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.
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.
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.