All Episodes
Previous
Sept. 24, 2024 - Firebrand - Matt Gaetz
39:14
Episode 173 LIVE: America In The Balance – Firebrand with Matt Gaetz
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Matt Gaetz, the biggest firebrand inside of the House of Representatives.
You're not taking Matt Gaetz off the board, okay?
Because Matt Gaetz is an American patriot and Matt Gaetz is an American hero.
We will not continue to allow the Uniparty to run this town without a fight.
I want to thank you, Matt Gaetz, for holding the line.
Matt Gaetz is a courageous man.
If we had hundreds of Matt Gaetz in DC, the country turns around.
It's that simple.
He's so tough, he's so strong, he's smart, and he loves this country.
Matt Gaetz.
It is the honor of my life to fight alongside each and every one of you.
We will save America.
It's choose your fighter time.
Send in the firebrands.
Kamala promised to prosecute free speech.
If you act as a megaphone for misinformation, we are going to hold you accountable.
She threatened Twitter because it didn't support her policies.
You have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter.
They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation.
And that has to stop.
Kamala said she supports a mandatory gun buyback and wants your semi-automatic rifles.
We have to have a buyback program and I support a mandatory buyback program.
But we do need an assault weapons ban.
She even wants to enter your home to make sure you're complying.
To legally possess a gun in the safety of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible.
The truth is Kamala's already told us her policy plans, and they're radical.
Bad for the First Amendment.
Bad for the Second Amendment.
bad for the country. - Welcome back to "Firebrand." I'm Congressman Matt Gaetz.
We're broadcasting live from Room 2021 of the Rayburn House Office Building here at the Capitol Complex in Washington, D.C. Kamala Harris is the sitting vice president.
Her policies, she's championed as a senator and really a D.A. throughout her time in public life, indeed, are harmful to the country now.
This isn't some future projection.
This is fair game of a sitting office holder advancing policies that we know would diminish the American experience.
And while we talk about the policies here, we also do note when there's an occasional moment of pop culture that emerges out of our politics that is interesting, and leave it to Trump.
To make a statement in the debate and launch an avalanche of memes and takeaways and autotunes.
This was my favorite.
Take a listen.
In Springfield, they're eating the dogs.
They're eating the cats.
They're eating the pets of the people that live there.
They're eating the dogs.
They're eating the cats.
They're eating the pets of the people that live there.
People of Springfield, please don't eat my cats.
Why would you do that?
Eat something else.
People of Springfield, please don't eat my dogs.
Here's a catalog of other things to eat.
They're eating the dogs.
They're eating the cats.
They're eating the pets of the people that live there.
They're eating the dogs.
They're eating the cats.
They're eating the pets of the people that live there.
Amazing.
Absolutely amazing.
But there really are challenges that we're facing on the border that erupt in small communities all over the country.
And in the House Homeland Security Committee, we delve into how that interface is impacting local law enforcement.
And we regularly bring sheriffs to give us a perspective.
And Arizona Congressman Eli Crane One of our favorites.
One of the best firebrands.
He took some exception to an Arizona sheriff showing up with the nerve and audacity to embrace open borders policies.
I think Congressman Crane took him to the woodshed.
Take a listen.
Let me know what you think.
Why do you believe that border walls are racist?
Well, Reagan was against border walls.
He told Mikhail Gorbachev, tear down this wall.
The Soviet Union said they were emerging into an era of freedom, and he said, prove it, tear down the walls.
Only 8% of the world's land borders have any structure at all, not a wall, not a fence, not even a line of rocks.
If you go through Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, even the Canadian border.
That's not what I asked you, Sheriff.
I said, why do you believe they're racist?
You said in your written testimony, and certain policies smack of racism.
For example, a law was never suggested for the Canadian border.
Well, yeah, the Canadian border is known as generally a white population, whereas the southwestern border is generally a brown population, so it smacks of racism.
And Title 42 was never aggressively enforced on the Canadian border.
Sheriff, do you think that if the mass majority of illegal immigration coming into the United States of America was coming from the northern border, that Americans would demand the same thing?
I don't know.
I think you probably do know that, sir, because it's not about race with the American people.
Matter of fact, most American people support legal immigration.
It's the illegal immigration.
It has nothing to do with race.
Sheriff, do you have a wall at your house?
A what?
Do you have a wall at your house?
No, I do not.
Do you have a front door on your house?
Yes, I do.
Why not just leave it open, Sheriff?
I leave it unlocked, but, you know, I do have a door.
Yeah, most people have walls and doors on their house, not because they hate the other people on the outside.
It's because they love the people on the inside, Sheriff.
What about prison?
What about prisons, Sheriff?
They have walls around them as well.
Are those racist?
No, I would say they're not.
Yeah, they're not.
What about the White House?
It has a wall around it too as well, doesn't it?
Do you think that's racist?
I didn't say that walls are generically racist.
Okay, well you said, and certain policies smack of racism.
Yes, it does.
We're opposing a wall on the southern border and not the Canadian border.
Well, I just told you, where's the majority of illegal immigration coming into the United States, sir?
Northern or southern border?
Go ahead.
Probably the southern border.
Yeah, you know it is, okay.
Thank you.
Eli Crane making the common sense, reasonable arguments about border security.
We're also working closely with Congressman Crane on investigations regarding the assassination attempts into President Trump.
And I want to get into that now because...
It was a surreal experience for me.
I'm broadcasting right now out of my office just a few feet away from this desk where I'm speaking to you.
I had a senior Homeland Security official come and give me troubling news between the first assassination attempt and the second assassination attempt.
I shared that news with John Solomon as he was hosting Human Events, the Jack Posobiec show.
Take a listen.
It also requires coordination of a lot of these different agencies, Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, Secret Service, even Border Patrol in this case.
And we oftentimes find that it's the brass that is stonewalling or creating the clog in the machine, I suppose.
It's the rank and file.
How can these people be expected to coordinate at least the rank and file if the folks above them are not willing to do the work?
Yeah, that lack of coordination has been laid bare by these assassination attempts.
And I'll break a little news for you.
I had a senior official from the Department of Homeland Security in my office before the second assassination attempt saying that what he has assessed is that there are five known Assassination teams in the United States, three inspired by other governments, two that are here that are known domestic assassination teams.
And with that, this individual was coming to me concerned that the force protection around President Trump, even prior to that second assassination attempt, was not sufficient for what it needed to be.
And the coordination at that level, at the dignitary protection level, is like The bare minimum that we have to do to keep our presidents, our presidential candidates safe while they're on the trail.
So there are five, I just want to follow up, five assassination teams?
Are they all targeting Trump?
Is it other officials?
No, I should have been clear about that.
Five teams that we know are targeting Trump.
And so that raises real questions about why certain teams were being pulled off of the Trump team.
We don't want anything bad to happen to Jill Biden, but at the same time, the threat envelope for her was substantially different than the threat envelope around President Trump, and it would not have necessitated pulling assets away from the Trump detail for the Jill Biden detail or the John Bolton detail or any other details that were beefed up at the same time the requests from the Trump detail and from the Trump campaign for more security were going unanswered.
Wow.
So we are back live.
I have subsequently revealed that this disclosure made to me indicated that there was a team tied to Ukraine, a team tied to Pakistan, A team tied to Iran and then two teams that organically emerged domestically.
And again, those were the known teams.
I want to be clear, they may have been neutralized by now.
They may have been limited in their capability.
There may be more teams now that we know about because the air of invincibility around the Secret Service seems to be diminishing with the proximity that attempted assassins are able to achieve to the former president and to the current I've got to tell you,
when I learned that the second attempted assassin was rhetorically and proverbially wrapped in the Ukrainian flag, It did strike quite a note with me because I had just been told days prior that there was a Ukraine connection to one of these teams.
So I don't know if this particular individual was in any way connected to what Homeland Security and the rest of the intelligence community was watching as it relates to potential assassins.
But what I do know is that some very smart people at Customs and Border Patrol actually encountered Routh.
They encountered him with this fantastical story about how he was recruiting freedom fighters all over the world and that his wife was paying for it.
That seemed a little fishy to Customs and Border Patrol, and so they made a referral to Homeland Security Investigations.
They're supposed to do the follow-up.
And just this past week, we had the head...
Of Homeland Security investigations before the House Judiciary Committee, I got the chance to question her.
Take a listen.
Thanks for being here.
You had 16 people at Butler, and my question is, did they participate in a morning muster meeting that day of the attempted assassination?
Thank you for the question.
I would have to defer any questions as to the on-the-ground Operational activity in Butler to the Secret Service.
But I'm asking about your people, because the problem we're having, and Republicans and Democrats have noted, is we're not getting really forthright answers from the Secret Service in a timely way.
And your agency, you had 16 people there, and those people either participated in a morning muster meeting, which is the protocol to make sure everyone's on the same page, has the same comms, that all the duties are correctly assigned and prepared to be executed.
So can you...
Get back to the committee with just a yes or no on whether or not they participated in that, in that morning?
Yes.
Okay, good, great.
I now want to talk about Ryan Roth.
Ryan Roth is the person who attempted to assassinate President Trump at his golf club in Florida.
And was Ryan Roth ever referred to HSI for further investigation of his activities?
Thank you for the question, sir.
I recently, just this morning, learned there was an article that he was, when he entered back into the country from overseas, CBP had contacted HSI, and I read all of the items,
the things that he was stating, and basically as a U.S. citizen returning to our country from Ukraine is a freedom fighter, based on the information that I read there would not have been any reason to immediately take him into custody.
He had not made any threats, for instance, against the President or former President Trump.
HSI responds to port of entry calls, hundreds of responses, probably daily.
Just because a person isn't taken into custody immediately doesn't mean that they're not subject to a longer-term investigation.
But you can confirm the Just the News reporting That the suspected Trump attempted assassin was flagged by CBP and was referred to HSI. Can you confirm that?
Yes.
Yes.
Okay.
So, and it was kind of a crazy story.
So, is it legal for someone to go recruit for a foreign military?
Does that break any laws?
I don't know, sir.
I would have to look into that a little bit further.
Me too, frankly.
But if recruiting for a foreign military was somehow improper, then that would necessitate some need for investigation, I would think.
And here's the story that CBP picked up when they referred it to HSI. They say in their memo, suspect is a U.S. citizen who traveled to Kyiv Ukraine for three months to help recruit soldiers from Afghanistan, Moldova, and Taiwan to fight in the Ukrainian war against Russia.
Subject stated that he does not get paid for his recruiting efforts and all his work for the Ukrainian government is strictly volunteer work.
The subject stated that he obtains money from his wife to help fund his trips to Ukraine.
And so when this guy shows up with a business card and this story about how he's recruiting fighters in Ukraine and his wife's paying for it, CBP says this is a little odd, and then they send it to HSI. HSI declines to further investigate.
And what you're saying is, you think based on the facts that you're aware of now, that was the right decision by HSI? No, if I may sir, the statements that day would not rise to the level to take him into immediate custody.
But what about just like to investigate?
Because sometimes investigations proceed without a subject being taken into custody.
These are longer-term investigations.
We are actively participating with Secret Service and FBI, in fact.
No, I'm talking about at this point in time, though.
Here's what you got to answer for me.
When CBP refers this to HSI, what I believe happened is HSI declined not only to incarcerate this person, but to further investigate the person.
Are you saying that They declined to investigate or that that investigation went forward and the attempted assassination occurred during the pendency of that investigation.
I would have to look into that a little bit further, sir.
I'll get back to you on that.
Yeah, I think that's going to be a really important second thing for you to get back to us on, is whether or not HSI made an active decision in real time to decline further investigation of this person.
And frankly, I mean, you know, this isn't someone who, like, Was jaywalking.
They tried to kill the leading, I mean, they tried to kill the leading Republican candidate for president and the former president of the United States, and so I really think it's important to get those answers.
I thank you for being here.
Thank you for all the good work of your agency.
I yield back.
We are back live and the live stream is fired up.
John on X wants me to vacate Johnson and then vacate Johnson today.
Shown Girl loves Eli Crane.
And you know what?
We've even got our former creator Joel Valdez on the live stream.
We love seeing that.
I want to bring you to some of the work going on now in the House Armed Services Committee.
We're going to be following up with HSI to get the answers to those questions and certainly I will let you know here on Firebrand or on the Gates Network.
But in the Armed Services Committee, you've got to see this.
So the United States Army has an anti-terrorism training exercise that they go through.
They have a slideshow to warn the Army who might be a terrorist.
And included in that slideshow is a characterization of national right to life and a pro-life license plate and any other, like, signification of association with the pro-life movement as potential terrorism.
Now, did this just emerge?
No.
This has been going on, this training in the United States Army, for seven years.
More than 10,000 troops have been subjected to this training, so I'm grateful that Chairman Jim Banks in the Military Personnel Subcommittee, a really outstanding committee chairman, he brought in some of these folks from the Army to explain themselves.
I got to ask them questions.
Take a listen.
So, General Matlock, after years of the Army wrongly telling over 10,000 soldiers that someone having a pro-life license plate might make them a terrorist, was anybody fired?
Representative, again, the chain of command is the responsible agent for adverse actions or personnel actions and I'm not going to comment on what they've done or not done.
That resides with the chain of command.
Well, don't you think that has failed?
Because wasn't the obligation to stop this nonsense also with the chain of command?
The chain of command took immediate, upon receiving the report of the poorly developed training materials, the chain of command took immediate action.
I tell you, in the United States Army, eight years might be immediate, but it doesn't seem all that immediate to me.
I mean, does years and years of doing this seem like the chain of command was immediately responsive to this errant action to you?
Representative, we recognize that that is a very long period of time.
Okay, so we'll dispense with the media then.
Okay, so you're kind of playing games.
I mean, I think the Congress deserves to know, after you all screwed up with 10,000 soldiers, whether you fired anyone, whether you suspended anyone, whether anyone got a demotion in rank, Or what the consequence was?
Like, you don't get to just say it's our chain of command and it's not Congress's business when you screw up to this magnitude.
Like, does that not register with you?
Representative, it does.
That's why I'm here today.
Right, so just tell us.
Did anyone get fired, suspended, demoted?
Any of those three?
Representative, again, those training materials were very poorly prepared.
They were used for a long time.
This is what's going on, General.
We don't believe that your chain of command approach is going to be sufficient to deal with this if you play hide the ball on what the consequence was.
And it sort of seems to be a DOD-wide problem that People who express policy or scripture aligned with Christian faith get demonized and attacked.
I mean, we saw that in the United States Navy when the SEALs wanted to have an exception for the vaccine and then your own Inspector General had to say that they were improperly treated.
We saw it in the Marine Corps.
When someone posted a Bible verse and was then subjected to disciplinary action, and now here in the Army, I mean, Mr. Chairman, I'm at a loss because they won't even tell us what they've done.
Now, I'm wondering how this emerged.
It was in 2017. Who was the Chief of Staff of the Army then?
I believe in 2017, General Milley was the Chief of Staff of the Army.
Oh, wow.
Interesting.
Do you think this is happening elsewhere?
This kind of stuff?
Representative, in the United States Army?
No, I don't think it is.
Yeah.
Well, here's what I'd do, Mr. Chairman.
I would demand answers to the questions that we're asking.
I don't even know how to use my last minute and a half of time, because they're not going to answer the question on what consequence.
And if the consequence isn't public, it doesn't function as a sufficient deterrent.
Like, what you guys do when you allow this to happen for years with no consequence, and then eight years later, or whatever, when you're called out on it, you say, well, there's a consequence, but we won't tell you what it is, then you increase the recidivism of this type of behavior.
And, not for nothing, but it's one of the reasons why in some of the key demographic areas that the Army is traditionally drawn from to fill its ranks, you're struggling right now.
So I think we're owed answers to these questions, and frankly, I would start fencing money at the United States Army until we get those answers.
I yield back.
We are back live, and so while the Army and other features of the Department of Defense are frustratingly focused on demonizing Christians, demonizing on the right in some of these trainings that we are working to get Extricated out of our military.
There is important work that I think isn't happening at the Department of Defense.
We did some fact finding on some of these questions recently and I want to bring that to everybody in the audience.
Let's talk about Ukraine.
We had a field hearing out in Silicon Valley and we had before us a number of the innovative contractors who are doing work in Ukraine.
And what I don't think That the pro-Ukraine war members of the committee were expecting is that one of the witnesses they hand-selected talked about billions of dollars just lying around unused.
Take a listen.
A final question for you, Mr. Seng.
You made mention of the amount of U.S. equipment in Ukraine that is not being used on the battlefield because the Ukrainians don't think it works.
Do you have an assessment as to how much money that is?
It's in the billions.
In the billions.
In the billions.
And so US taxpayers are paying for the inflation to send stuff to Ukraine that doesn't even work, and it's magnitudes more than on the stuff we're spending for ourselves that does work.
Thank you for your testimony.
It's illuminating and enraging all at the same time.
I yield back.
So with billions of stuff, Like, lying around.
Military materiel.
You would at least want to know that that wasn't falling into the hands of the wrong people.
I made a point about end-use monitoring of that equipment in the committee.
Take a listen.
Another question about the national defense strategy.
So we heard on Monday of this week that there are billions of dollars of materiel, U.S. materiel, sitting around in Ukraine that will never be used, that the Ukrainians will not deploy in the fight.
We heard that from the contractor that we curated to come give us testimony in California.
And we also know from testimony given before this committee that the Inspector General cannot attest To end-use monitoring of that very equipment.
So you've got a combination of billions of dollars of equipment and then non-legally compliant end-use monitoring.
Does the combination of those factors necessitate us contemplating the risk of a lot of these weapons making their way to the black market and having a national defense strategy that will respond to it?
Well, I think it's very important to track the material that's sent into Ukraine or any other war theater funded by the United States.
I would note that most of the expenditure for equipment goes to U.S. manufacturers.
I think you would agree.
Yeah, but I don't really care.
OK, this is just one of the craziest arguments.
Well, we've got billions of dollars sitting over there.
We're not monitoring it correctly.
The Ukrainians aren't using it in the fight, but be proud that we're making it here at home.
Well, that's a problem.
I'm not going to argue that.
I'm also, having been to Ukraine twice this year, including last week, very impressed with what the Ukrainians are able to do on their own and the equipment that they're able to produce.
I'd love them to do a little more on their own.
Irene on Facebook says, they should have all the answers by now.
I totally agree.
But until there is a financial consequence, you're going to continue to get the obfuscating and the lying.
And that's why, one of the reasons why I'm not voting for these continuing resolutions.
Because every time you vote for a continuing resolution, you create a permission structure for them to just stiff-arm you, not answer your questions, and they still get the check.
The government continues to grow and they continue to have all of their power.
So the woman you were just hearing from in that last clip is former Representative Harmon, former Democrat representative, but she's on this committee that was established to review the national security strategy and to make recommendations about that strategy.
So obviously one of the reasonable questions I just asked that you heard was, well, I mean, does the strategy contemplate that we got all this stuff and we got no appropriate monitoring of it And it's in the money laundering capital of the world.
What could possibly go wrong?
And that was the answer you got.
But I asked a different question of her at another point in her testimony.
We make all these systems and we get this answer back from her commission that says, well, there are a lot of these legacy systems, these older systems that we need less of.
Pretty generic statement, right?
Right.
The real analysis is, like, what do we need less of?
What is the hunk of junk that we're making that is not helping the warfighter become more lethal, more survivable, more capable?
And you will sense the frustration when I get the bureaucratic doublespeak out of her.
Take a listen.
Chair Harmon, you've testified that we need more software and less hardware.
I agree.
So list the things we need less of.
I think we need a careful inventory of what hardware platforms are resilient and can be adapted with additional software to deter and fight future wars.
I don't have a list- Terrific answer just not to the question I asked.
Name a system- You asked- That we need less of.
Name the program.
I would offer up the- Hold on, I didn't ask you the question.
I asked the chair.
Name one.
I, again, I come back to what I said, which is an inventory of which systems would be useful to fight future wars.
you Well, I had an idea as to one of the systems that was failing and that we probably need less of, the F-35.
Take a listen.
Like, let's go to the F-35.
That's an expensive piece of hardware.
We've received testimony in this committee that 29% of the F-35s are fully operationally capable.
And so, we fenced 10 of them, and then the appropriators went and restored the 10 we fenced, and then added 10 more.
So, how does it serve the National Defense Strategy to continually buy $100 million paperweights?
Well, let me agree with you on that.
I do agree with you.
And I think this committee has tried to make good decisions, and I remember when I served on it, we tried to make good decisions, and we got overruled often, not always.
It takes, you know, it takes a lot of work in this building to get things to happen.
But I think you're right.
It's corrupt because we're buying stuff we know doesn't work, and then what the appropriators did was they took that money out of what this committee prioritized, which was Child care for our military families.
But it does not advance our case when the people who are sent to critique it then don't come back and say, yeah, here's our assessment.
The F-35 doesn't work, we buy too much of them, and that should go into tech, into the tech that's going to help us.
And I think that's your call, and I'm glad that you made it.
I don't think that was our call as the writers of this commission report.
So, we're back live.
She doesn't think it's the people writing the report on the national defense strategy to say whether or not this program we've sunk billions and billions of dollars into works or not.
Why do you think that is, right?
I think with some of these people in the national defense community, they want to be invited to all the cocktail parties, all the dinner parties.
They want to get board seats.
They want to get consulting contracts.
I don't know anything about what Rep Harmon does, former Rep Harmon, but it just seems to be an ethic that encapsulates some of these failing programs from criticism.
Because the people who have the ethos to lodge that criticism are either afraid or too gutless to do so.
And it has an opportunity cost.
Because, look, I'm for military spending.
I want the...
Military to be able to vanquish any foe, to fight tonight.
I think we have to make the sacrifices as a country to ensure that that is the case.
But while we're focused on whether or not pro-lifers are terrorists, and while we're building $100 million F-35s that are not operationally capable, We're missing out on hypersonics.
And when China gets ahead of us in hypersonics, it changes the whole calculus on deterrence because they're able to deliver a payload and shorten the decision-making space for an American response.
And that has a way to shape the way you think about an adversary.
So take a listen to how basic the analysis can be on the Chinese advancements on hypersonics relative to the United States.
Do you contemplate in your critique of the national defense strategy the risk of the fact that China can hit a moving target with a hypersonic weapon and we can't?
How do you assess that?
Yes, we agree that that's a huge problem.
At the beginning of the hearing, Chairman Rogers mentioned that, and we are behind in hypersonics, Mr. Gates.
That's just a fact.
Yeah.
Tragic.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
So why is it?
Why do we accept this?
Why do we accept being behind in the most important technologies that matter while we continue to build stuff that doesn't work?
I have a belief as to why that is.
I laid that out at our field hearing.
It's corruption.
Take a listen.
Mr. Gates of Florida is recognized.
I think we're really getting somewhere here.
You all have terrifically described the future of warfare.
And even a country lawyer can hear what you're saying, that it has to be autonomous.
And yet, we are lashed to a present where we are spending billions of dollars on stuff that doesn't work.
It's not a bug of the system that we're not more rapidly acquiring these technologies.
It's a feature of the system.
So just for quick math, President Biden requested 68 new F-35s to purchase.
Today, in America, 29% of the F-35s are fully operationally capable.
Now, I don't know much about warfare like my colleagues, but I do know if something costs $100 million, it should definitely work more than 29% of the time.
Especially if you're telling us it's the past.
So we, I think, responsibly as the authorizers, we cut 10 off the block and said you've got to make more of these things work.
And then the Appropriations Committee not only restored the 10 that we cut, they went and added 10 more.
So when you critique our system...
Mr. Tsang.
Yeah, and didn't allow a vote on the Good Amendment.
So that's what you're up against.
What you're up against is a corrupt system where principally five companies distribute hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign donations and hire former staffers and hire former lawmakers to be able to influence the process for them.
And I bet you didn't have me citing Elizabeth Warren on your bingo card today, but she released a 2003 report entitled Pentagon Alchemy, How Defense Officials...
Pass through the revolving door and peddle brass for gold.
And the key findings of Senator Warren's report are that top defense contractors hire hundreds of former government officials, mostly as lobbyists.
The defense industry consolidation increases the risk for big corporations to abuse the powers of the revolving door.
And the big defense contractors hired the most revolving door lobbyists and stocked their board with the most former government officials.
So to all of you great innovators who are describing the future of warfare to us, do you think it's a fair fight?
Like, do you actually think that if you come up with a better mousetrap, that that's going to result in rapid acquisition?
Or is it just about who gives out that, let's see, let's see, in the last two decades, defense contractors have given out $285 million in campaign contributions and have spent $2.5 billion in lobbying.
So, you guys think it's fair?
Anybody want to take that up?
Mr. Jenkins?
I'd say no, it's not a fair playing field by firepower.
You know, small companies, let's say, cannot match the firepower of big primes.
I would like to see competition on the battlefield or the pre-battlefield and actually comparing technologies and choosing a winner.
As a commercial citizen, we are very competitive, and we're happy to go ahead with any other technology to prove that one's better than the other.
No, having a bake-off would be lovely, Mr. Jenkins, but I don't think you're going to get that opportunity based on the rigged system we have.
And the fact that we're buying 10 more F-35s for billions of dollars that don't work when Mr. Seng says, you guys are spending less than $100 million on that, which is going to win the future on AI and autonomous systems, is the fundamental critique.
So the GAO does this big report, and they say, look, we've got to have these lobbying reforms where you can't have people rolling right into influencing the very systems that they were a part of, and they apply that to lobbying.
And we, to our credit, passed that in the 2018 NDAA. But then DOD started interpreting that to say, well, that's just registered lobbying.
That's not acquisition as well.
So people engage in the revolving door on acquisition, whereas on lobbying they're tightening down on that.
Does anyone think that we should be more lax on the acquisition revolving door reforms than we are on the lobbying reforms?
Does anyone think that?
Do any of you challenge the premise that the acquisition process is corrupted when the senior Pentagon officials and the senior generals involved in these programs then go work for the big five companies?
Do any of you say, no, that's not corrupt?
Any of you?
The silence is deafening.
The silence is deafening because you all know you're playing a rigged game, and we participate in it, and it's shameful.
It should be the very bake-off that Mr. Jenkins is describing.
But we'll do all this stuff to learn about all these exquisite technologies.
But again, it is not a bug of the system.
It is a feature of the system, and it is deeply unpatriotic.
One final note before we go.
Florida man and Florida woman are facing quite a lot of activity right now in the Gulf of Mexico.
And so make sure if you're in the Sunshine State, you're following at FLSERT. That's our State Emergency Management.
You can also follow at GovRonDeSantis.
Governor is On the scene, he's calling the shots and giving important information regarding people with disabilities and how they can get evacuation assistance, where we're expecting the storm surge and flooding, and also just helpful tips to make sure you and your family stay safe, not only during the storm, but also after the storm.
Remember, this is a storm that could make landfall as a Category 3 or stronger based on some of the predictions in the warm water in the Gulf and the current Coriolis trajectory.
Remember, in most cases, There is a higher death count after the storm than during the storm.
And so make sure you're being responsible with your electricity, with your generators, that you've got the right ventilation, and that if there's someone who's vulnerable, who's in your family, in your area, in your church group, that you're caring for them, that you're watching out for them and providing them We always say a prayer for the terrific men and women who are out on the line crews restoring power,
making sure that our hospitals and critical infrastructure are supported.
You are heroes in the Sunshine State, and I'm incredibly grateful for you.
And to the rest of the country, we will always accept your prayers as this one seems to bear down on us and may indeed get stronger.
Here in Washington now, but my heart's in Florida and my sincere hope is that we're able to weather this and that it's able to go to an area of the least potential impact on our vulnerable citizens.
Thanks so much for joining me for Firebrand.
It's going to be an interesting few days here in Washington.
I'll keep you up to date.
▲
Export Selection