's so dim she didn't even realize that she was owning herself. So in any case, let me give you a little taste of this interview because it's contentious. Elon Musk actually says it perfectly. He's an imperfect vessel because even though he's brighter than many, he's not the best at
speaking. I don't know if it's the, you know, he has some sort of that social disorder, whether it's autism spectrum type thing, but end of the day, the man says what is true, even if he doesn't convey it perfectly. He's not the quickest on his feet, but he's smarter than the guy he's being interviewed by. And more importantly, he's right. He's actually correct.
It's really simple. I don't agree with everything Elon Musk says, but when it comes to free speech, he he's correctly nailing that these people want to censor and they don't want to call it censorship. That's why they put it in air quotes in this Oliver Darcy article, which is it's actually censorship. If you stop people from speaking, here we go. We don't agree on this. Yes, you want censorship and I don't. No, I don't want censorship. I guess you do. No, I want responsibility.
I think there's. I think there. You desperately want censorship. No. If I want a censorship, want censorship so bad, you can taste it. No, that's not true.
It's not true. I think that there's right and wrong and I think that and I think that when you have a platform that's as big as yours and as powerful as yours and as influential as yours, and you are a person of consequence to the world with what you do, that there is a certain responsibility that goes along with what you have on your platform and what you put out to the world. And I think that's important. You don't see that
responsibility. I think the we have responsibility to adhere to the law and if people want the law changed they should talk to electric talk to their electric representative and get the law changed and then we will adhere to the law. OK. But if you want us to go big beyond the law, that is that is US deciding to be censors. So and I'm against censorship. I'm I'm in favor of freedom of speech and freedom of speech only is relevant when people you don't like say things you don't
like. Otherwise it has no meaning. It is only meant to protect the speech that is inflammatory. It's not about yoga workouts or your gardening ideas or your favorite recipes. That's not what the 1st Amendment is for. Elon Musk is correct. He's not even born in America, but he knows this. The job of the 1st Amendment is to say that your ability to
express yourself is absolute. I don't like any of the caveats or the carve outs that our Supreme Courts have come up with to any of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. They were really, really deliberate when they said it. We're going to talk about how a federal judge actually has ruled against 18 USC 922 Section G allowing illegal aliens to carry guns. I actually agree with that. I actually disagree with every single firearm law that exists,
all of them at a federal level. We're in this really interesting time right now. What has happened is the political left has basically said that the federal government, because they want to federalize everything, the federal government needs to have absolute authority across
everything. They call it the Supremacy Clause. It's actually in the Constitution. However, we have something really important that was left in the Constitution as well, The 10th Amendment, which is probably the single most forgotten and the least considered amendment of all. What it said is that anything that is not specifically delineated is a power of the federal government, which is a ton of the stuff. The federal government does.
Everything that is not delineated to the tent to the the federal government is left to the States and the people. The federal government cannot do gun laws. This judge actually randomly and accidentally did it in a virtue signal towards illegal immigrants or illegal aliens, which is kind of amazing OK. However the problem is a they don't get things right because when they're trying to push their their ideological bend, Elon's correct.
You should get your elected representatives do the right thing. The problem with our elected representatives is they are not they don't evenly enforce it. They don't evenly play the game and we're seeing that right now with what happens to Peter Navarro now a member of the Trump. The Trump cabinet was is actually going to go to prison for failing to comply with a subpoena with the January 6th committee.
You know, the same committee that said, yeah, we took down all these interviews and then we deleted them because it might have been embarrassing to us. This very one sided ridiculous group of people. This is the same elected body that also held Eric Holder in contempt. You didn't see him go to jail. He didn't go to prison for it. Meanwhile, we've got this story about Navarro. I did 2 from CNNI, got two from CBS, and I've got a little bit more. We'll go to Fox and Newsmax as
well. I got a bunch here stuff to cover, so keep staying with us. Ex aide Peter Navarro heads to prison after historic contempt prosecution. Remember when I told you to be watching out for these things like historic novel, first of its kind. All of these things are bad. We've had plenty of history. And if this has not happened before and it hasn't, then you know we're in. We're we're making bad new
territory. It's the same as going after President Trump and and raiding the House of a former president. We don't do that in this country until we've thrown out all the standards. And they've thrown out all the standards, which is why they're going and they're trying to push things like censorship. Even historically the political left knew that censorship was wrong.
They may not have agreed with the certain people but if you're going to let the government which needs to remain agnostic, if you're going to let that government step up and decide what is right and wrong, what is good and bad, what speech is allowed and what speech is not, Which by the way is an express an express violation of our First Amendment liberties our
liberties pre existed. The 1st amendment says what it is. They can make no law abridging it the end and therefore the court should not be able to rule on any law because nothing can abridge what what your your ability is to speak and express yourself to petition your government to gather to assemble.
It's just part of what I talked about when I was out up in Lewiston. It's it's so scary to me to think that this government has lost the thread of what its actual purpose is, But it did, and they're taking Peter Navarro to jail for it. He was sentenced to four months prison for refusal to comply with a subpoena to the House Select Committee that investigated January 6th. My issue is not that they're sending someone like this to jail. My issue is that they never do
that. And that is not what happens in these situations. If you don't normally send people to jail, if they don't normally get sent to a federal prison because they they don't comply with the subpoena, then they shouldn't get sent for this case. They're simply doing it because he's a representative at a proxy of Trump and they want to normalize sending people from Trump's orbit and Trump himself into federal prison and they
want to bankrupt him as well. Says his conviction is a rare example of a member of Trump's inner circle being held to account. You got to love CNN weighing in on it. He's being held to account by the criminal justice system. Really. Throw Eric Holder in. I'm fairly certain that Jim Jordan also disobeyed A subpoena. We don't see those people being held. It's specifically his association with Donald Trump. Dangerous and scary. It's historic.
And it'll be the future. It will be to future White House aides who get subpoenaed. That's what this, this former White House counsel says representing Navarro's one of the defense. Yeah, it changes the game. When you normalize something that has never been normal in American history, it's incredibly dangerous. What you're saying is, is that the Co equal branches of
government. We're talking about an executive agency turning around and going after someone from the executive side because the congressional, the legislative branch has determined it to be so. There's no due process in that. That's nonsense. Like all of this is craziness. It's crazy that we are not doing it fairly. That's the problem. Fundamental fairness is lacking, and that's what people are starting to see. We're going to talk about Joe Rogan's even seeing this.
The people on the political left, if you ride anywhere, people who don't like Trump. I tweeted this the other day and it got people really hot about it. But it's it's factual. Not everybody in this country loves a Donald Trump. It's just they don't. But even the ones that don't can look around and go like, you know what? They might be crossing the line here. This is a little bit too much. You don't have to like the guy to think that he should be
treated fairly. They're arguing for better treatment of people that have done horrific things and come into this country illegally and done horrific things. They would rather see that person treated more fairly than someone who was a former president who's made hundreds of people jobs and lots of money for lots of people. It's it's unbelievable, it's truly unbelievable that we've lived to be in a time such as this. But we have. We absolutely have.
So what are they doing? They're going, they're they're mad at Trump. They're mad at Trump. Doesn't matter what he does. Whatever he says, they're going to go after his people. They're going to go after Navarro. That's already happened. They're they're going to call him racist. That has to happen. So here's one. This is a so-called loyalty test. Listen to this. They they got upset about him talking about Jews. Yeah, that's right. His comments on Jews have raged outraged.
Here it is. It's a loyalty test. His discussion of of of Jewish people, Well, it's pretty basic. What he said is that if you vote for Democrats and you're a Jewish person, the Democrats hate Israel. That seems to be the case. They hate their religion. Now we're talking about religious Jews, not ethnic Jews, which it was a distinction that I think is really important. We covered that with Ron Pullman the other day.
Observant Jews, if you believe in a religion, like any religion, actually, I I can't think of any religion that actually the tenants of it are going to be compatible with what modern today's Democrats are involved in. Simply their position on on abortion is enough. But there's plenty others their their idea that they want to mutilate and and destroy kids, gender ideology, all the kind of
goofiness. It's goofy right up until the point when it starts getting really dangerous and they want to imprison you for calling it hate speech. So what did Trump say? He said. I think they actually hate Israel. They hate Israel. The Democratic Party does. Any Jewish person that votes for this is a quote, any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion. They hate everything about Israel.
And they should be ashamed of themselves because Israel will be destroyed based on the way that it's working. We're seeing this. We actually covered that protest right out in front of the State of the Union. I'm not saying these people know what the hell they're talking about. I'm just saying it's incredible. And the other piece of it is, is that they hate all religious. It's not just Jews. They hate Catholics too. He had this little comment which which got Aaron Rupar very
upset. He rage tweeted about 30 quotes and 30 clips of Donald Trump. Check this one out frankly. And what's happening with the Catholics? The Catholics are under siege. Any Catholic that votes for this numbskull is crazy. Because you are. Being persecuted, you are being now I'm being persecuted, I think, more than anybody, but who the hell does you know? Fact Check. True. Fact Check. True.
Going back to February of last year, if you're Catholic, if you're Jewish, if you're Christian, if you believe that there is a higher power than our federal government, you know, like a God, then that's who they don't like. Why? Because you believe that your rights come from God. That's the attack on Christian nationalism. That's the attack on religion in general right now. That's what's happening.
What we are seeing is a fear and a basic rejection of hundreds of years, maybe like 2000 years worth of history in Western society, which is to say that we are all under God. We we we can't even say the pledge allegiance anymore in a lot of places. I was in Lewiston, ID and they actually said that as they started the meeting. Fantastic stuff. They actually did the Pledge of Allegiance, 1 nation under God, right? The nation under God. God being the top.
If you're a Democrat, you can't take that right now. If you're if you're a religious person of any of any flavor and you vote Democrat, I don't know where like either you don't know or you're not religious, You're actually making it up. Either one, you can't. Those are incompatible ideas at this point. They hate fundamental freedoms.
They hate religion in general. And so now they have to, you know, call out Donald Trump because he's, he's saying that if you're a Democrat, then then you can't be Jewish or that they hate you. It's true. Like, just look at their actions. Take them at their word. There's no reason otherwise.
And the the the pushback is saying that Joe Biden has been a lifelong Catholic. As many of you guys know, newsflash, there's a lot of people that attribute that that claim to be part of a religious movement and refuse to actually abide by those principles. Being Catholic is not saying
that you went to mask. Being Catholic is following the tenets of Catholicism. Being a Christian is following the teachings of Jesus Christ. The early Christians didn't call themselves Christians, by the way. They called themselves followers of the way. The way was the things that we're told, the way that you got to heaven, the, the, the. They had to follow the orders that were out there. Love your neighbor as yourself. The new commandments and the old commandments.
Show me, Show me where they're doing that. Show me where Democrats are doing that and able to actually make a consistency between the two. You can't love abortion and say that it's fine to kill babies and then also say that you're holding on to these tenets of Catholicism. They're they're they're incompatible, fundamentally incompatible. It's weird times, weird times indeed. But people get it. This country is full of Fair
minded people. Even people that don't like the guy, don't like Donald Trump, don't like religion. They understand that coming for this is dangerous. And like I said, the people in the middle are getting radicalized because what's happened is the Overton window, which is the amount of things. These are the that's the the space that we're allowed to discuss certain things.
It has moved so radically far to the left that all the people that used to be on the center left or even on the like, the the moderate left, they're now on the right, They're left over there with us. We're in the far fridge.
We're getting pulled into this like this weird space where you can't even talk about things that were normal a few years ago and comedians don't like it, Public figures that are just reasonable and folks that have enough money to just say whatever it is that they need to say Elon Musk types. I don't think Elon Musk is right wing. He's actually on the left. So is Joe Rogan. And yet here he is, he's recognizing it doesn't matter where you go, it's it's a problem because fairness is the
issue. As long as people are treated fairly, when we see people treated even handedly, then we're OK with people getting their just desserts. But if you're only going to go after one, if you're seeking out outcomes, which is what we're seeing right now, it doesn't work. It doesn't work in this country. It's against all of the things that we are programmed towards, because that was the sort of exceptionalism of America.
That even though we've always had corruption, even though we've always had people who had more money, there was always a sense that you kind of mostly got what you what you earned in this country, that they wouldn't just take it from you. We're going to talk about property in one second. Let's do Joe Rogan first. It is kind of crazy how many times they've indicted them. Yeah, it's pretty wild. I actually hear like I fly a lot, so I'm on planes a lot.
And sometimes people talk and they like, I've heard several times people are like, well, I'm a Democrat, but I don't like why does this keep happening. It's kind of crazy because it seems like what happens in banana republics but just somehow or another, it's OK, the exact same thing. Well, because protecting democracy. Well, did you see when that guy from Shark Tank, Kevin O'Leary, when he was discussing this whole thing, is like, you're going to ruin real estate development in New York?
People are not going to want to do real estate deals there because this is how they do it. When they say my building is worth $400 million, you're supposed to say no, it's worth $300 million. Here's a loan on $300 million. Like to say that that's fraud. When he paid the loans back. This is a, you mean that is like the epitome of, like, what are you doing? Like what are you chasing and what have you not chased? What have you not chased down?
Can we go over what you have not chase down and you're chasing this down? Is it possible that you're doing this because this guy's running for president? Because it kind of seems like it to the world. Yeah, it looks real. It looks real suspicious. It looks real like you're trying to prosecute your political opponents with these gigantic Letitia James with these gigantic, you know, I don't even know what it is a settlement. It's not 360 something $1,000,000. That's insane. It's a lot of.
We don't have to sit on there too much longer. What do they talk about? The world can see that it's not fair. You're going after people's property and you're going to stop the ability to develop property, which is what we've talked about about two weeks ago. We were getting into that. So the guy from Shark Tank talking about if you are going to change the way that the business works, then people are not going to take their business to that state.
OK, yeah, let's get into that in just one second. Before we do, I want to say folks, if you haven't prepared, you're in the time, The time is now, prepare or repair. You can go to fourpatriots.com/kyle fourpatriots.com slash. Kyle is the landing page to make preparations should something crazy happen around you. It's going to happen. It's pretty much a guarantee this year. The question is, will it be
around you? And even if it's not, wouldn't you rather have that sort of security, that safety get yourself some calories? 72 hours? One month? Six weeks, six months, a year, you can do all those different things. You can go to fourpatriots.com/kyle, you can pick up a number of the the prepackaged food items they have that are stored. They're they're storable for up to 25 years, so it doesn't have to happen this year. If it doesn't happen near you, you'll still be able to use them
at some point. Or you can go camping. It's nice to get outside. You get yourself squared away. They've got all kinds of gear and gadgets. They've also got things like continuity of power, which is to say they've got solar generators, they've got solar battery banks, so you can charge your phones, You go to fourpatriots.com/kyle, where you can choose to prepare, or you can wait around and repair. It's not good to repair. It's a lot more expensive. It's a lot more dangerous.
Rogan talking about this here. And then they they literally cannot take the advice of these types. So here's what you heard. What was that? James Lindsay they're talking about How? Because. Because the threat to democracy. It's right here. This is only from a couple of days ago. MSNBC talking about one lie encapsulates Trump's gravest threat to our democracy. The lie of the righteous insurrection has become central to Trump's effort. Why?
Because Trump said that he would free the January 6th hostages. Let's be real clear, Not everybody, certainly not everybody that was arrested for crimes on January 6th is innocent. Some people fought cops like that really happened. There's video of it. Steve Baker's been here and talked about it. There are people that did bad things. The problem is, is an unfair 1 sided prosecution.
It's the same thing we talked about with the Rise Against movement and the ruling that happened out of Los Angeles. A federal judge looked in and said, hey, you can go after these people for being racist and picking fights, but you also got to go after people on the political left that are racist and pick fights. You can't just decide that these
people are bad. And therefore we are going to weigh the outcomes and put the full force of the federal government into federal prosecutions of only people of one particular political party or one particular political idea. People who favor Donald Trump do not exclusively get to experience the long arm of the law. And that's what's going on because we know it. We saw it. And that's the unfairness. 2020 BLM riots, George Floyd riots, they burn things, They hurt people.
You don't have to say that it was a threat to democracy or a threat to our country. I don't think it was. I think it was kind of scary. I moved my entire family across the country. I left the Washington, DC area because it looked like we were going to get overrun at some point. And I didn't want to be close to the capital that got overrun. I didn't want to get called in to deal with that as a federal, as a federal agent. And yet, if you don't go up to the other side too, like you see
this. It's not that there's a lie of a righteous insurrection, because insurrection is bullshit and that's not what it was. There's a bunch of people that were pissed off and some of them got out of hand and they picked up fight with cops. And the cops seem to have actually responded very poorly and they had bad training because the Capitol Police are a mediocre security force.
They're security guards that tell people where the bathroom is. They don't put down riots and they didn't declare it an NSSE, a National Special Security Event. There should have been more cops there. There should have been more people because that's how the federal government handles those problems in Washington. DCI only know that because I've done it like 5 * a year for five years. I've probably got 20 plus times of dealing with NSS ES.
They happen every single year for the State of the Union. They happen every year for the 4th of July. They happen every year for the March for Life. Anytime there's going to be a bunch of people in a contentious way, they put out a ton of people into the crowd. A ton of federal agents go out there and make sure that people's First Amendment liberty to express themselves in a peaceful way is not infringed upon.
And that means you get rid of the violent actors in the crowd and you let anybody who says something that's inflammatory do their thing. That's their job. They're allowed to. I've heard people yelling all kinds of crazy stuff outside of the State of the unions when Trump was there, they didn't shut down the streets. That's actually a crime. You can go to jail for that. They didn't do that. You'll notice that happened on this State of the Union. A bunch of pro Palestinian
protesters didn't go to jail. Mark Naughton was out there covering it for us. You can follow Mark at Mark Naughton 9 on Twitter. You can follow him on True social. We're doing our reporting. We're showing you what the truth is. The truth is they were not, They were not run after. In the meantime, you've got this MSNBC article. Guy Named Paul Waldman is an author in the commentary saying that replacing history with a lie is not easy. He's literally lying right there.
To convince millions of people that the Confederacy was a noble cause or the Holocaust never happens requires an extraordinary effort. This is the illusory truth effect. Unfortunately, the illusory truth is that that there was no insurrection on January 6th. It was a riot for a couple hours and then people went home and nobody tried to take over the government.
Meanwhile, you've got these idiots on the political left, commentators and opinion pieces and so on, coming from MSNBC and CNN and so on that are saying the righteous lie of the insurrection has become central to Trump's effort to return to the White House. Number one, Trump was actually pushed into handling January 6th as part of his campaign.
He actually got pushed into saying that it's the right thing to do. It's the it's the one good thing that Trump will, will actually take on new ideas when he has pushed appropriately. He's also said that he's going to weigh in on abortion, which may be a a loser, but it's morally righteous. So who cares? It's better to go down that way. It's better to do the right thing for the right reasons. America can see it.
People who are fair can see it. They know that you're doing the right thing when you do it correctly. They know that you're lying and you're doing the wrong thing when you're MSNBC, they're talking about spreading the lie that convicted January criminals are not who they are. That they're members of violent groups. Yes. Well, here's the thing. Groups are not violent unless they engage in violence on a
regular basis. If they get together and do violence, and even having a group of people that have occasionally done violence does not equal a crime. You can join a group and not be criminally charged. I mean, we haven't rounded up every single person that claims membership to MS13. We still have to prove the individual crime. That's part of the gig. It's literally the job of law enforcement to go out and prove
individual allegations. And we assume that people are innocent until proven guilty unless you're on the political left. So in the same way they were just talking about property and trying to take things away. Letitia James, these like spurious lawsuits that are going against Donald Trump. Like these people cannot handle it. They are so excited about using force of government to come after their enemies, they're gleeful. Look at this little clip right
here. I want you to get a taste of it. Joe Rogan literally calls this stuff out. The Joe Rogan clip is from before this this little piece from MSNBC aired. They look at the Glee on this man's face. He cannot contain himself. They're so happy about the idea of confiscating their political
enemies property. It's the scenario New York Attorney General Tish James saw coming, and she has been absolutely clear on what she's prepared to do if and when Trump comes up empty, if he does not have funds to pay off the judgement. And then we will seek, you know, judgement enforcement mechanisms in court and we will ask the judge to seize his assets. We are prepared to make sure that the judgement is paid to New Yorkers. And yes, I look at 40 Wall Street each and every day.
I look at 40 Wall Street every day. Boom. Yeah, that's what journalists say. Boom. They say boom, we're going to go get it. Why? They look at 40 Wall Street. If you're listening and you're not watching, what you saw there was that. It says on in big letters the Trump building. That's the Trump building. It's not his most valuable property. There are others that are worth more that he has a bigger stake in, but it's got his name on it and that's what it's about.
It's about defaming and devaluing his existence, his brand, because he's a real estate guy. So they want to take the Trump building in New York symbolically, that's what they want. They want to come after him. CNN did the same coverage. This is similar coverage again, same story that Joe Rogan is talking about. People can see this. Their their, their audience, their, their, their sort of base really loves this sort of thing because it's vindictive and
cruel. They want to see our government weaponized. But people that are in the middle, which I still believe is the overwhelming majority of Americans, there are people on the right, There are people on the left, and then there are people that just want to be left alone. And most Americans historically want to be left alone. That includes veterans who have a lot of capabilities. They weren't political when they joined. They didn't want to be political. They'd still rather not be
political. And then you have these idiots that are just they're they're they're jeering demons. They're ghouls. They're trying to pick over a corpse. They're trying to kill somebody and then ravage the the, you know, the the dead flesh. They want to take this guy apart at every single level. They're fine with doing it while he's still alive, too. He hasn't even been convicted of a lot of this stuff.
They've mentally convicted him, though, because our rule of law is weak and it's just about favorite outcomes, because the government has a stake in it. We're going to get there with speech, but let's start with this one real. Quick then, the New York Attorney General, Patricia Jane A warning for Trump. If he was in a situation like this and did not pay up, here's what she said. We are prepared to make sure that the judgement is paid to New Yorkers. And yes, I look at 40 Wall
Street each and every day. If he does not have funds to pay off the judgement and then we will seek, you know, judgement enforcement mechanisms in court and we will ask the judge to seize his assets. OK, here we are. Blast. The judge just sees his assets. I look at 40 Wall Street every day. The day that this all comes due is Monday. 40 Wall Street is one of his most valuable properties in New York at 270 million
estimated. And then you can go down all of the others that he owns part of and you can see all the prices there, 160 million, a hundred and 75500 in part in some of these. So what happens now? I mean, do you just suddenly say, OK, couldn't get the bond, couldn't get the backing, the court doesn't go my way, so suddenly I'm selling a $500 million building in five days? Right. Well, I mean this is, this is what the conundrum that he is in.
If he does not post this by Monday, he can still appeal, of course. It's just that this verdict will be enforced immediately on Monday, as you just showed there with Tish James saying she's prepared to go to court and do this. Literally sees the building. Exactly. Exactly. Yes, Tish James, I know I played that clip. They played the clip, the same clip of her. I wanted you to hear it twice on purpose. Two different takes. They love it.
They can't get enough of it. That's when the government doesn't represent the people. She said that the New Yorkers are going to get the judgment that they rolled. There was no victim in these crimes. These are civil violations that mean nothing. And they asked for this exorbitant amount of money. Why? Because they want to bankrupt the political opponent. So he can't get into the office.
So he's so distracted by his money problems, which, by the way, if anybody took this kind of money from any of us, we'd be ruined forever. It's far beyond anything that would happen for like some low level fraud where nobody lost money. The banks already said they they gained money and it's not happening as as Rogan stated, who? Who do they overlook in this
type of prosecution? Are they going after everybody that's overvalued, an asset that claimed one thing that wasn't that the bank said the other thing and the banks made money. There's no victim here. There's just an outcome. There's a preferred outcome. And that is the fundamental problem. The government does not get to have preferred outcomes. Unfortunately, the government is represented by people who are elected.
And those people who are elected when they're on the political left are happy to use the tools of the government, the power of the government to serve their ends. And her end is removing Donald Trump. She campaigned on it. She is doing it. There's no reason to doubt her. She said her own words. We should believe her. That's just how it works. This is a big issue because we've got people on the federal bench doing the same thing. They're involved in the same
sort of insanity. How on earth are we having this article here coming in from Fox Justice Katanji Brown Jackson. I always heard of Jackson Browne, but whatever. This woman with hyphenated last names who doesn't know what a woman is, you'll remember her that this is the the the character from her confirmation. She she didn't understand the difference. She she said something about the 1st Amendment. She's concerned that the 1st Amendment is going to hamstring the government.
No shit. That's the entire purpose of the government's leash known as the Bill of Rights. The 1st 10 amendments are supposed to hamstring the government. They they are stumbling blocks. They are impassable objects that you are not allowed to infringe upon. You cannot abridge. They can pass no law respecting these are not questions.
These are absolutes. The Supreme Court having a confusion about whether or not the government can go in it and change law to respect or not respect certain types of speech is absurd. And the fact that we have someone sitting in the Supreme Court just tells you how far we've fallen as a country that we've let this fool in. I can't tell if she's dumb because she might be. Some of the questions are pretty dumb. Or if she's so ideologically captured that she is just happy
to be this disingenuous person. There's in a debate on Monday at the Supreme Court challenging the Biden administration's alleged coordination with Big Tech. By the way, it's not alleged they did. The receipts are there to censor certain messages. One justice raised eyebrows in her comment about the government's relationship with the 1st Amendment. The The government's relationship with the 1st Amendment is very simple, Congressman. Make no law. Which means that nobody can
actually enforce a law. The executive cannot enforce something about it. I've got a little, I've got a little clip from her saying this. It'll blow your mind that someone who's sitting on our Supreme Court does it. They're concerned because under the guise of combating misinformation, the same garbage that you heard Don Lemon saying. They're also worried about things like Hunter Biden's laptop or COVID origin stories or the efficacy of face masks or COVID vaccines.
You know, the 1st Amendment apparently doesn't protect you if you have ideas that are contrary to the government's preferred outcome. The problem is, is the government's job is to serve the people, and the people have various different opinions on things. So it's only job is to play referee and say, listen, you cannot stop someone else from speaking. We play this video quick of Katanji Brown here.
It's wild. It's wild that we live in a time where this is actually going on in our Supreme Court that these arguments are being made. And I'm seeing you in the chat saying that she's not dumb. I don't think she's dumb either. I think she's doing something incredibly evil. And I also think that she's a first order thinker, because the minute that that change is over, is that what they want?
They want people to basically bat the power of the government like a tennis ball back and forth over Annette, and whoever's holding power just goes after the others. Like that's beyond Banana Republic stuff. That's the scariest thing possible because the United States government is not a lightly wielded tool. It's like the ring of power. No political party should hold it. It should be thrown into the fire. We're kind of heading there anyway, aren't we? Here we go.
Justice Jackson, So my biggest concern is that your view has the 1st Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods. I mean, what would what would you have the government do? I've heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe. Don't do it is not going to get
it done. And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country. And you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So can you help me? Because I'm really, I'm really worried about that.
Because you've got the 1st Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government's perspective, and you're saying that the government can't interact with the source of those problems in your Honor. I understand. I didn't see you. And I guess what I'd tell you is the Justice Jackson. So why? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So that's that's the issue. The government's being hamstring.
I mean it has a duty. Its duty is to stay the hell out of it and let people have a debate and let states handle it because it's not expressly listed. There is no authority for the federal government to handle our our basic Health and Human Services. And there's there's no reason for it to be there in the Education Department either. There's a lot of government that shouldn't exist based on the 10th Amendment.
Those powers are left to the states, and they didn't give them up. They didn't surrender them, nor can they according to the Constitution. So those should remain where they are. And the ability to speak is not the government's purview at all. The government has no standing. I'm shocked that these are the things that are being discussed, but they are, and we have to know them. So it's not just about this. Like what on earth would would she think that the government
would have? They're going to be hamstringed. It's it's literally the purpose is to hamstring the government. That's what that means. Shall not infringe shall not be abridged. Shall make no law respecting. And it and it made me think about the earlier comment that was the Oliver Darcy piece that they're concerned there's no evidence that DEI is a problem. Isn't there though I mean it seems like there's some evidence.
I'm going to show you one of those pieces of evidence right now, a federal judge has decided, yeah, that illegal aliens, people who have come to this country illegally, who have broken our federal law. By the way, I don't agree with that federal law. I don't agree with any federal gun laws. But this woman is AUS District Judge. Her name is Sharon Johnson Coleman, another black female, which made me start thinking. So we're going to get into that in a second.
She ruled on March 8th that this this guy who was residing in the United States illegally, OK, so he broke the law. That's not not residing illegally. Even Newsmax is gentle about this, that he still had a Second Amendment right that was violated because prosecutors charged him with 18 USC 922, specifically Section G5, which I will show on the screen in just a second.
But the problem is, is they said that he's asked a motion to dismiss a constitutional argument against the charge against him of 18 USC 922. Let's just talk about 922 as a whole. 922 is the federal statute that the government uses to go after people that commit local crimes and then charge them federally. It is the single most commonly charged, easily grabbed, statistical accomplishment.
The thing that my buddy Steve friend always goes after, He talks about how somebody did something that was a local crime, they happened to have a gun, they were a felon in possession. That's the biggest one on on a prohibited person, somebody who had been involved in domestic violence. Whatever it may be, you pick it. 922 G violations are the best way to go and get them charged
federally for local crimes. Which is to say that the government gets to take credit for local police work and then they charge it up as a statistical accomplishment. This is juking the stats. It's the big tool. I'm sort of fine with this decision, by the way. Prohibited persons. Let's, let's throw them all out. You guys want to see what this looks like?
How about this? Here it is. 922 Unlawful Acts 922 Unlawful Acts covers the following Section G or the Prohibited Persons Clause. And Section G specifically lays out people who have been convicted in any court, a crime punishable of imprisonment to exceed one year. That's generally speaking, a felon. That's all. All felonies are over a year. Someone who's a fugitive from justice can't have a gun. Someone who is an unlawful user of an of a controlled substance.
This is the joke about Hunter Biden, by the way, that if they charged him with this, he may end up being. This is a libertarian dream that people who smoke marijuana shouldn't be prohibited from owning guns simply because they are a user or a an addict of a particular controlled substance. Someone who's been adjudicated mentally defective or has been committed to a mental institution.
Well, there are people that are committed there that don't want to be committed there, and they shouldn't be. Maybe so that may be an issue. How do we decide? Mentally defective And whether or not you can defend yourself, Just because you're crazy, does that not mean that people could come after you and try to hurt you? #5 This is the one that she went after, who being an alien is
unlawfully present. There's illegally or unlawfully in the United States, except it's provided under section Y2, has been admitted under a non immigrant visa, blah blah blah. Someone who's been discharged from the armed forces into dishonorable discharge, should that person lose their gun rights because the the government came in and said that they didn't serve honorably? Depends on what that was.
Maybe not at all. There's no provision in the Constitution that I saw that says that they should be able to remove gun rights from anybody. It shall not be infringed. This seems like an infringement. People who have renounced their US citizenship. Can you imagine this? She just said that somebody who is an illegal alien that is in this country illegally as highlighted in there in Section 5. That person is entitled to a
Second Amendment liberty. But if you renounce your US citizenship, then you're still, that's still good that that law is still holding. It also stops people who have been subject to court orders, including things that are like restraining orders for stalking and harassment and threatening and so on. There's all kinds of stuff in here. People have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, like Section G is. It is just all the people that defines the people that can't be
that, that can't own a gun. It's quite interesting, I think that this woman who was accidentally virtue signaling, she's talking about illegal immigration, illegal aliens in this country, those people are protected. And now we have this weird moment where the gun rights people are actually on the same side as this idiot who's talking about illegal immigrants. I mean, I don't, I don't care if he carries a gun, if that's this problem, throw him out. He doesn't belong in this country.
That's the thing. What's amazing is, is that they stated something that was quite fun, stated that because of some of the unrest that was going on in this country, because of some of the danger that exists, this guy had a right to defend himself. Part of the historical traditions within the United States, even as a non citizen, they don't take into account the fact that he had committed crimes and had actually come here illegally, even though the federal law expressly states that.
So I mean what are we doing here? We're looking at people that don't seem to make any bit of sense, and in doing so it made me wonder, is diversity really our strength? Here's a little fun article. They were talking about the number of black women serving on the Federal Circuit. I just became curious because I think there's an awful lot of strong decisions where I see black female judges, which is a pretty small segment of the population. It's a really small segment of
lawyers I've seen. Why do we have so many black females that are involved in in judicial work right now? Are they the most competent? Is it meritocracy? Have they arisen to the top because they're the hardest workers and they're the most intelligent? They're the best and most capable jurists? Or are we seeing a push specifically by groups like this, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, stating explicitly that they are trying to push it forward?
They tweeted out in our nation's history, only 17 black women have ever been confirmed to the federal circuits. And then we find out that was before Biden got involved. Now they say historically, 98 women have been confirmed as lifetime federal judges, 35 of which have been appointed by the Biden administration. That's a really big number, by the way. 35% of the total number of female black judges on the federal judiciary were brought in by the Biden administration.
35% in all of in all the history of our country. What the hell are we doing? Why are they the best? There's no argument, by the way. There's no argument that it's about competence, competency, like I read this whole article. It doesn't say anything about it. It just said we need more. We're pushing for more black women because black women, because no particular reason. Maybe they're really good. The sad thing is there's some that are probably really good jurors that are excellent
judges. I have to believe there are. What's crazy is, is they're all going to get smeared with the same thing. That's what DEI does, DEIDEI, the the diversity garbage. All it does is it takes people that are competent and it reduces them to their racial quota. And we all look at them a little bit more suspect. You see a black pilot right now, Are you thinking like, yeah, that's probably the best pilot out there? I used to.
I used to not even see that it was a black pilot, just like a dude who's sitting up in the front seat. I don't care. Or a female. Now you're wondering like, Oh my God, did someone cut the corners on this one so they could get more people in? Did they cut the corner so that they could get a racial quota? It devalues those who are excellent. I I think back to my my FBI Academy class and it's really simple. I had let me think if there's
there were more. There were at least two black guys that were in my class that I can think of. Two come to mind. One was 25 years old. His former job was that he was a an unarmed security guard who locked up the gates at the Detroit Zoo. He had three years worth of work experience. He had a garbage degree and a garbage thing from a weak school. He had no experience. That was a value and he was useless.
He was dumb. He is now a supervisor in the counterterrorism division because that's what the FBI is recruiting. The other Rafael was an absolute stud. He was physically a stud. He was good looking. He was smart. He was, he was likable. He was a good leader. As memory serves, he was a Marine. He was a former cop. He'd been on SWAT teams. He was incredibly capable. He was a discerning thinker when he was faced with tactical problems, when he was faced with
legal problems, and he excelled. And I would go anywhere with that guy and do whatever he wanted. He left the FBI before I did because he looked at it and he thought it was garbage. He thought it was garbage and he left. And the guy that was terrible is now a supervisor that pursues Americans in the counterterrorism division, which is the same division that was going after Catholics and the same division that is basically called out people for their speech.
Just think about that for a second. Diversity is definitely not our strength. We all know that. But the danger of it is actually quite incredible. And they're not just going after speech. They're not just going after property of of people like Donald Trump. They're actually going after regular people's property.
Anybody that has a little bit of things, if they have enough to own a second home to be able to earn an income, you're starting to see this has been going on for a while but we're starting to see those negative outcomes hit regular people that don't have tons of money. They just have one additional property or maybe they just have the a single property. That's nice. This story came up two different stories here. One's post Millennial. One of them is from what is this group?
Business Insider. OK, the top story what you're seeing deadbeat tenants. This is coming from from Jonathan Cho and Ari Hoffman writing for Post Millennial. But Jonathan Cho has a really good Twitter handle. It's show show, show show. You guys should check him out. I'll play a little bit of his video in a second. Deadbeat tenants owe landlord thousands as Washington courts struggle with eviction backlog. Well, are they really struggling? Yeah. There's no law protecting the landlord.
Justice delayed is justice denied. Is the quotation here. A landlord in an upscale resident. I'm gonna let you actually hear it from his own words. There's a guy who looks like he's a Sikh. He bought a house to rent it out. It was in a desirable neighborhood. That's the basic story.
Then he gets this dude in this Korean national, by the way, who's not even American. Yet another one of these people that's not American. That's not from here, who shouldn't have any right to be able to do this kind of stuff. The guy just stopped paying rent to the tune of thousands and thousands of dollars and saying is is paying, you know, through the nose, the utilities, he's maintaining all of the the, the expenses he's taking on all the liabilities of this property and
this dude is just hanging out. And the courts are protecting the wrong people. They're not protecting the people that are owed to duty. The second thing was a couple of New York bought a $2,000,000 home only to find a squatter rolled in there, claimed that they wrote a lease, and then the police actually arrested the woman who owns the home. I'm going to play you the quick video clips here. It's in. It's kind of outrageous. It's kind of in enraging, but you got to know that these are
happening. It's making it so that owning property is actually going to be a real liability. So you don't do it. They're trying to discourage you from the fundamental liberties of this country. Neighborhood is amazing. Woodridge is one of Bellevue's most desirable neighborhoods. Good schools. It's easy access to downtown. Many homes have stunning views of Lake Washington and routinely sell for millions of dollars. I bought it two years back. Josh Karan Singh owns this one
as a rental property. He's got a new car. He's a new car parked inside also. And he thought saying Kim, along with his wife and kids, were going to be ideal tenants. He lied for everything. He lied. Yes, that is, until the Kim's allegedly started out on rent. He's simply exploiting the system. Singh turned to the city for
help and even tried mediation. There's no law to protect the landlord, but when that didn't work, he started the eviction process that's now been dragging on for months. It's not a justice. Justice delayed it. Justice denies. One of the main issues causing the delays? King County courts are behind on at least 600 eviction cases in this joint investigation. KVI Radios Ari Hoffman and I took a closer look at what's
causing this backlog. Judges and commissioners than other counties like Kitsap are openly mocking King County. William Shadbolt is with the Washington Business Properties Association. He says state law clearly shows eviction cases must be prioritized over other civil matters and hearings must be granted within 30 days. They should be clearing this backlog of eviction cases that they created, Chad Bolt says. The system is broken and there's no accountability. Somebody will file a lawsuit
that may force the issue. We reached out to King County courts for comment on the delays. A spokesperson. There's plenty more of that. You guys can can watch it. Like I said, go to show show at CHOE Show on Twitter. It's at show show. And does a great job. This is like a five or six minute video, so there's more to it. What's also interesting is this guy's done this before. He's a serial squatter. He's a serial scam artist.
And our leftist governments, the the leftist state governments have actually leaned that way in the same way that New York does. And here's a video from New York. Same exact kind of problem, same exact expectation that you're going to protect those who have the least standing. Look, America's all about protecting the small, the little guy. But it's not about protecting
the little guy when he's wrong. And it's certainly not supposed to be about those who pay for the government don't get actually access to the government services. Here we go. Trying to steal my house? Yes, you are. How about that?
A squatter standoff. A property owner confronts a group of people she says moved into her $1,000,000 home in Queens, and our cameras were rolling as dozens of officers showed up. Several people were taken away in handcuffs and one of those arrested may surprise. You investigative reporter Dan Krause joins us now and now with more on what happened. Tell us, Dan, Well, this is a very big growing problem. I've received dozens of tips from viewers about this in just the past week.
I went to do what I thought was going to be a routine interview. Instead, we capture what police and property owners are dealing with on a daily basis. I have video of you on the line who always speared about the situation, but they were. To understand how this day ended, we need the police right away with multiple 911 calls and arrests. We have to start at the beginning. The hardest question is how do you say your name? We met Adele and Deloro outside the home.
Her parents left her in Flushing, Queens. She's in the process of selling it. He loved it, but she's been locked out. She claims squatters moved in on February 6th and refused to leave. It's like being here knowing you can't go inside of your own home. In New York, squatters have rights after 30 days. By the time that someone does their investigation and they do their work and their job will be well over the 30 days and this man will have stolen my home and now she's back.
Just after wrapping up our interview, a woman showed up. What are you doing in the house? Are you renting this house? Why are you here? She unlocked the front door, saw our cameras and took off. It's open. Let's go on the House. It's open. Adele and her daughter with a property deed in hand, went inside. This is my furniture. These are my curtains. She didn't just find her belongings inside. There's a man sleeping right there. Get out of my house.
She found two men. How long have you lived here? I moved in about two days ago. They've called the police on me and I've called the locksmiths. I didn't come in illegally. The door was open. Police started interviewing neighbors and looking for documents. Do you have something? They had shows that you've been here for more than 30 days. They took the man who told me he had been renting for two days, out in handcuffs. They got one out and escorted the other guy off the property.
Now you're afraid to come out. I'm not coming out. This house is empty. This is my home. My locksmith is on the corner waiting to change my locks. And it's not fair. It's not fair that I, as the homeowner, should be having to go through this. How you doing? Minutes later, a locksmith showed up, but police gave her a warning before they left.
I may end up in handcuffs today if this man shows up here and says that I have illegally evicted him, I said to them let him take me to court the way I've been told to take him to court. But today I'm not leaving my house. Less than 10 minutes after police left and the locks were changed, the man who claims to be the one actually leasing the house shows up. Call the police again with the other guy. Police took off the property. Do you see this?
This guy just literally broke down my door, broke through myself and my daughter to get in here. This guy just forced himself into my house. Yes, he did and so did you. You broke through the front door, officer. The man called the police on her. So why is it that I have to leave and he doesn't have to leave? Because technically he can't be kicked out. We need to go to court. Did you just hear all that? They arrested her. Yeah, for her own house. We're living in wild times, folks.
We're living in truly, truly wild times. And part of it is attempting to keep people from those fundamental liberties. Speech, the right to express yourself, the right to live freely, and the right to property. Which is why this country was founded. Pretty incredible. It's it's beyond most of us being able to comprehend and what used to keep people honest was the press which is the group that would speak and say things correctly. That they would say what was true.
Check this out because this came up the other day over the weekend and I decided I'm I'm finally going to cover it as well. TikTok influencers stormed the capitol during the insurrection blah blah blah blah blah based on US terror list after being hunted by the FBI. OK, I don't know if that's all that's true. And then they quote Kyle Serafin. We know that guy. We know a little bit about what Kyle Serafin says, former FBI agent.
So the documents suggest the young man has been placed on the domestic terror list under Section 266 of the Comprehensive Counterterrorism Act, giving authorities broad powers to surveil him. Yeah, except I didn't say that. Except I've never said that. I've never cited the Comprehensive Counterterrorism Act, not in my entire life. I had to go look up what it was. I don't know what it is, and I certainly didn't cite that somebody was going to be
surveilled based on that. I don't make opinions based on things that are false. We had a Daily Mail reporter whose name was. What is his name? I think I just have it up here. His name is Josh Boswell. A clown called me up out of nowhere and he said, hey, I'd like to interview you. He left me a voice message he sounded, he sounded like a Brit. He sounded like someone that, I don't know. I didn't give my information to a Josh Boswell. I don't know who did.
It turns out that the idiot TikTok influencer actually did, a guy from Marco Polo whose name I'm more than happy to release. Which actually, if you want to read the threads from Trevor Aronson, calls out properly. And then they quoted me and you know what they did? He said, I I said, hey dude, I never said that to you. I've never spoken to you. I didn't give you a statement. That's why there's no quotes in there, by the way. It's just paraphrasing.
And he said, well, you did have this exchange with my source so that's someone I'll never speak to again #1 so Marco Polo can go F himself. But this is kind of amazing. What I said is they have parallel 266 cases. 266 is the FB is internal code for domestic terrorism investigation. There's all kinds of different 266 cases.
They have nothing to do with whatever Section 266 of of some law that I've never heard of. Their internal alphanumerics, they're used to be able to tag our, our, our time codes in the FBI. I have no idea where that guy got that 266 thing. They are just making this shit up. And I'm a little bit heated about it because it calls into to jeopardy like your reputation when someone quote quote quotes you and literally makes it up out of whole cloth. So that's the danger.
But guess what? He has a freedom of speech. Someone's like, you should sue it. I'm not going to do that. I'm just going to tell you that I'm going to use my own speech. My own speech is this guy's a moron. Josh Boswell's a fool. He's a trash journalist. It would be a yellow journalistic piece completely made-up. The Daily Mail is is tabloid. It's garbage and Marco Polo is trash. The people who did it, they've
done some decent work. But the people that work there or that are part of it are idiots. So let's just call it what it is. The fact of the matter is, this country was founded on some freedoms. We have them. We need to use them. We'd be foolish if we didn't. Let me give you guys a little taste, a little heading out. We have about 90 seconds of sanity from a comedian. He actually makes a different point later on. But this part that's funny, it's the it's the true part.
When he starts getting political, he's stupid. But let's just run like a couple seconds to get our blood pressure back down. How he's tough. How he's tough. In the US, gender jokes are tough. Race is tough. You know, politics is tough. What's the toughest topic? Guns. Guns are the hardest topic to do. Jokes about. Hear how quiet it is. Now that I even just said guns, Guns are tough. It's always tough to do jokes about guns. It's always too soon, isn't it?
Isn't that sad? We love guns, man. I think it should be our greeting. You know, instead of shaking hands, I think we should just, greetings, take on the culture of its people. That's why in Japan you bow, in France you kiss on both cheeks. That's our culture. We own 50% of the world's guns. Oh, you're American. Nice to meet you. It's the second thing we wrote. It's the second thing we wrote.
Out of all the things to write when starting a country, the second thing they wrote down is you better get a gun. The first thing they wrote down is you can say what you want and then they were like, but you better get a gun if you want to do that. We wrote that before. Women's rights, slavery, healthcare. That's high two is high everybody, Second Amendment.
It's what keeps it all working. Yes, they said you have the right to express yourself, that you have the right to practice your religion and you better get a gun.
So if you don't get yourself started, get figured out that's what's American. There's nothing more American about that, and I won't live in places that don't let you be an American and own things I want to say thanks to my friends over Catholic Vote. Speaking of the 1st Amendment, here you guys go, go to catholicvote.org, Get the loop. You guys can check out all kinds of useful information. They will send you fantastic news. They have a great news aggregator site.
catholicvote.org/loop is where you can go read it or you can just punch yourself in there, get the e-mail every day. It is the right move and you can follow them on social media at Catholic Vote. At Catholic Vote. I got one of my clips from Trump talking about Catholics on their solid solid work by those folks. Their social media team has stepped up the game and their e-mail team is really good.
The Loop and Catholic Vote on Twitter and on on True Social, on Facebook, if you guys are one of those types of people. And on the on Instagram and so on. Make sure you are following them. They are one of our big sponsors and they are going to be doing something kind of new with us. We're going to get something set up. I don't want to talk about it just yet, but you can see that the background is changing slowly behind us. I've picked up some different
microphones. We got a little bit of different formats. Going to come out with the folks over at Catholic Vote. That's coming soon and I'll just throw this on there. I'm not sure if they're going to be back with us for next month. I understand that. But contingencymedical.com, you guys can go to contingencymedical.com and buy one of their products. I do appreciate their sponsorship.
I really appreciate them taking a risk on us and I carried their contingency medical pack when I went to Idaho. I do not want to get sick on the road. I didn't need it. Luckily, that's what a contingency is. That's why you carry a gun. It's not that you you think you're going to use it, it's that you just in case you need to. You got it. I carried a pack of antibiotics just so I didn't get sick while I was traveling all around Montana and Idaho, and I recommend you guys get one as
well. Go to contingencymedical.com. Use the promo code Kyle so they know that we sent you Kyle. It'll save you 10 bucks at checkout, which is not nothing, but more importantly, you will get an outstanding product. It is a really nice little case. It fit easily into my carry on. And you know what? If you are sick when you're on the road, there's literally nothing better than knowing that you don't have to go and find a doctor. You've already done the doctor thing.
So go check out the doctor first. Go to contingencymedical.com, put in your medical history uploaded, and then pick up a pack of. I think it's like almost, almost like 7 or 8 different weeks worth of week long courses of antibiotics. Definitely worth your time and you will be glad you did. The minute that you get sick. It'll be worth every single penny because you don't have to go to a doctor right When you feel terrible. It's the worst time to go to a
doctor. I actually remember going to a doctor once when I had pneumonia. My mom's in the chat right now, so that's kind of funny. I had pneumonia and I had to crawl in to the to the doctor's office and she told me I was being dramatic. And then the doctor was like, yeah, that's not walking pneumonia. Like you have legit pneumonia like you're going to need penicillin right now. I took a double shot right in the butt cheeks.
I felt better the next day. Would have been better if I could just take drugs while I was at home when I started feeling bad. But I was a teenager and that technology didn't exist. That was before the Internet folks. Anyhow, fun stories, let's do a quick review. A5 star review. We really appreciate all of you guys for watching the show. This is why we do it. And this one is from Loretta Bloom AKA Lori. And she said I love your podcast, Five stars. I find your podcast to be very
interesting. I also enjoy the fact that it's not always about politics. Well, that's true. And then you have a wide variety of guests on your show. I feel like I learned something from listening to your podcast. So thank you for that. That's Lori Bloomer, AKA Loretta Bloom on Apple from Palm City, FL. Thanks for signing it like that too, Lori. I really appreciate that and I appreciate the Five Star View. I'm glad that you guys enjoyed the guests while I was gone.
We'll do it again soon. I've got some additional guests that I've lined up and there's going to be some, there's going to be some interesting content. We've got one with an IRS agent coming up soon. So you guys going to learn a little bit about money laundering and about the politicization of the IRS when when it's doing the right thing, you'll learn that the 87,000 agents number is actually made-up and nonsensical. So I think you guys will appreciate that. And guys, hang in there.
Get yourself a gun. Protect your liberties. This is what our country is about. Just hold the line. We don't have to panic. We can laugh about a little bit. They won't come for you nearly as hard when they know what's going on. But be aware we got to be Keep educating ourself. Otherwise we will get taken over by these loonies that have just lost the threat of America. And anyway, I will see you guys again tomorrow. God bless you. Be safe. I'll see you soon.
Thanks for listening to The Kyle Serafin Show streamed live weekdays on rubble.com/kyle Serafin. Follow Kyle on Twitter, Truth, Social and Instagram at Kyle Serafin.