The Joe Rogan Experience - #2365 - Rep. Anna Paulina Luna

Episode Date: August 13, 2025

Anna Paulina Luna serves as U.S. representative for Florida's 13th congressional district. She is the author of two books: "Marrying the Beret: The Untold Stories of US Special Operations," and "Bringing them Home: The Untold Cost of Putting Missions First." https://luna.house.gov 50% off your first box at https://www.thefarmersdog.com/rogan! This video is sponsored by BetterHelp. Visit https://BetterHelp.com/JRE Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Joe Rogan podcast, check it out. The Joe Rogan Experience. Train by day, Joe Rogan podcast by night, all day. So what did you think about the whole UFO thing before you got in office? So I actually had, when I was stationed at Portland Air National Guard, my job there was an airfield manager. So I would interface and work a lot with the F-15 pilots at the unit. And so there had been an airspace incursion that had taken place. when I was still at the time at the guard.

And I remember kind of talking to some of the pilots about it. And I was like, what was that? And they're like, eh, we can't really talk about it. No one really wanted to address it. And so from what I'd gathered, that had been likely a UAP. And so that kind of was my perspective. Granted, I also grew up in the generation of the X-Files. And, you know, I don't know if you remember 94 Independence Day.

So, like, for me specifically, I didn't look at it with like a crazy lens in perspective. I'm like, you know, you never know if, you know, we're the only ones out there, essentially. But why did you assume that if it's a top secret incursion that he couldn't talk about that it wasn't just a military craft from another country? Because of the way that he was discussing it. How did he, what he said? So he had been, he didn't want to, from what I gather, get taken off flight status. And he's like, I really can't discuss it. We couldn't really, like, identify it essentially.

And it had outperformed them. And so that was my first, from a military perspective, kind of experience with someone who basically, you know, there's a stigma within the flight community. Do you want to lose your security clearance? What, you know, is there this level of crazy that people kind of brand that will stick with you and kind of ruin your career? But doesn't he have instrumentation on his jet? Well, at the time, right? So it was an older platform, but he really didn't want to even talk about it. And I bring that up because now with our investigation and the task course,

that I run. Actually, the reason why the task force was formed was because of an event that happened at Eglon Air Force Base where both myself, Representative Mac Gates and Representative Tim Birchah actually had responded and gone to investigate multiple Air Force pilots that had come forward in regards to UAP incidences that had occurred and they were alleging that the Air Force was covering it up. Interesting. Yeah, so that was that and like I'm happy to go into detail on that one, but what I will tell you is the stuff that I saw Egelen, how the military, responded, me being, you know, a former service member, and then ultimately what I saw with the pushback of the military, not even wanting to share with Congress information, which is a big

problem because when you have Congress that's supposed to be the advocate and voice for the American people, the oversight body, and you're being denied access, not just from a base commander, but high level up at the Pentagon, even Secretary of Defense, it's a problem. Do you think that it's possible that these are U.S. vehicles that are top secret? I definitely think that there's a level of advanced technology that the U.S. government has. And I think that that tech can be housed within the defense contract realm. And of course, some information is going to be classified. But I can also tell you, and this might sound crazy, but based on our investigations and stuff that we've seen, okay, there is definitely something

that I think would rival what we know currently with physics and a tech that potentially is out there that we don't have the ability to reproduce because it would basically be like dropping a cell phone cell phone right off back during the time of maybe cave mans so like we just don't have the tech to develop it yet what i can also tell you is based on our interviews and this has been something that you can go back and watch with the congressional hearings but i was actually able able to ask some of the witnesses you know what are these things and they keep saying interdimensional and then when you talk about the interdimensional aspect of you know are these things preexisting maybe outside of what we currently know as our own dimension um that stuff can kind of all sound crazy but

At the end of the day, you know, my job as an investigator is to receive all the information, decipher it, and then ultimately from a congressional aspect, if you do have contractors that are withholding information or operating outside of the purview of the federal government, I mean, there's budgetary issues, but there's definitely something that I can tell you with confidence that exists that we don't know how to explain currently. So when you say that it operates outside our understanding of physics, what specifically are you saying? What happened?

To, I guess, break it down in simple terms is that I think that some of the tech that exists, that whatever these things have, these energy things have. Energy things, what do you mean? Well, they call them interdimensional beings. I think that they can actually operate through the time spaces that we currently have. And that's not something that I came up with on my own. That's based on stuff that we've seen. That's based on information that we've been told. And then also, too, I think that there's this historical aspect of, you know, this gets into the deeper theories and concepts of religion.

And I think the history that we currently know, and that kind of spins off into another topic of, you know, you have the modern day Bible. You have this aspect of Bibles or books of the Bible that have been removed that explain and kind of touch on these topics. And I think that we're in a time and age where you have such a vast amount of information that we have actually. access to via social media, via your cell phone, via the internet. And so it's really changing the way that we understand, you know, the origins of life and the spiritual reality that we know. When you say interdimensional beings, that they know that these are interdimensional beings, how do they know that?

That so based on testimony would be based on witnesses that had come forward. But what I can tell you is I've just were told that they were interdimensional? No, no, that they've seen things. And what I can tell you without getting into classified conversations is that there have been incidences that I believe where very credible people have reported that there have been movement outside of time and space. That's very vague. Yeah. So look, unfortunately. Yeah, yeah.

Look, have I seen a portal open? No. Have I seen a spaceship personally? know. Have I've seen evidence of this? Yes. Have I seen photo documentation of aircraft that I believe were not made by mankind? Yes. Is there historical significance to this? Yes. Is there multiple events that go back to, I would argue, maybe even before the time of Christ that have documented this in text? Yes. So do I believe that the government has access to certain technology? Yes, to an extent. And I believe that certain contractors potentially have back engineered this tech. I think that that's what

can explain the advancements that we're seeing. But I also believe that this is a dangerous level of hidden information from the American people. Because if you have an aspect of the federal government, which I can tell you, I with two other members of Congress, were denied access to information at Eglon Air Force Base pertaining to whistleblowers because of the fact. And we can get into that story on what happened at Eglon in a second. But we were denied access and told that we don't have security clearance or the read and authority on a special access program, that's a problem because I'm supposed to represent and be an investigative body. And you have then people who are unelected that are operating basically in secrecy. And that's a problem. That's a big

problem. And so how do these people have the authority to do that? I think it's been decades of classified secret information, then also this aspect of the intelligence community that's been empowered. And it's kind of serendipitous with timing because when you talk about the intelligence communities and what they've done essentially to the trust in this country with the American people, I think this goes all the way back even into JFK with how they basically have operated outside of the purview of Congress. And basically, to an extent, have gone rogue up until recently. You're seeing a big push and pull to try to rein in these intelligence agencies currently. Yeah. So I want to bring it back to evidence. You said that you've seen evidence.

Like, what kind of evidence have you seen? I have seen photos. I have seen... What have you seen photos of? So I was in a skiff, and I can't discuss all that was in a skiff, but what I can tell you is, based on the photos that I've seen, I'm very confident that there's things out there that have not been created by mankind. It seems crazy that people have access to information that shows that there's something

outside of us that is more intelligent, at least more capable than we are. And they hide it from everybody else. What I can tell you is that when you have thousands upon thousands of people around the planet throughout time that have reported something, to say that those people are crazy, to say that, you know, the whole concept of even just asking the question that you might not necessarily be psychologically sound, that in itself, you know, that's a disinformation campaign to get people to shut up about it. And that's a problem. We know, know that the U.S. government has not exactly been clean and a lot of what they've done with the American people specifically to the topic of UFOs you had. Which makes you think that it's

probably because there's something there. If you think about the motivation they had with Project Blue Book, when Jay Allen Heineck was running Project Blue Book, this specific intention was to discredit all stories. And he ended up ultimately, though, after all of his investigations becoming someone that was like, I think there's something here. But that's true. By the way, a lot of people might not necessarily go onto Google and look up that information, but you can actually look up the declassified reports from Project Blue Book. What's also interesting, though, is when we're talking about tech, right, the ability for this tech being that it exists to change dependence for entire governments on things like fossil fuel, et cetera, you know,

it's, look, I think everyone has a moral obligation to do what they think is right, okay? And so if you're in a position of power and you see something wrong and you're not addressing it, I think, you know, this in itself, getting the truth out there for people to decide for themselves. I'm not telling you what to believe. I'm just telling you in our investigations and what we are pushing for in regards to transparency. I would like to see the federal government roll out some of the stuff that we've been given access to because I think that that information belongs in the hands of the American people. And it's not even just the U.S. government.

I mean, there's other countries around the world that have done certain things like this. Now, look, I've had a lot of crazy people show up at my office and say, you know, I've heard it all. Yeah, I've been to Mars. You know, I have a chip in my brain all this stuff. They all have chips. We had this one guy that showed up that was like trying to give us a USB. He's like, put this in your computer.

They're going to kill me for this and like runs away. And I'm like, I'm not putting that in my computer. But based on our investigations, what I will tell you is, you know, there's been two members of Congress that are actually helping to lead out these investigations with me. And the reason I say that is because up until last conference. Congress. If you even said the word UAP or UFO, people actually told us that if we went forward with these investigations that we were going to ruin our political careers. And so, you know, we're in the mindset of, well, like, why wouldn't we ask these questions? And also, too, if no one

wants to touch it, like there has to be something here, right? Right. And so in these investigations, I mean, the amount of people that will come up to us, very successful people, to multiple members of Congress that believe the same thing, it's definitely changed in regards to the stigma that used to exist about disclosure and all this. And so what we're trying to do currently was there's a big documentary that was filmed about a year and a half ago and we're trying to get a screening up on Capitol Hill. But look, I think a lot of people say, well, this is a distraction from everything else happening in the country right now.

And all I'm simply trying to say is it's not a distraction. The people that are kind of helping to divulge all this information, you have an intelligence community, you know, Tulsi Gabbard, Radcliffe, Cash Patel, they have been truly in regards or other investigations, extremely transparent and wanting to get this information out. But it doesn't mean that within these intelligence communities, there isn't pushback. And so part of the reason why the task force was formed pertaining to things like UAP, pertaining to things like the Jeffrey Epstein stuff, pertaining to things like the JFK, MLK, and RFK investigations is because even though we don't hold declassification authority,

what we're trying to do is push these agencies and be, if you will, the pit bull and the attack dog on trying to get this information release. And to a lot of these agencies' credits, they've been extremely true. transparent, and we have gotten wins specifically on the JFK stuff, and we're still looking to declassify and ask specifically on the UAP topic. What would be the rationale for keeping a photograph of a known absolute not of this world craft from the American people or from the world? Why would anybody think that that would be the smart thing to do is to limit the access of that information to a very small amount of people? I think that part of the fear is that you have advisors that think that, you know, the American people or humanity might not be able to handle it. There's this like protective complex.

But then also, too, I think when you are talking about these things, for a lot of people, I think that it kind of can rock your world a little bit in regards to where you stand in a faith perspective. And then also, too, an aspect of, well, how do you? even begin to explain it. And all I'm going to say is, look, and we can go into some of the books that were removed from what we know as the modern day Bible, but I read through the book of Enoch multiple times. And I'm not saying that these things are angels. Okay, that's not at all what I'm saying. But what I am saying is that depending on where you are in regards to your whole perspective on whether or not God exists, like I believe in God. I'm a Christian. There has to have been, and there's admissions that there was other creations that God made, but that we were the most

prized creation. And so I think that this can open up a bigger topic of discussion. What I will say is that what's been interesting is, and I've had a mass array of people that have come in, right? Like, we have people that come in that claim that you can use this ability to basically dog whistle these things in from like a psychic ability. Yeah, I've heard people say that. And I think that there's something there. Otherwise, they wouldn't necessarily be able to provide some of the video evidence that they have. But then that also brings up the question of if these things are interdimensional, which we've had witnesses testify to, to members of Congress. And that was all publicly out there. That would then bring up the whole, well, if this is really transcending

dimension, the power of what you say, thought, all of that. And then, you know, you can look into our own government's declassified documents that the CIA had on different experiments. I mean, you can literally, last week I was going through, actually on a Friday night, just put my son down, and I was going through some of the declassified you go to CIA.gov slash reading room and you can see all the declassified documents. And so I believe it was called Stargate and it was talking about, you know, the basically psychological experiments where they were trying to basically remote view and all that. Why would our own government be looking into that if there wasn't something there?

And so I'm appreciative to all that information being publicly out there. But I think this whole idea and stigma of trying to make it sound crazy when people actually have these questions, that needs to stop, which is why the task force is in existence. And then also, too, they need to release information. If I was going to play devil's advocate, I would say that the government would look into that to find out if there's anything there. And that would probably take a long time if they're really being careful. So if I was going to fund a program, if someone told me that there's some people in Russia that can remote view military sites in America, I'd be like, are you sure? And like, yeah, yeah, there's a technique involved.

We know the technique. And we want to fund some sort of a study to see if we can do it. I'm like, let's go. What do you need? Because maybe it's real. So I don't buy that they wouldn't spend money on it unless it's real. I say they would spend money on it to find out. If you're really looking out for national security, right, you've got 300 plus million people that you're responsible for, you've got to dot your eyes and cross your teeth.

and like if if I'm you know if I'm good at my job and I'm not an egomaniac I'm going to go maybe there's some shit I don't know you know there's looking into it and then there's expanding right and so if you look at all those declassified files you know you can pull up and this is just wild but there's one where I was looking through and they had basically you know the Coast Guard had called in there was a ship that they had been given information on that was running drugs and so they called in one of their remote viewers and they're trying to give coordinates coordinates coordinates of the ship and actually like basically locate these things and actually is laughing because I was reading this off the website and I'm telling my husband like imagine you know you're trying to run drugs and then all of a sudden you have some like weirdo at langley or like in a basement they're like no dude's like to do you do so you know beam me up scotty but yeah I don't know if they write things down or type them out or what but I talked to Hal put off about it and he said they used it to very specifically find the location of a down Russian craft within like a couple kilometers which is nuts. If you think about the area where this thing crashed, it's like remote wilderness, the middle of nowhere, Russia hadn't found it yet. Apparently, we found it first, according to how put off. It's just because I haven't done it and because I don't know that it's real, it doesn't mean it's not real. And this is a problem with people that they don't want to get duped and they don't want to look stupid. They don't want to look naive. And so they dismiss things. They dismiss that there might be frequencies.

that you don't tune into all the time and someone might get really good at that and they might be able to see things remotely. This episode is brought to you by the farmer's dog. I think we can all agree that eating highly processed food for every meal isn't optimal. So why is processed food

the status quo for dog food? Because that's what Kibble is, an ultra-processed food. But a healthy alternative exists the farmer's dog. They make fresh food for dogs. And what does it look like? Real meat.

and vegetables that are gently cooked to retain vital nutrients and help avoid any of the bad stuff that comes with ultra-processing. And it's not just random ingredients thrown together. Their food is formulated by on-staff board-certified vet nutritionists. These people are experts on dog nutrition, and they're all in on fresh food. The farmer's dog also does something unique. They portion out the food to your dog's nutritional needs. This ensures that you don't overfeed them, making weight management easy. Research shows that dogs kept at a healthy way can live up to two and a half years longer.

Head to thefarmer's dog.com slash Rogan to get 50% off your first box plus free shipping. This offer is for new customers only. Well, I think that this gets into the bigger discussion of what do we know, right? Going back to some of these books that were moved, there's a good podcast right now called the Autistic Tapes and it talks about how some non-speaking or non-verbal autistic kids actually are exhibiting telepath. You mean the telepathy tapes? Yeah.

Yeah, sorry, the telepathy takes. Nonverbal autistic kids are exhibiting telepathy. You know, this concept, again, if you were to talk about it 20 years ago, people will call you crazy. But, you know, I think based on what we're seeing now, based on the fact that our own governments looked into it, based on the stuff that you were saying, I mean, you can find all this information publicly available and it's out there. And I think that there's something to it. And so, you know, we're seeing, and we've heard this is a non-classification. sentings. We've heard from people that have come forward that are saying, you know, we're being able to via meditation, we're essentially like downloading information we can communicate with these

things. Granted, you know, when I'm sitting in my congressional office and I'm hearing this, I take it with a grain of salt because we do get a lot of crazy people. But when you have people that are high-level executives, very successful, clean cut, not on drugs, they're coming in and they're telling you this stuff. And then, you know, you're kind of cross-referencing it with various people in intelligence agencies. I just, I think that there's something there and we need to be at least open to hearing the discussion and the argument for these things. Oh, for sure. I mean, like I said, if there's a photo out there, I think you owe humanity a service. You're supposed to release that photograph. There's no reason why a small group of people in the government should have

photo conclusive evidence that aliens are real. That's crazy. And there's an over classification aspect of this too, right? Like if you're serving in the military and you're taking a photo on your personal device or a video on your personal device, that shouldn't be the purview of the federal government. And either which way, I mean, there's been now so much stuff. There's granted, there's been a lot of fake stuff put out there. But the stuff that is legitimate that we are seeing, the stuff that we had people testify to in our congressional hearings, I mean, that's not a joke. And what's even more interesting to this is that I was actually able to talk to David Gresh, who now is actually working with the task force to kind of chase down a lot of

these leads in regards to some of these contractors that allegedly have this tech, right? So in talking with him, again, not in a skiff, we were able to actually flesh out that prior to him testifying that he actually received very real threats against his life and his wife, his wife's life. He's a sound guy. And then shortly after he testified, there's this massive smear operation that was launched against him to try to discredit his testimony. And so, you know, again, going into, well, if this stuff wasn't real or if he wasn't telling the truth, why would there be this massively orchestrated effort to, you know, completely just disprove what he was trying to say or to discredit his actions and his testimony. And so it is kind of coming full

circle, right, going back to what the task force has been able to find out. I mean, we're conducting these investigations simultaneously and we're doing this in addition to everything that we, to everything else that we have to do as members of Congress, right? So although I would love to just dedicate my full time and attention to this, we still have to balance it out. And so I've again had some great investigators who are working with us on oversight, as well as a lot of cooperation from the intelligence agencies. And we are going to be asking for this information to be declassified, at least information that has been showed to us. I think the first break in the wall was that 2017 New York Times report where they were talking about it in logical, sensible

language that these things might be from another world. But I think that movie that you're discussing, which is the age of disclosure, right? Yeah, I haven't seen it. Have you seen it? It's very good. It's very good. It doesn't even have any, like, UFO footage. I mean, maybe like a little bit. It's just testimony. It's just testimony. And at the end of it, you kind of draw this conclusion, like, oh, this makes sense. Like this, what they're essentially saying is one of the problems is if they have been funding these secret programs, then for all these years, they've been misappropriating money. Oh, yeah.

And they've been lying to Congress. And that's super illegal. Very illegal. It's Congress going to do anything about it because it's not the first time. Like, we have the ability. And this is the most frustrating thing. So this is my second term in Congress now. But as a first term member of Congress, you know, when you, Joe, when you get elected

to Congress, you would think that they would bring you in and they'd say, okay, this is how you do the legislation. No, you get elected. You show up to kind of a crash course for about like a week and a half. on, you know, how to not get in trouble with ethics. And then you're basically whined and dined by lobbyists. They don't actually tell you how to do the legislation. Basically, the only rules that you're told are never vote down a rule, which is a procedural

motion to bring legislation to the floor and don't really ever vote against your party, of which within the first week, I broke both rules and so I was on the naughty list for usual. But the thing is that. They tell you how to do it. That's kind of crazy. Well, they tell you basically those are the two rules and don't go against that and you won't have any issues. Those are big-ass rules, though.

Yeah, because it's like, you know, you're supposed to. to represent your constituency. So if you have people calling your office and don't you devote for this and then you vote against it, it's like people forget that you're supposed to represent, right, representative instead of just do what the party wants. But, you know, there is, there are mechanisms that have existed since Thomas Jefferson, who wrote our damn rule manual that enable us to actually pass legislation and actually hold agencies and people accountable from a punitive perspective. And I don't know if you were tracking, but like I brought a vote on the former attorney general for basically refusing to testify to Congress and respond to a

subpoena. And that was called inherent contempt. And a lot of Congress was like, what the hell is inherent contempt? It hadn't been done since the early 1900s. And I actually read it in the rule manual. And I read the rule manual twice. It's like so crazy what happens when you read books. But we were able to find this out. And it was a mechanism that Congress can use to actually basically send the sergeant arms to go arrest people. Jeez. Okay. So one of the things that this documentary was calling for that I think is the only logical way to solve this is a mass amnesty for these people that misappropriated money and or whistleblowers or whistleblowers well the whistleblowers thing is crazy like they leave them alone like come on of course everybody should

fucking know this stuff guys the raw the real crime is you keeping this secret from humanity that's the real crime okay the other stuff is horseshit it's just interpretations of what you're writing down on paper you're making up rules but if you ask the general public how they feel this should go a rational normal person would say there's no fucking way the defense contractor should be the only people who know that we're not alone fuck you especially when we're facing a massive deficit and you see that they're like the pentagon hasn't been able to pass the audit and i don't know how many years like yeah all that stuff is great but just for humanity just for humanity that is a giant piece of information that no one should have. No one should secretly keep information that would change our

entire perspective on our existence. It's definitely wrong that it's happening for sure. What I will tell you, though, is the issue that we have with bringing forward legislation that would give mass amnesty and part into these people is that there are people within the intelligence community and within Congress on both sides that will try to, if you come forward with this, and I'll tell you a very prime example of this in a moment, that they will block it, they don't want it to pass, they will stop it from even coming to the floor, they won't bring legislation that will address it because they want to keep this information secret. So Representative Tim Burchett before- But why do they want to keep the information secret? Because I think that their mouthpiece is

in control of the deep state. And that's a thing. And it exists on both sides, okay? So someone will come to them with marching point, marching orders? 100%. Representative Tim Burchett, before I got elected, was kind of on his own little island in regard to the UAP stuff. And he will himself tell you that, you know, this is 100% like a thing. And that these defense contractors and what he believes, you know, the Pentagon not passing out, it's all of these black budget programs. I mean, like he will tell you he's, again, been leading out this effort way before I got there. He had a piece of legislation that was supposed to enable the FAA to report and develop a different reporting. different reporting procedure for UAP stuff. And at the time, the chairman of Intel ensured that that legislation was not brought forward, that it was stopped. The piece of legislation that actually passed out of the Senate really had no teeth to it. And then Representative Burchett drew a primary challenger that was being backed by the chairman of Intel.

And so, you know, when you are touching these, it's like, you know that meme where you have that stork that's like, don't touch this and then the little foot comes out? It's kind of like what we're doing. And it's not exactly easy because you will take heat from both sides. But there has been a good group that's been assembled that's bicameral, meaning it's both in the House and the Senate and bipartisan, meaning both Democrats and Republicans are saying like, hey, this should actually happen. Are they publicly talking about not releasing the information or is all this stuff done in secrecy? It's done behind the scenes. Because if they had to do it publicly, if they had to announce their position on it publicly, it would be very damaging, I think, to anybody's political career on the right or the left. People would be pissed.

Well, they're pissed because I'm pissed because if they've had it for this long, I mean, if they really did recover something as early as 1947, excuse me. Well, I can tell you is for us specifically, we actually were made aware some people had come forward that said that they wanted to brief. So about two years ago when all this kicked off, we had requested briefings from Arrow that's in charge of kind of compiling the investigative investigative. respective EAP stuff. And by the way, from the get-go, I, like, even in talking to ERA, I was like, this organization is literally a BS organization. They're never going to tell us anything. And every interaction that we had in the SCIF, I was like, this is a nothing burger. But then these people came forward and said that they were actually denied, they were told to not brief our group

specifically on this topic. And that it was from, at the time, members of House leadership, but they wouldn't say who. And so I actually went with another member of Congress and confronted multiple people. And they all denied denying us access. it's done behind the scenes. You'll see these random little troll blockages that might pop up. But what I can tell you is that with the new administration, specifically with FBI, specifically with ODNI, we have gotten transparency to where previously we would have been stonewalled. We were actually given briefings. And so what I will tell you is we are going to push for the information that we sought to be out there for the American people to see. So do you think that the whole idea of disclosure is maybe a multiple step, very agonizing, frustratingly slow process rather than a big dump of all the information that they've had from Roswell to the Aztec one to this. Apparently there's a whole slew. I don't know if it's Aztec. I forget the name of it. But there was another, during that same time period, there was a really prominent UFO recovery thing that was not as publicized as the one in Roswell. The big mistake with the Roswell, 101 was the newspaper printed it. And so then they had to backtrack and then they had to do the press conference where they had like some scattered pieces of a weather balloon that didn't look anything like a UFO.

And then the Air Force was like, that was nothing. Yeah, but meanwhile, they flew the wreckage to right field. They flew the wreckage and Truman met them there, supposedly. Well, I can tell you, in our hearing, we are actually notified and you can pull this up. I think it was one of the witnesses had talked about what had happened at Vandenberg Air Base where there was this thing that appeared over the base. It actually had multiple blotters reporting on it from phone calls into law enforcement

from like hundreds of people. And whatever had appeared over the base was basically bigger than a football field and basically a cube, a red cube with some weird thing in the center of it. I actually had our witness draw this out. This guy is sober as a priest. I mean, it was a great pilot

and he's talking about all this. And so, you know, you talk about this, it seems like a sci-fi movie. But based on the evidence that we've seen, I don't have any reason to believe that these people are lying. Based on the evidence that I've seen from our own government, I think that there's something there that the American people deserve to have access to. And so I've been, this is not just on this topic, but again, in other topics as well,

this has been my perspective is transparency is what builds trust. Other governments have revealed certain information on it. To think that we are the only, you know, life form on this planner in this galaxy, I think is a little bit crazy given, you know, the fact that I also think God exists and that there's other creations. but then again you get into this aspect of you know why is it that you also have this aspect of you know a certain religion that has been very controlled and I think rolled out in a certain aspect and you know when you have certain books that are removed because they don't think that people should have access to this information or know it you know why remove a book from a Bible right was did West Huff did he touch on that did he talk about that or are there people that don't believe the book of Enoch was really a part of the Bible? I don't remember how he discussed the missing books. I think we brought it up, but I don't remember how he... That's the guy to talk to.

Yeah, so from what I gather... That's the guy to talk to about... You know what I mean? Because you have to really understand the history of the Bible to be able to figure out what's legitimate, what's not, why they put it into the New Testament. I had some very erroneous ideas about it until I talk to intelligent people that really, really know the history of it. And it's very strange stuff. Well, so from what I gather, and by the way, I'm not a theologian in any capacity, but just from my personal opinion on this. So you have the Ethiopian Orthodox text, which has, I think, 88 books of the Bible in total.

But in the Ethiopian Orthodox text, it's basically kind of like a mainline OG version of the Bible. And then sometime in the fourth century, there was actually a group that came together and they removed certain books. and the story goes that Revelations actually had replaced Enoch. And so it's interesting because when you're looking kind of full circle on, you know, you hear the stuff that some of these people are talking about and then you see and you read the book of Enoch, which is a wild read, okay? And then you look at kind of what our modern day description is of what angels and entities are versus what Enoch was seeing and reporting in his language and ability at that time.

I just, I think that there's a lot that brings you to then ask the question, well, why would they remove this information? If it's truly, you know, written and part of the oldest Bible in the world, why would they then take it out and water it down? And I'm not saying that you can't find God through the new Bible, right? Like, everyone's on their own spiritual journey, and I think everyone can pray and you can access God. But I just find that very interesting.

And so what I will say is that I like to have the whole kind of picture in front of me. And so I feel like to fully understand A through Zoo, you kind of have to be able to read it. this is an ad for better help the internet is a breeding ground for misinformation even a simple search for ways to get rid of a headache can produce millions and millions of results from taking pain relievers to detoxes to medication to cold compresses it's overwhelming and even when you do find something that's true that works for other people it might not work for you in some cases it's better to just ask a living breathing expert if you have a head headache that won't go away, go talk to a doctor. And if you're struggling with your mental health, consult a credentialed therapist. You can learn a lot about yourself in therapy, like how to be kind to yourself and how to be the best version of you, whether you want to learn how to better manage stress, improve your relationships, gain more confidence, or something else. It starts with therapy. Try it for yourself with better help. Millions have benefited from their

services, and there's a reason people rated so highly. As the largest online therapy provider in the world, BetterHelp can provide access to mental health professionals with a diverse variety of expertise. Talk it out with BetterHelp. Our listeners get 10% off their first month at BetterHelp.com slash J-R-E. That's BetterH-E-L-P.com slash J-R-E. Yeah, I just don't know about the history of it.

Is there any debate about the reality of that book? Is there any debate about whether or not it was either fraudulent or discredited or something? The book of Enoch? Yeah. Like, why did they? Because I know there was some kind of controversy that Wes Huff described. I just can't remember it. I just looked through a transcript real quick.

I didn't see you guys discussing Enoch or discussing Isaiah and then the Dead Sea Scrolls and stuff like that. I didn't see Enoch discussion. No, it must have been me privately talking to him about something, another video that I watched. The thing about what Wes Huff does that's so interesting is like he really understands like the history of the text, the language in which they use, the names in which they chose. And when he breaks it out, one of the things he told us that was the craziest was that the book of Isaiah was exactly the same of the Dead Sea Scrolls as it was a thousand years later. They found one that was a thousand years older And it was direct It was word for word verbatim

I'm like that's bananas A thousand year old story That's exactly the same written That they didn't know There was a version of it a thousand years ago And then they find it in these caves It's confirmed syntax It's nuts

It's really weird It's really really weird stuff And the fact that I this kid You know a shepherd kid Was able to even find these scrolls That they were set up And you know just has led to that point right in time where he finds this massive, basically admission that the Bible is real.

You can actually look into, you know, there's a new King's James, and then you can actually look into the Catholic Bible as well that also has, they call them Apocrypha text because the King James Bible doesn't acknowledge them, but there are also other books that are not considered, you know, approved by the King's James. So, look, I was on my mom's side, I was actually raised Catholic and then had my catechism, did all of it. And then on my dad's side, I was raised Christian and then later on Messianic. And so I feel like I kind of have like a good cross section and I've been exposed to a lot of this growing up.

But it's definitely interesting. And so look, I don't tell people like I'm not saying that like aliens created mankind. I don't believe that because I at the end of the day believe that God is responsible for our creation. But I do think that what we've been programmed to believe in regards to our ability to be able to use our mind, the spiritual aspect of us really does exist. And I think that once you kind of remove yourself out of this. basically rat race and you can like really reconnect with that. I think that that's when you kind of realize, hey, there's a bigger purpose here in life and

like what is our end objective? And if you're given a position of influence or a position of power and you're not doing the right thing for humanity, you're not guiding people, then that's something that you have to answer for. So I want to make sure that I'm good with God. I hear you. That's a lot. I think these stories, especially when you get to stories like Noah and the Ark, that these

stories exist in basically every religion, they're real similar. They're real similar. I think all of these people are trying to document a truth. It's just what is that truth is where it gets weird. And when it gets to like other gods and giants and giants created man and interbred with man. Yeah. Oh, I know. Which is crazy. I know. It's wild stuff. If it's legitimate, it's wild stuff. And then do you know anything about the Ethiopian church that supposedly has the arc of the covenant in it? Yeah, I've looked into that. I actually wanted to. again you're in the government you can like get something done yeah so I actually wanted to do a codel to just but of course like we're focusing on other things right now right sending seals find that fucking thing I was like I need to pay for this for myself so we're not using

tax for dollars but just go check it out what's interesting is the CIA allegedly located the arc of the covenant I think the remote viewed they remote they remote viewed it you can actually find that you should actually pull it up no not in Ethiopia but it was in a Middle Eastern country they weren't able to locate the actual I think the New York posted article on it where they actually have the handwritten notes on the arc of the covenant location and they remote viewed it. You should ask him to pull it up. Yeah.

I'm serious about it. Did they go there and see if they were correct? I don't know. They did. I don't know. This is like Indiana Jones. What? Decades old CIA documents on Arc of the Covenant resurfaced amid classified group text bat. What? Wait. It was a group text argument that caused this stuff to be released. No, check out. Pull up the New York Post one because they actually have the handwritten notes from the remote viewer that actually documents it.

Okay. It should be, I think you said, like the New York Post. That's so funny. Oh, there you go. Top one. This is wild because it actually goes into descriptions of angels, too. And so actually, so in Enoch, it talks about, well, if you scroll down, now that's the, you can probably click on the scribe because it'll show you all the documents from the actual declassified file. This is also on CAA.

What year was this? This happened recently. This was like a couple months ago that this just kind of came all out. Right. But what year was this project? 1980. 88. 58.

Five December 1988 88. Wow. So scroll down. So in 88, they found the arc of the covenant? Allegedly, allegedly, they remote viewed it. We don't know if they followed up on it. Who was president back then? Reagan? Go down.

Bush? Senior. Okay, so scroll down and then you'll see that. So they're going through in the notes. You have to read it. But you can scroll down. So this is, he's like drawing where it is. The remote viewer.

So you have like the different things that are describing it. And if you keep going, you'll see like a cherubon. Keep going. It's like showing the peak of a building. Oh, wait, sorry. Go up a little. bit so that's interesting because if you look into actual so there's like a wheel text um if you look into enox description of angels and it is equal to i think that that's kind of a tie but go down more

so but yeah you have like the actual here purpose of container they should have like a cherubin drawing somewhere down here oh yeah see so that would be the seraphim um so it's interesting the what the seraphim it's how it's opened yeah so basically when they they describe the arc and so he's going through describing so these are the hand notes for it and then actually says that it's in the Middle Eastern country, the remote viewer describes the clothing in which individuals are in the area. I feel like I'm describing like an Indiana Jones movie, but this is actually from the CIA. This image, scroll back to where that?

What is that thing? Is that the corner of the box? The Covenant. Yeah, he's describing, if you go up, and these are actually the handwritten notes on what was described by the remote viewer. And you have to go through the entire document. But yeah, that's what's described surrounding the arc. Do you know what they asked him to find?

Well, yeah, the Ark of the Covenant. They asked him to go look for the Ark of the Covenant. Yeah, if you go higher up in the documents, it's over there. Right. But if you asked me to go look for the Ark of the Covenant, like, I know what I'm looking for, right? Well, apparently these remote viewers. I draw what I think it's going to, like, show me that they fucking found it. I don't know if they did, but they apparently tried to find it.

I don't know if they did either, but it's like, it's interesting, but it's not as interesting because you're saying, show me the Ark of the Covenant, right? So he's drawing what we all saw in Indiana Jones. Or can you locate it? What year was that? That was before Indiana Jones? No, it had been in the same time period. When did Indiana Jones come out? What a great movie.

The 90s, right? I don't know. I'm thinking. And like the first two are the best. The New Orleans of Lost Ark was the first one. That's the one. What year was that? 1981.

Okay, so. Precursor. So that's seven years earlier. Everybody saw that movie a hundred times. You know what it looks like. You know what the arc looks like. So if I tell you, go draw me the arc. where is it at?

All we have is some scribbles on paper unless they actually went there and found it. Well, what's interesting, and I should probably ask Radcliffe, be like, Radcliffe, can you tell me this? I never looking at the covenant? What are you saying, Jamie? It says the mission is to access and describe the target identified by a coordinate, and then there's coordinates. The tasking is to see mission statement, training target is the Ark of the Covenant. So they did say, go find us the Ark of the Covenant. And then this dude apparently said, is it a good.

AOL to a minimum. What is that? I don't know. I saw that on the paper earlier. I have to be careful with editing, though. This does not seem to be a problem at this time. Just something to watch for. Attained excellent site contact. Okay. Definitely interesting.

Well, it's weird that they're talking about it like it's a real talent. Like, some can actually do it. This sucks about mosque domes. Yeah. Target is in a container. This container has another container inside of it. The target is fashioned of wood, gold, and silver. The target is similar in shape to AOL. So that's that something of location, right?

Is that what it means? Area of location. Area of location? Yeah, that's it. Coffin and is decorated with the seraphim, see sketch. This target is located somewhere in the Middle East, as the language spoken by individuals present seemed to be Arabic. Well, wouldn't you want someone who could fucking decipher Arabic to do this?

We don't know how far it went, and I definitely have questions, But this would not be the first time that a government would have looked for something, especially because people theorize that the Ark of the Covenant had these abilities as a super weapon. I know, but I'm saying, like, the remote viewer is limited by his ability to understand the language. Stop, scroll back up, please. There, right there. So somewhere in the Middle East, visuals of surrounding buildings indicated that the area, that the presence of mosque domes, Individuals in the area were clothed in virtually all white, had black hair and dark eyes, one figure I honed it on, wore a mustache.

The target is hidden, underground, dark and wet were all aspects of the location of the target. See, the only problem I over have with these things is if these places are all controlled by terrorists and it's all, you know, dictators and crazy people over there, if they found out that the arc was there, they would fucking take it. Well, I think there's this aspect of, if you look at from a biblical perspective, no one would be able to access it anyways because it would be protected, right? That's what the Bible says. It says here, too. Cannot be opened until the time is deemed correct. Oh, Jesus.

Once the time to open the container, the mechanisms of lock systems will be found to be fairly simple. Individuals opening the container by prying or striking are destroyed by the container's protectors. Well, it's interesting is, remember, in the Bible, talks about how there had to be like a through the use of a power unknown to us they melt you bro yeah well so they had to you know go through this special process of being considered you know wholly basically to access it so all that to say that there's something out there right i think that obviously god's real and this job has definitely um you know put me in a position to where we're able to help get other truths out there if you will and you need to get the truth of

that thing out there. They need to find that like that. Dear Director Radcliffe has you look at the Ark of the Covenant. If you found the actual Ark of the Covenant and you could explain a lot of things like look, if these Ethiopians have it, which Graham Hancock believe. Allegedly they do. Yeah. Graham Hancock believes that they do. And he said that these guardians, they all get cataracts and they die of like radiation poisoning. I mean, there's something to be said about the Ethiopian people as a whole and going back to the Ethiopian Orthodox text. Actually,

when I first launched this task course, actually went and I met with an Ethiopian Orthodox pastor, if you will, just to kind of see and explain and ask questions that I can't exactly go to, you know, the Smithsonian and ask. And, you know, his response was interesting, especially from their perspective. You know, you have a lot of this aspect of, I think, religion that tries to be doom and gloom. And then in the Ethiopian perspective, he's like, first of all, your timeline's wrong. And I'm like, what do you mean your timeline? It's like, well, the biblical text in modern day Christianity, it's a little bit obvious. off, right? So we use a completely separate, I think it's a 364 days out of the year, and he's

explaining all of it. And he's like, but even then, so, you know, we don't have the perspective of, you know, we are in the end of days, et cetera. But, you know, the way, his perspective just seemed very optimistic as opposed to pessimistic and filtering and controlling information. He's probably not online. He's off X. He's off X. He's off TikTok. Yeah, he's not subjecting him. The viewer post thing about that says that the viewer was identified with the target and didn't know what it was. Oh.

Being the Ark of the Covenant after all that explanation they found. Oh, well, that's much different. Yeah. So that whole thing at the end of it was what they were saying it was when they wrote it in that report. It's just a bunch of words they're putting together and hearing how put off talk about it. Okay. Well, that's way more interesting. If he didn't know what he was looking for and he found something that looked like the Ark of the Covenant, that's pretty crazy.

They kind of like talk them on, right? They'll, like, give them something and say, like, walk us through. I'm just doing devil's advocate because I have no skin in the game. I don't know if it's real or not real. I'm open to it. I think there's something going on. I think there's more going on with people than we let on. There's some extra thing that's happening with human beings,

the way we're all connected to each other, that we don't really totally understand. And I think the idea that you can access information that's not local, I don't think that's that weird. I think that might be an emerging aspect of human consciousness or an aspect of human consciousness that's atrophied. Or just an aspect of spirituality that we've previously forgotten because we're in such a digital age that kind of programs you into the rat race. And I think people, the more that they're kind of like, you know, there has to be more to life than just like a nine to five. And, you know, working for this aspect of materialism, like, don't get me wrong. I like, you know, a nice car and a clean house and all that.

But, you know, there's also this aspect of, you know, being a human and like, you know, if you have kids, I think that's like one of the things like I have, you have a daughter. I have a son. And it's like when you're a parent, it kind of like makes you realize like, wow, there's this aspect of like love that I didn't know existed before. And you can kind of really be there and help, you know, grow this next human and influence that person. And it just kind of the human experience is something that, you know, you can make it as special as you want. And this aspect of, you know, us being able to have those little quantum breadcrums is what I like. to call them. Like, have you ever been like talking about something and like you'll go somewhere hear something and there's like confirmation of what you've been talking about or, you know, something happens and you're like, you know, asking a question, then all of a sudden it pops up kind of there's an answer. And I think that those little things just when you're on the right path and doing what you're supposed to do in this bigger picture. Yeah, well, that's a good way to live life. If you believe that, it's healthy, smart. It's like a good strategy. I wonder like why some people seem to have like the idea of it being an emerging aspect of human consciousness our ability to

like sense things and know things that are going to happen or premonition or know someone's a liar or a weirdo like instantly those I always wonder if is it that or is it that we used to have that like before language that's all we had I think that before tech really evolved was a bigger aspect of spirituality that actually talks about that. So, like, discernment in the Bible, you can talk about, you know, this aspect of being, people say, like, oh, if someone has, like, really bad energy, you're picking up on it. There's something to that. But I think that because, and it's really happened, I think, in the last, like, 40 years where people

are kind of forgetting that. But when you actually go back to, like, for example, we're talking just now about the arc of the government, the Ethiopian Orthodox text and all of this, there's more of that aspect of spirituality that I think has been removed from society. I think it's actually taken away our ability to really respect one another and value human life. And I think that that, you know, from like a politico perspective, influences decision. Like you get really pro-war people. Those people are usually not that spiritual and they really don't have a value for life in that aspect.

Yeah, no, that's definitely a real thing. That's unfortunate. There's a, and the fact that those are the type of people that always want to be in power. They are. They're the worst type. scary. That's probably the scariest part of it. I actually had a really groundbreaking conversation. So, like, the way I'll describe Congress is you ever have, like, a job where 80% of it,

90% of it just, like, really eating shit. And then, like, the 10% is, like, really cool. Yeah. And it makes up for that, like, 80%, 90% that you're just like, I... That's when I hosted Fear Factor. Okay. Okay, so that aspect of, I think, really exists in politics if you, like, actually care. And I had a meeting.

recently where I was with two other members of Congress that were helping me with the JFK investigation. And we actually met for the first time since 1990 with the ambassador to the Russian government. And I bring that up because at the time of the JFK assassination, the KGB had actually come forward with their own independent investigation. And they actually gave it at Kennedy's funeral to U.S. officials. We never got those documents. And it's my belief that the CIA actually destroyed that information and evidence because it would have confirmed what this the KGB. And mind you at the time, JFK was actually in talks with the president of Russia at that time. And his perspective is that he actually wanted to do a joint mission between the U.S.

government and the Russian government to the moon. And there are aspects and divisions within the intelligence community. You obviously saw the Cold War was happening. They wanted war in Cuba. They wanted war with Russia. So for them to be able to say that Kennedy, who was not a communist, but that he was a communist sympathizer and how dare he talk to these dirty communists, I mean, that in itself would have given them any ammunition to turn a blind eye or at least not fully figure out who assassinated Kennedy. But I bring that up to say that, you know, when you have these people in power, you know, you can see a lot of it in regards to there's a summit on the 15th, actually, with President Trump and Vladimir Putin. And I think the aspect of, you know, anytime you have peace and trade, it's way better than war for everyone involved for the people of Ukraine, for Russia, for the American people. And I think for the surrounding regions, like I recently got back from meeting with government officials in Romania and Moldova.

And it didn't matter if, and I actually met an actual member of the Moldovan government who was a communist, like an outward communist. And it didn't matter who I talked to. Everyone wanted peace. And then when we had met with the European Parliament and the EU, some of them wanted peace. But then the countries that had the shittiest economies, excuse my language, they were the ones that were advocating for war. well, you have a war-based economy, it always helps your economy. So if you have terrible policy perspectives, obviously you would advocate for something like that. But it just goes to show that the people that are going through it, the people that are living it, that are directly impacted

it, no one would advocate for war. And so in even just having this conversation, you know, a lot of people even, you know, two administration ago, maybe two administrations ago, probably would not have had that conversation. But to be able to develop that dialogue, the end result of that meeting was the Russian government agreed. to release their investigation onto JFK that the previous congressional task force in the 90s had tried to obtain from the Russian government and they said no. So they agreed to release that and they'll be posting it publicly for the American people to go through later on this fall. Have you seen it yet?

I haven't. So I'll be seeing at the same time everyone else says. What do you think is in there if you had a guess? So when I was talking to the ambassador, he's actually a history buffed too. And so he had actually said that the Russian government when Oswald was at. actually in Russia had done a psychological profile because they thought, you know, they're like, is this guy part of American intelligence? Like, what's his story? And they thought he was basically nuts. And apparently he had tried to go hunting when he was out there and they were observing him and he couldn't shoot for shit. So they're like, you know, he didn't meet our

psychological profile. Then he shows up to the Russian embassy in Mexico City with a gun. And they're like, what the hell is it like crazy guys showing up at that? Like, what's going on? And then we find out simultaneously, as this is all happening, that the CIA, kudos to Director Radcliffe had actually released something called the Joan Edie's file. And George Joneides was actually, he's basically our version of James Bond, but more corrupt. And he was basically observing Oswald. He had lied to Congress. This was all in his file. He was then the CIA liaison to Congress during the investigations. Stonewald, their investigations, was later awarded something from the CIA. So we have the CIA admitting that they lied to Congress.

Congress covered up the assassination or covered up the investigations. We had admissions from the Warren Commission, people that had been subject to the Warren Commission's investigation saying that the Warren Commission engaged in witness intimidation. They omitted evidence. The single bullet theory never exists. The CIA admits that Lee Harvey Oswald was not a lone gunman. People ask, well, you know, does this mean that you'll ever get the name of who killed him? No, because I don't think the CIA was like, kill JFK on this day and use this gun and have this person assigned. But there was evidence of multiple shooters, for sure.

Well, there had to be multiple shooters. There was injuries, like one of them was at the front of his neck. We had testimony to that. Yeah. And actually, what's interesting is when we first launched the task force, we had left-leaning news outlets that were trying to write hit pieces saying that I was basically launching a conspiracy theory task force. And they had to print the truth weeks ago. You can actually pull up. What is it about people that don't want to believe that's.

Some conspiracies are real. Is it a comfort thing? Is it you think you're going to erode trust in the government? Is it you just have such a rigid worldview and in your mind that there's always been Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. That's what happened. And because of that, anything that challenges your belief system you fight against? Well, specifically to JFK for decades, the intelligence agencies were influencing what the print

and press was doing. 100%. Until Heraldo Rivera, you know, when Dick Gregory brought that film on the Heraldo Rivera show, and you got to see the Zepruder film, and you got to see what looks like a shot that makes his head go back and to the left. Yeah, and the reaction. Which would indicate he got shot from the front. I think he got shot multiple times by multiple shooters from multiple different directions, and I don't think necessarily Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't in on it. Well, here's the problem. People say, oh, Lee Harvey Oswald couldn't shoot. You don't have to be that good with. the rifle to be uh you're you're on a ledge so you have a secure rest if your rifle sighted in

and they said his scope was off but that doesn't mean shit because you could just drop your scope and it's off like all you have to do is take your rifle off of that ledge drop it on the ground and now that scope is off you never drop your gun like that and if you do you can knock your scope off well there's multiple problems though because the warren commission actually never even put into the report right so like if you're conducting it let me finish let me finish my my point is that wasn't a far shot. It was like, what was it, 140 yards from the book depository with a scope and a rifle with a rest. No, you could kill a guy like that, and he could have been the shooter.

He could have been one of the shooters. But I think there's too much witness testimony, there's too much evidence, there's too, the whole idea of the magic bullet theory was just because they had to account for all the wounds in the bodies with just three bullets. and they found a guy who got hit in the overpass, in the underpass, rather. He got hit with a ricochet. Yeah. So now they knew that bullet couldn't have hit Kennedy or Connolly. So how do you attribute all these wounds to two different guys from multiple gunshots to a single bullet? It's a magic bullet, don't you know?

You have to find this bullet that fucking for sure didn't hit any bones. And there's more fragments in Connolly's wrist than they were missing from the bullet. The bullet looks almost pristine. It looks like they shot it through like feathers or they shot it into water, which is what. what they do when they do ballistics tests on rifles. Well, what's interesting is the Warren Commission did omit multiple female witnesses who were actually at the book depository that day that actually stated that they had never witnessed Oswald actually in the location or going down the back of the book depository.

So that's interesting facts. Yeah, it's possible that he could have snuck past them. There was a lot of chaos. You hear gunshots, the president shot. People don't always think straight when things are going nutty. people have a terrible memory right after traumatic events. Yeah. Like, yes and no.

Like, he might have been there or he might not have been there. He might have shot at Kennedy or he might not have Kennedy. But for sure, he was some sort of government operative. For sure, he was traveling back and forth from Russia. He married a Russian citizen. There was a lot of weird shit with that guy. He was under surveillance by the CIA. So there's a lot there.

However, I will say this. What the official narrative was, we now know is BS, right? Well, that I thought from the beginning. Yeah, but a lot of the American people did, but to have their own government say, no, that's not true, to gaslight them and to push this narrative of if you question it, you're wrong, you're crazy. That in itself, I think when you're talking about, like, why do the American people not trust their government? It's really this fracture that starts around the Kennedy era in time frame. And you can see then that distrust kind of evolves. But going back to your original question, why do people refuse to kind of question conspiracy theory, maybe there's some substance to it?

And I think it's because it's more comfortable. for people from a psychological perspective to live in this comfort area that their government might not do something like that or might not try to cover up something like that because that's just an easy way of life. But look, it's too scary. It's too scary. But the fact is is that, look, I've traveled a lot, I've dealt with a lot of world leaders. We are still the greatest country in the world. Make no excuse about that. But it doesn't mean that we can't call out and hold our own government and officials accountable. And so that's kind of what I've guessed my mission has been this Congress and what I hope that it will continue to be. But

I'm not trying to do this for like even the next 10 years. So for someone like me, you know, people are like, oh, initially you're going to ruin your political career talking about this. This is crazy. Why would you even want to do that? And then, you know, they're seeing all these big wins coming out in regards to transparency. And I will say, had it not been for the secretaries that have been appointed by this administration, this wouldn't have happened because under President Biden, he actually also tried to declassify things pertaining to JFK and the National Archives never released it. And so in addition to...

That's not a good sign. None of that stuff is a good sign. Like, if you want trust from the American people, do you release information? If you want us to distrust you, you hide everything. And you're hiding everything on one of the most important events in human history. They were up until recently. And we're still documents that the JFK community, because mind you, I'm actually working with his name's Jefferson Morley.

He is not a Republican. He's a Bernie Sanders Democrat. But on this issue, we're working great together. And he's actually been helping me, and he's like, look, I've been waiting for this for like 30 years. Yeah, this is a hugely bipartisan issue. Yeah, it's super bipartisan. This is something we can all get together.

That in you oppose. It's the one thing Democrats and Republicans both completely agree on. Like, tell us what's up. Tell us what's up. Who killed them and are they real? Those are two giant questions that we all have. I think they're real. The other part is still outstanding.

But hopefully when the documents are released from the Russian government later on this fall, that might be able to provide a full picture. Granted, I'm going to take it with a great assault because it's still, you know, it was written by the KGB. But at the end of the day, we have a good mosaic that's been put together with at least the documents that have been released with this administration. And for any outstanding documents, actually have a team assigned to me from the CIA that is actually helping me chase down these documents. And I've already had some interesting experiences, like not creepy, but for example, after President Trump signed the executive order and Radcliffe has been super helpful, we actually were made aware of this. allegedly there had been a document that was at the CIA that was a report from the Inspector General that had implicated the CIA allegedly in the assassination of J.K.

So I'm following up on this lead and trying to find this report. And the archives is like, we don't have any documentation of this. The CIA says they don't have any documentation. And they've been good with us so far. So I go to the archives because they're like, we found this weird bag, though, and it's in the skiff, and it's been here for five years. And it was left by our former attorney for the archives. so we don't know what's in it. And I was like, we'll go open it. They're like, well, we don't

have the key and it's in a vault. And I said, well, I'm coming over. So I drive over, literally, I like put my son in the car. I get in the car and I go over to the National Archives. We go into the skiff. I pull out this bag and I'm like, does anyone have scissors? And we like cut open this little folder. And there was a CD-ROM in it. And this is, again, been declassified now. So I can talk about it. But there was this CD-ROM of a ton of wires from the State Department. Some of the wires were pertaining to the Kennedy family. And it was actually a WikiLeaks document. And so I think the reason why it was kept at the archives is because you're not actually supposed to have these documents on government computers, WikiLeaks, obviously

happened with that. But here I was like cutting it out of a bag at the National Archives. That makes sense that you would have the most top secret documents burned on CD-ROMs. That way no one could ever get access to it by hacking into your computer. To this day, I don't know even who left the CD-ROM. I don't know. And there are some other stuff in that that I don't need to get into. But, You know, you need to get into it. Because I don't get in trouble. But the stuff that was on there was interesting. And I think I saw recently, Tulsi had actually talked about some of the State Department wires that had been found that, and I think two are the same ones, that had talked about the assassination of RFK.

There were wires going up from the State Department prior to his assassination, which is interesting. So our next investigation, so we've done multiple hearings. What do you mean by that? Like, how did they specifically discuss it? Well, that's, I haven't seen the actual wires themselves yet, but what that would imply is that the State Department knew about the assassination before it took place. Oh, geez. So now is something she talked about. Did you get into the MK Ultra stuff at all with Jolly West?

So I look at that on my free time, but that's not the purview of the task force. But there is stuff that you can again, CIA.gov slash reading room, super creepy. I did find a document on the archives website that actually ties the initial phases of the MK Ultra program to, Operation Paperclip. Oh, boy. Interesting. That makes sense, right? And it's there.

I'm reading this to my husband. Because for sure, the Nazis were experimenting on drugs with people. They were doing a lot of bad stuff. Oh, they were doing a lot of horrible stuff. But for sure, they were experimenting on their soldiers and on the prisoners, and they were experimenting on all kinds of people. Creepy stuff. Yeah.

And if we took some of that and applied it, the Jack Ruby connection to it is that Jolly West went to visit Jack Ruby after he shot Lee Harvey Oswald. And Jack Ruby was, like, pretty rational before then. And then after Jolly West leaves, he's, like, freaking out, seeing things that aren't there. I think he said something about Jews burning. He could see Jews burning alive. It's like a psychosis state. Full on, lost it.

Most likely got dosed the fuck with acid. Most likely Jolly West just hit him with a fucking giant shot glass of acid. It doesn't, like, he went so far off the deep end. Then he died later, I think he died a few years later of cancer, but I think he completely lost his mind after Jolly West visited him. And Jolly West was rude. He was involved with the Manson family thing. He was involved with Operation Midnight Climax where they had brothels.

The CIA was running brothels, and they would get these Johns to come in with the prostitutes, and the prostitutes would give them acid, and they didn't know it. And so they were sitting there and there was two-way mirrors and they were filming them. Why these guys were like, well, for blackmail, for observation. They knew these people were never going to say, hey, you did that to me. You know, look what the government did it, dosed me up with acid. Because they're not going to admit they went to a brothel. Well, I see it.

So you have like the perfect group of people to victimize and just try stuff on. Well, and they got in trouble for it too. Like the CIA had to do payouts. They were getting sued for it. And then when all this did flush out, I mean, you know, it's always, I feel like Congress. The Information Act was the only, and then they found a bunch of documents. They found documents that were, I forget, who found, I forget, Tom O'Neill, who wrote the book, Chaos, goes into great detail about this. Well, it's all about the Manson family and M.K. Lter. It's a fantastic book.

Well, even just this conversation right now, there's such a stigma that exists around it because it's such a spooky topic. Yes. And so it's like everyone, you don't want to look stupid. You don't want to look stupid. And so, look, anyone watching this can go look at this information. go to cia.gov slash reading room and no it's not going to be a fishing website that's going to steal your information but like you can find the cia is like where are we accessing but um you know it's it's always been one of those things and you know if people ask me i'm just very transparent about it and i will say something that started out with a stigma of being you know this conspiracy theory investigation wasting taxpayer dollars has been arguably one of the coolest task force in congress

i think and we have a lot of good people that are behind it and i think the tide is turning on that kind of thinking that these conspiracy theories are silly to pursue like some of them yeah some of them are silly some are crazy but some are crazy but that doesn't mean that some are true also there's a time honored tactic of taking look if I was an intelligence community and I'm not accusing anybody doing this but if I was an intelligence community and I had some truth that was very inconvenient to a narrative and I wanted to label that truth as being a preposterous conspiracy theory, I'd add a bunch of cookie shit to it. Or have

disinformation campaigns. Or dole it out to the nuttiest people on the internet. Dole it out to the craziest people. You know this guy's got a drinking problem, he's got a conspiracy theory website. Or take a little and spin it. Get it to him. Get it to him. Tell him you're helping him out. You're going to give him some inside of

get him to spread a bunch of cookie stuff so that when that stuff gets disproven, the other thing's attached to it. So the other thing looks stupid too. And that's what I would do. Yeah, we've had our fill, like the One thing I wanted to do when I first got the task force is open up a skiff to any person who held a clearance to come brief us on what they knew about UAPs. And I can tell you that we've now had the skiff. What was the first conversation like when the door shuts and you're like, oh boy, I'm going to get the goods.

The problem is is I've reached out to some of the biggest names in UFO lore, okay? And they all got skiff flu. And we call it skiff flu, meaning like the day that the skiff was open that we reserved it. We're like, we're here. Like, come on, come brief us. They get sick or the dog dies. And they didn't recover and come back? They didn't recover, and then they just don't talk to us anymore.

They ghost you? They ghost us. Yeah, so I'm like, well, if you're not going to tell me to skip, then you're full of crap. Or you're scared for your life because you're just a scientist who doesn't, maybe they got threatened. Maybe someone let them know that maybe someone hung something on their door in the middle of the night. But if people say they're going to go tell us in a skiff and then they don't show up, it's a problem, right? I understand. But maybe those people don't feel like the government's going to protect them.

That is one of the biggest things that we've had people bring up is that you're a whistleblower, but whistleblower protections only go so far and you can't do anything for my physical safety and some of them do allege that there's these actual physical concerns. We actually had someone that we wanted to bring in to testify because our next hearing on UAP is going to be, I believe it's next month.

And the individual that was actually told us by David Gresh is actually a former combat controller and so my husband, Air Force Special Operator, Combat Control, so we knew the guy via some friends. So we knew that the guy wasn't nuts or crazy and reached out to him and he did. not want to come in, he wanted nothing to do with it, was like, I'm not touching this. And so, you know, that stuff like that happens.

Well, also, you put those folks on TV, right? Well, we don't have to. We can do private, but if we testify. Yeah, if it comes time where they have to testify. And there's a lot of time in between people finding out that this guy came and told you guys what's up to testify. Don't freak out our witnesses, Joe. But that's the problem.

This is why what I was talking about is what's being advocated in the documentary that to me makes perfect sense is massive. amnesty. Now here's the bad part. For sure, you're dealing with enormous sums of money, and I'm sure people got really rich off of that, and I'm sure it's super illegal, if it's real. What the back engineering potential? Yeah. I mean, and also the competitive advantage you would give company A, if this company gets access to a downcraft that can traverse space and time, that can move through the universe instantaneously, that utilizes an unknown element that has some unknown process of defying gravity. It's utilizing no interior mechanisms of control.

Everything is done with the mind of the pilot. If this is the truth, if this is what they're saying, and these are the kind of things they find, that getting to a contractor would be a massive advantage over the other contractor that also should be on equal standing with the government. They both make jets. They both make whatever it is. So it's like, what do you do? Do you divvy up your spaceships in between these folks? Like, are they the only ones who get to know it? And then how do private contractors, how are they the gatekeepers of the most important information in the world if it's true?

Well, so, and that brings us to what happened at Eglane Air Force Base. So in a nutshell, we had been told by, so Representative Gates had come forward and said that he had two or two or three pilots said to contact him. saying that the Air Force was covering up information regarding to UAP activity in the panel handle, and he wanted us to go with him to investigate. So we show up at Eglon Air Force Base. We're met by the base commander. Previous says even showing up on this congressional delegation to investigate, the Pentagon had tried to cancel the meeting. And you can't – so this was under the last administration, so you can't just cancel a meeting

and say you can't come to the base. That doesn't work. So Gates actually was on House Armed Services at the time that oversees the U.S. military. And so Gates got D. Chairman involved, calls back onto the Pentagon and gets this meeting on the books. And, you know, we were told them specifically, we want to see information on UAPs. We want to see the evidence. And we want to have the pilots that saw these aircraft, whatever they are or these spacecraft. We want to have briefings from them.

In a nutshell, we get to Eglon Air Force Base. They keep BSing us about the Chinese spy balloon. That's not what we were there to see. And ultimately, we were in the skiff. We got into a verbal disagreement with the base commander at the time who was denying us access to the pilots and to the information and said that we didn't have the authorization. In the SCIF, there was many members of the intelligence community. We then go back upstairs to the conference room and proceed to, again, basically have it out with this commander. And Representative Birchett said, you know, we can do this the easy way or the hard way.

You choose, sir. Oh, like a movie. Ooh. Kind of, but at the time. I like it. People use a movie way. Yeah, easy the way or a hard way. And if it's a hard way, you're going to have Representative Gates and Luna in D.C. questioning you.

So I suggest you do it the easy way. So he actually, in the middle of the meeting, you know, we were kind of holding his feet to the fire on it. He, like, kind of got nervous as we were talking to him. And he, I kid you not. He goes, you know, they're going to like that I'm not going to let you see. So he kind of was, like, thinking out loud, but didn't realize that he was basically saying it. And then in the middle of our meeting, he gets. up and leaves the room. Like, I have to go to the restroom or something. And then maybe like

five minutes later, this tech sergeant comes in and says, oh, the base commander's been authorized to go and leave to Georgia. He won't be coming back. And I'm sitting there looking at Gates and Bergen. I'm like, he just left, like in the middle of a congressional delegation. Like, that's never happened. So he said out loud, they would be happy that I'm not telling you? Yeah. Like verbally articulated it. Gates was there. My husband was there. But there's it. It's just like if that guy's he's in a powerless situation, right? If he does give you access, he's going to get in trouble. He's in, he might be really in trouble. But here's a problem. He can't, even if it was someone at this, like the Secretary of Defense, right? Because at the time, this got pretty high level.

I'm not saying it's not illegal. Yeah. He still, at the end of the day, you're in the military. How are government functions is the military does not decide what, the civilian sector and what representatives can and cannot see. It's not supposed to function like that. So he got up and left. Like, I've never seen this happen. I was in the military. I've never seen, like, in the middle of a congressional delegation. These are big deals.

You just get up and go and leave to Georgia and you just don't come back. Like, in the middle of the meeting? It never happened. What state were you in the time? We're in Florida. Oh, that's hilarious. He just like, get up and drove to Georgia. Like, what the hell are you doing, Georgia in the middle of a congressional delegation?

I'm going fishing. See ya. And then his second in command comes in. And they managed to get one pilot to come down and brief us. And what I will tell you is, I will say it, Representative Gates has gone on record. He actually did as soon as he left office that we've seen stuff that I don't believe was created by mankind. So you can't tell us what you saw. I'm going to let you infer.

Infer. See, this is the problem that I have with all this stuff. I should be able to tell you without losing my clearance. Well, not just that. that people that have that information should give that information to the general public. Correct. And stop treating us like you're smarter than us and that you can handle it and we can't. That's silly.

Which is why we have to declassify, which is why. Do you know the Hal put-off stuff? No. Okay. How put off during the Bush administration was assigned. He was one of many scientists, and this is also in the age of disclosure. He was one of many scientists that was assigned to put a numerical value to pros and cons of UFO disclosure. So they said to him, we have a crashed UFO that we have been back engineering and we want to release information to society to let people know that UFOs are real and that there is something else out there that's not us.

It's much more intelligent than we are. So they have this list of pros and cons, banking, religion, societal structure, you know, everything, everything on one side. And then the pros, like, you know, whatever the positive aspects of it would be. And every single scientist said that the cons outweighed the pros. And he said, I would have loved to have had disclosure. But this was just what they asked me to do. They asked me to compile numbers and to do it in a way that's super objective. And he said, if I'm doing my job, this is where I think it would completely wreck our government,

completely wreck any idea that the people that are in charge of us have any position of authority when there's something that can go 100 million times faster than we think is physically possible through the universe, appear out of nowhere, stop all of our nuclear programs, shut down bases, do weird shit. But don't you think that that's where kind of it's been interesting because society has moved away from this aspect of like having a spiritual grounding and even believing and And, like, you know, most people today, I think when you talk about, like, praying, even that whole concept is kind of just like, oh, you know, they're just, and I feel like that thing's kind of papoed. But if you have, like, a grounding in that and going back to what I was saying earlier, I think that that's not, like, I don't think that society would do that.

Granted, I'm not a scientist. I'm not running numbers, but just based on how we've kind of been evolving with access to information and kind of the questions, the discussions that have been happening, not just here, but I think internationally, I just think a lot's changing. Now, to say that we were, you know, and I've heard some wild theories, like people think that, you know, humanity was seated by UFOs. And that's it. I don't agree with that theory. I'm going to address it because. It's a fun one. It's an interesting theory. If you found out it was true, would you tell everybody? I mean, I'd be transparent about it, but I just like, don't personally believe it. But would you believe it if you found out of it, that was the information that the government had. Well, I put it out there because that's what I'm supposed to do.

Right. But what would that do for your belief system? That would suck. But would it suck really? Maybe that's what's confusing about the Bible. Maybe what's confusing is that it was an oral tradition for hundreds, if not a thousand years before it was ever written down, right? Well, I think that it depends on what book you're talking about, right? So like if you have books by prophets. If you go back to the oldest works of the Bible, weren't most of those stories handed down generation after generation and then eventually written down? Written into text. Well, some of them are written by prophets and then. But, I mean, Enoch is apparently supposed to preach. day even the time of Genesis and talk. The nuttiest one is Ezekiel. I'm telling you

Enoch is even crazier than Ezekiel. Oh, I've read it. I just don't. Did you find anything about whether or not Enoch is controversial? You can look up the fourth century. It was discluded as I guess since the fifth century. It wasn't in canon. Fifth century. And why did it get discluded?

It says the Jewish scribes or the priest didn't believe, the rabbis didn't believe it was canon. So it's considered, it's regarded as scripture. But what's interesting is, is that even if that's the case, though, you have the Ethiopian Orthodox Church that actually there's Ethiopian Jews. And that's considered the most pure form of the Bible. So, like, you actually have a division of, like, the Ethiopian Jewish class

that actually recognized Enoch. How weird is it that some rabbis 500 years ago made a call? But that's what I'm saying is, like, you can't, though, discredit it. That's kind of weird. But you can't discredit it because, again, like when you have people removing books, I just, I think, look, and I'm not telling people what to believe it. I'm just saying you should take a look at it. Oh, here it is. The main reason for the Jewish rejection of the book is that it's inconsistent with the teachings of the Torah.

From the standpoint of rabbin, how do you say that? Rabbinic. Rabbinic Judaism. Sorry. The book is considered to be heretical. Another reason for the exclusion of the text might be the textual nature of several early sections of the book. that make use of material from the Torah. For example, Enoch is a mid-rash of Deuteronomy 33.

The context, particularly detailed descriptions of fallen angels, would also be reasoned for rejection from the Hebrew canon at this period. As is illustrated by the comments of Tripfo the Jew when debating Justin Martyr on this subject, the utterances of God are holy, but your expositions are mere, contrivances, as is plain from what has been explained by you, nay, even blasphemous, for you assert that angels sinned and revolted from God.

So it seems like some people made a decision that something shouldn't be in there. Yeah, but that's the thing is it's a disagreement in religion and perspective, but they should have still not removed it. And so it's interesting because then you have, you know, the evolution of what the King James Bible is. We all know that story. He wanted to get remarried. they rewrote it, but you even have the Catholic Bible that has, it's what happened.

Right. And you have the Catholic Bible that had books that were taken out, and then we have the King James. So I'm not saying that, you know, if you read the King James, you're not getting, you don't have access to God. That's not what I'm saying. But I am saying that there's a bigger picture here that we need to discuss. Well, there's always a problem when people get involved. And when people get involved in making decisions that this could be real and this could not be like, the problem is like all these years later, you're dealing with the repercussions of that.

Like, imagine a world. in which if Enoch was left in the Bible, and people were like, wait, what happened? Like, explain the nuttiness of the book of Enoch to people. Well, it's, it's, okay, so if you read it, it talks about the fall of angels, thus creating really the precursor of civilization that led to the first flood. I think that when you even go into potentially the technology that was given to mankind by these angels, it talks about the hidden beliefs and theories in astronomy, me, et cetera, metal workings, all of it.

But it really does explain, you know, you were talking about earlier how you have a lot of these religions around the world that kind of say the same thing. This is kind of the OG text that leads to those stories that we're hearing from many religions around the world. To talk about angels mixing with mankind and then seeding a super, essentially race of humans that essentially were responsible for basically damning mankind to the flood. I mean, you hear about stuff in Greek and Roman mythology, people who had these super crazy powers. And you talk about it out loud and it sounds crazy, but that's what the book says.

And then the fact that it was taken out and then it's Papood, yet you have one of the oldest religions in the world via the Ethiopians that actually still have it. You have, you know, the Catholic Church that has books that are missing out of the King James version. I'm just saying that, you know, when you read it, you should read it and decide for yourself, don't listen to what I'm saying, don't listen to what you're saying, but truly give it a chance and see what you have to say. And, you know, you're going back to this whole concept of if you have this information pertaining to UAPs, whatever they might be, the origins. I mean, if you have a understanding of what Enoch was talking about, kind of makes sense. Well, I go back to my thoughts on all this stuff. It's like, very few people could even read back then. Very few people could write, right?

So you're not going to write. You're probably going to try to capture a truth. you're probably not writing necessarily to deceive people and make up a story. So the question is, with all this stuff, is what was the original truth that they were trying to write down? And how much of it is getting distorted by translations from ancient Hebrew to Latin to Greek? Yeah, like how much of it? And is it possible to even understand what they're saying without understanding the language? And my friend Rick Strassman, he's a very fascinating guy, brilliant guy.

One of the things that he did is he taught himself ancient Hebrew so he could read the Bible in ancient Hebrew. It took him 16 years. Wow. But he did it because he's like, I want to know it in that language. I mean, that's smart because there's always an aspect of translation where you lose your implications. Sure. If you're playing the telephone game, you want to be second. You don't want to be 15th, right? And whoever was writing it down the earliest, that's probably you're closer to their

depictions of what that truth is than after King James starts fucking around with it. And all these other people, all these new people start getting involved. But boy, when you go to the really old stuff, you know, the really old stuff is very strange. The orthodox, I'm telling you, the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible, I actually had a staffer that went to Ethiopia. She was on a church trip. And she actually brought me back a copy. like, you can translate it via Google translation. So kudos to modern day technology.

So I have it in my office. And actually when I did my swearing in, I actually did my swearing in on the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible. Wow. That's cool. It's direct translation. That's kind of crazy. It's, you know, I would wonder what the impact to all these religions would be if we had definitive proof that we're not alone. Like if there was an introduction, like a, some.

sort of an event where they decided, look, this government is too secretive with all this information. You're holding back the understanding of these intelligent life forms that they are not the apex of this planet, nor are they anywhere close to the peak

of the intelligence that's available out there in the universe. Just let me show you real quick and then what does everybody do now? What happens to the Mormons? I think that brings us... Everybody's going to fucking blow a gasket. Well, I think that brings us back to square one. So by the way, I know by no means saying that, you know,

aliens are God. That's not what I'm saying. No, no, no, no. But I think that brings us back to the fundamental question on, do you believe that God exists? Because if you do, then you realize that our freedom, you know, the freedom of choice is not a man given right, but a God given right. And I think that that goes back to the fundamental principles of like what we believe in true representation. So if you believe that God is real, God is powerful, then it shouldn't be a king or a man that you're looking to, but to God for divine inspiration and to make your life decisions, that's ultimately what freedom of choice is. But I think even the Catholic Church has acknowledged the idea that if there is intelligent

life somewhere else, it doesn't mean that God didn't create it. Well, that's true. Maybe God just didn't tell you about the neighbors. Well, it does say in Enoch and then also too, I think in Genesis that the stars cried out. And so if you're looking, well, a star, if it's not, you know, what do they mean by stars crying out and then Enoch actually alludes to stars in certain capacities being potentially angels. Now, I'm not saying like, and this is kind of interesting because, you know, I've had this aspect of my task force, what we've been investigating, but then I have, you know, my personal

beliefs and, you know, my religious beliefs. And what I'm telling you is that in my position officially, I've seen men pervert information to get what they want. So it's not unlikely that an entire, you know, very secret, very truthful text was omitted in an effort to control population and to insert yourself between an individual's relationship between them directly in God. And I think that, you know, especially if it doesn't agree with your interpretation of God. And this is the issue with these rabbis, right? Well, I mean, if you're having people determine any information, yes, you should not be able to do that. Just the same thing as the UFO stuff. The UFO stuff. No one should be the gatekeeper of information. Exactly. And hence the transparency

on the information. Especially something that's, it should be for all of us. This is nuts. I think we're probably going to be responsible for like the book of Enoch sales probably increase on Amazon. Well, I'm going to buy it. I'm going to buy it. I need to read it now.

You'll trip out. Well, I wish I could, I mean, I'm sure there's some interpretations of the Dead Sea Scrolls that I could sludge through. But the thing about it is I'd really love to be able to read it in Aramaic. I really wish I could read Aramaic. I just don't have the fucking time to do that. You can listen. Go on, you should see if there's like an audible.

Oh, I'm sure there is. But what I'm saying is I really like the Strassman idea of learning ancient Hebrew to be able to read the source material. That's so that is, that's where it gets really interesting. Because like what were these people trying to write about? And if these people like Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson are correct and these folks that believe in the younger dryest impact theory, you know, the Bible was written a couple thousand years ago. These people that are talking about the Younger Darius Impact Theory are talking about a cataclysmic event that wiped out advanced civilization 11,800 years ago. Well, Plato talks about it, hearing it from Egyptian teachers and then going back to the Atlantean civilization. Right, but what was their Bible?

You know what I mean? Like if you can get back to 11,800 years ago and read what they thought went down, because I think that's probably where the oral traditions. come from. The oral traditions come from complete collapse of society, rebuild over time, takes forever, and then a re-understanding of what you know to be true about the origin

of man and the birth of the universe and why we're here. And then you've got to figure out what Jesus is. Well, so I actually, when I was in my early 20s, I actually went to Egypt to see the megalithic structures there, and then I went to Turkey to see the

Sumerian inscriptions and carvings on what they thought the ancient Sumerian gods were, the Anunnaki, all of that. What's interesting is in Enoch, it actually has reference to the Anunaki, but a different, I think it's like Anu is like the term, the root term that's used for it. Have you read the Zechreus Hitch and stuff? No. Do you know of it? I have heard of it, yeah.

Yeah, that's the most fun. Yeah. Well, I will say with all of that going back to if you read Enoch and then follow about the fall of mankind and the angels with, you know, and this is Christian theology, right? So like angels came down, rebelled against God, interred with humankind. That would be, I think, a good starting point for what potentially the Anunnaki were. Yeah, God probably didn't like that they were coming around and taking the ancient hominids and juicing them up. Juicing them up, make them chest champions. Heaven did not approve. Yeah, it's probably against the code of the universe. God

probably says, look, you can go visit, but don't mess around with it. Well, there's definitely something to be said. It actually talks about this in Enoch about a divine justice. And so I think, you know, again, going back to what is our job, you know, how would society function, you have aspects in like government, do you trust your government, is government going to follow through and bring accountability? You know, that's our job at the same sense and that we have to ensure that if we are to truly have an equal and fair society, that you have to have this aspect of justice that has to be

carried out and I you know I can go back to something that I've found kind of crazy but you know the mandatory minimums for child predators are not that high in this country and so Congress can actually increase the mandatory minimums but there's been a lot of lethargy about that it's like why would you you know not want to increase it some people are against the death penalty and I would say that it's not you know my job to play God or to judge people just to help to arrange the meeting yeah I it's a weird job right I mean you're you're involved in the disclosure of things that have questioned, that people have questioned forever. I mean, these are, those are the huge questions that exist from the 1960s on.

UFOs, JFK, Mark Luther King, RFK. Those are the big ones. We're pushing for it. And there's a good group of people that are assigned to it. I did say recently, so the MLK documents just came out, and we're wrapping up our JFK investigation. So after we finalize the JFK investigation, we're putting out of it. an official congressional report on our findings, and people can read it and decide for themselves.

Then we have RFK and then MLK, but I think a lot of the MLK family was actually very concerned that we were going to go into extracurricular, and that's not the objective of the task course. It's to specifically expose what the government was doing if they knew about the potential threats. And people say, well, why do we care about? I constantly get, well, we shouldn't care about this. No, you should because there has to be a check and balance. And when you know if the CIA was operating outside the purview of the federal government, if you know that whistleblowers are being punished, if there needs to be reformed to the FOIA Act, all of this stuff, then we have to be able to put forward legislation to ensure it doesn't

happen again. And what's been very interesting and almost serendipitous about the whole GFK investigation is you have President Trump now in the second term that's released all this information. And multiple presidents tried to, but they were worked against by their own secretaries within these agencies and then deep see actors that try to block the efforts for release. now you're seeing kind of a flush of the system, and even though information hasn't come out as fast as we would like it to, the fact that they've made these admissions is really good. But moving forward into how do you prevent this from happening again? It's people really do, like young people especially because there's so much fatigue for people that have been in office for, you know, and the reason I say, like, I don't even want to do this for the next 10 years is because everyone, even people I've looked up to, after a certain amount of time, they lose their edge. and I think that that's because, like, you're up there, you're taking it a lot of incoming.

It's not a fun job. Like, you're getting attacked. Like, you're getting beat down. It's stressful. But if you can put all your energy in it now and then you can cut ties and pass it on, that's how our founding fathers wanted us to do is like pass the torch, stand up the next generation. Right, but we have a bunch of career politicians that want to stay in office for 50, 60 years. Correct.

And that's a problem. And it's on both sides. Yeah, it's on both sides. So I'm trying to do a discharge petition now on term limits. So back in January. of my first term. So back in January of 2022, I'm sure you saw there was like this massive speaker's fight about confirming Kevin McCarthy as a speaker of the house. And I was part of one of those 20 that said, we're not going to vote for you just yet. We need to reform the institution

and the way that we function because power had been consolidated within the speaker's position so much so that how it's supposed to work is you're supposed to be able to bring a bill forward, that bill is supposed to come to the floor. All of these policies were being consolidated in one person. And if you didn't fall in line, you wouldn't get committee assignments. You wouldn't be able to fundraise. They would basically cut off all aspects of fundraising in Washington. And the mainstream media for a while was like, you guys are disrupting the process, you know, like you guys are fighting. Well, what the hell do you want Congress to do? You want us to just fall in line and not argue our principles? Like, last time I checked

you're supposed to fight for that. And so we were able to reform the institution. But one of the things that we had negotiated with the former speaker was we wanted a vote on term limits. And that never came up. And so now because of our very slim majority, one of the most slim majorities in U.S. history, we have the ability to do something called a discharge petition. And it's where you can physically go down and basically collect signatures on a bill. And so I'm bringing forward two that have already been filed. One is going to be to force a vote on term moment. So I'm going to see if members of Congress will actually put their name to actually bring that bill to the floor. There's going to be a massive, I hope, pressure campaign to activate members to do that. And then

the other one is banning insider trading. Yeah, that's been talked about for a while. But hasn't been done, and we can do it now. Nancy just needs a little more money, and then she'll quit. Well, it's not, you know, there was a comms director meeting for the entire GOP, and I'm calling up Burchett's bill on banning insider trading, and we were not invited to that meeting. Our staff was excommunicated from that. I wonder why.

Yeah, I know. How weird. Shocker. It's crazy how, like, openly corrupt that part of the business is. But the thing is, once you've become accustomed to be able to do something and you've been able to do it for decades, you're very reluctant to give that up. Why would you give that up? That's a huge advantage. People say that it doesn't exist.

But last time I checked, when you are given access to CEOs, when you're given access to information that are affecting markets, and then you're on the committee that has purview over those bills, you do have information. Seems like you have a little more than the average person. And there's a lot. You know, you can look at people's, you know, they go in, you're making $1.75 a year. And then all of a sudden you come out, you're worth like $20 million, $200 million. It's kind of shady. You're not really gambling. You know, the stock market is kind of gambling.

You know, I can't. Like, the UFC doesn't even allow me to gamble, and I can't even affect the outcome. How about that? So you can't do it, but Congress can. But Congress can, you know. For now at least. The inside information that I have, anybody could have, mostly. Not really.

No, that's not true. No, I know some stuff sometimes, unfortunately. I was told if I forced a vote that I was going to cost us to the Republic is what I was told. But the thing about the insider trading thing is the amount of money is so egregious. Like, isn't Pelosi now worth 400 million? I saw upwards of 200 million, but compounding interest. She jacked up her portfolio recently significantly. But it's not just her.

It's on both sides. Oh, yeah. No, she's just the poster lady, unfortunately. No slight at her. It's all across the board. If you look at how many people, it's red blue, red blue, it's the whole thing. Everybody's doing it. I told my husband, I was like, we're not going to do stocks because it's just, that's the one thing.

You can talk to anyone. I actually was reading an article, and the local press are like, Rep Blune is trying to force a vote on this, right? And so, like, I'm always the kind of red-headed stepchild, usually, especially in Dem circles. But this one lady post, I actually started laughing. She goes, well, a broken clock is right twice a day. And I started laughing because I'm like, it's such like a bipartisan. an issue. Like, over 80% of Americans don't think that Congress should be able to trade stock.

And it's true because we're given access to information. And that that's truly influencing your decision. Did you ask her what the rest of you are wrong about? I mean, I tend to, I think it's just, I think it's party, party associations. Like some people just will never vote. A broken clack. Yeah. People are rabid and they're super upset now, obviously, because Trump's in office again, so that that rabid nature has been over amplified. It has. I think a lot of it, though, driven by like bot activity I think is really big I can tell you that when I first launched the task force people are like she's an intelligence asset she's never going to release information then it came out that I actually don't have

declassification authority but we have been able to produce wins and we are getting full cooperation from the executive branch so we're just simply investigating the findings collecting information and pressuring for release there's real people along with those bots but real people are also influenced by bots as well there's there's waves of negativity and positivity that go in certain directions that are orchestrated. And there's companies that are known companies that you can actually hire them to go do stuff.

They exist in Florida, actually. There's a couple of social media influencers that have been approached. I've seen it, so I know it exists. It's crazy. What's interesting, though, is it goes back to the, you never want to get in trouble in a crowd of people because they'll just look at each other.

You ever see, like, someone getting beat up and they just, like, film it, right? So they're like going to help that person. And that's part of that group. Think it exists online. I do think X need to do something, at least like be able to label bought accounts, because I've seen it happen, especially on certain things.

Like, I had done something to allow new moms to vote when you're recovering. Our job is different. Like, only 13 women in U.S. history have ever given birth. It's about to be 14 who are members of Congress. And God forbid, we enter a war or something. We're not going to be able to vote. If you're recovering in a hospital, that's a pretty, like, rare circumstance. And so there was definitely bought accounts that were attacking me for that and accusing me of, like, destroying the Republic again.

And I said, I don't think that that's the case. Yeah, that's not tinfoil hat stuff, folks. You really need to know that why wouldn't there be? This is the thing. Like if you were, whether it's this country, a corporation, another country, why wouldn't you automate your system or have AI or even just have actual people that have a job? And their job is to type inflammatory, whatever it is, insults, whatever it is. Like, whatever their accomplishment, whatever their goal they're. trying to accomplish this. Why wouldn't you have a group of people that you have at your command

if it's legal? Because it is legal. So it is legal. And in politics, what's interesting is they'll test, like, especially when you're running for office, it's kind of interesting because you'll actually, during my first race, I actually had a firm that I was going to for consulting. And they had someone that had worked at the firm that had also worked with, like, McDonald's branding. So, like, people that are running for office will bring on these firms and then they'll, like, give them kind of like a branding profile. What was interesting about that is that, you know, you have this aspect of bought activity. Social media at the time was kind of just resurfacing as if you want to be kind of influential, you have to be able to use social media, share your message and get

that out there. And I think Trump really kind of refined that was kind of one of the leading figures in that, especially when Twitter 1.0 was in existence. But then you had this aspect of people that were running for office. And then there was actually a censorship state in this country. And we found that out that Twitter 1.0 was coordinating with the Department of Homeland Security. We found this out actually in a congressional hearing where they were actually, and DHS had a division under SISA that was supposed to be monitoring terrorist organizations and they were using it on the American people to censor information specifically on COVID on January 6th, all of that. That is scary. You still have censorship issues in places like the EU. So like to think that they

wouldn't use social media platforms, especially to influence masses is just, that's not a conspiracy theory that happens. We have evidence of that. Of course. Censorship is influencing. It is. It's also causing people to self-censor, which changes discourse. Yeah, not wanting to have conversations. Yeah, but you can get banned from Twitter for a variety of things, particularly during COVID. But I think COVID was also a great test case for them. Let's see, like, if there is some sort of catastrophe, some natural disaster, some national security issue where we could now enforce new regulations of censorship. Well, and scary regulations at that because COVID was really kind of dystopian. And going back to kind of, you know, know, I think you'd mentioned foreign government influence using bots. The one thing that's been interesting is in our investigation, so like taking now my task force

hat off and going into actually problems that we see right now happening, you saw this like massive a couple of weeks ago, a rift that was taking place between the American people specifically on immigration and all of a sudden these like pop-up riots. I actually called them the T-Mu riots, like the T-Mu Chinese out, because it came out via actually this woman, her name's Dad a Republican on X, and she actually tracked down the funding. line. And what was happening was the Chinese government was basically propping up this billionaire, American billionaire, Neville Shingham. And actually, he was donating money to organizations like Party of Socialism and Liberation. And they were actually funding a lot of these riot pop-ups in

the area. So you had people that were being used divided, for example, on the immigration topic. You literally have them passing out, you know, Mexican flags saying that they cared about immigrants. When in actuality, the financial ties is actually coming from the CCP. So the Chinese, Chinese government on many occasions, and it's not uncommon within Congress to know, even on apps like TikTok, they were showing certain information in order to cause a rift and influence people. The same individual, Neville Shingham, actually, once we got this information, we sent a request to have him come testify to Congress. And he spends part of his year in Shanghai, China. And so we were not able to deliver him his subpoena, basically. And so there's a letter that Chairman Comer has now authorized to be sent that will go to the Treasury Department to freeze his assets unless he was.

comes to testify to Congress. Wow. And that, mind you, this is not, you know, people and like, look, I started out before politics with my feet getting wet as an activist. Like, that's actually how we started out in politics. So, like, I understand the immigration, the board. I, like, understand all arguments because I've been through it and I've had a debate on, debate it.

But what's the problem for me is that you have foreign governments trying to cause a rift and then promote ideologies that will empower people, specifically. specifically to push forward policy that will actually put us as like second tier as opposed to the Chinese government. And I do think that the Chinese government in their execution has been very, very specific about how they want to hinder our ability to be global dominators. I think when you're looking at what happened in COVID timeframe, right? So like a lot of people said that Wuhan lab leak that that was a conspiracy theory. We now know that it happened and that was true. But at the same time, if you look at what President Trump was doing, he was actually trying to

negotiate trade with China and he was winning and then all of a sudden COVID happened. Well, what was interesting second time around in Trump 2.0 is that you have all these Timu rights taking place at the same time and almost got no coverage in the mainstream media, but you had multiple Chinese nationals that were caught trying to release agro-terrorism weapons. Yeah, we talked about those stuff. Yeah, agro-terrorism weapons. And then at the same time, the tariff war was taking place. And then you actually saw them trying to infiltrate.

So I don't think it's by accident. But I do think that it's important to remember that just because you see something happening on the mainstream media, the media will always try to amplify something because it's rage baiting and its click and its views, which translates to money. And if it's negative against Trump, it gets front page news. Of course, of course. But when you actually look at where the funding stream is coming from, it actually goes back to China. And this is not the only incident where they try to drive a wedge between Americans and then actually like section, like compartmentalized with Hispanic Americans specifically. So in 2016, now the largest voting minority in the country are Hispanic Americans specifically of Mexican descent. And I think you can find that sat on PewHispanic.org.

So when you're looking at voting demographics, how could you influence an entire demographic to help skew or influence a midterm election? And it would be specifically probably on the immigration topic to try to race bait people. But then you have this aspect of the same guy, Neville Shingham. His wife actually funds an organization called Code Pink. So this is all Chinese money, now going to a separate cause. And this one specifically is on the Israel versus Palestine issue. They don't care about Israelis or Palestinians. This is a Chinese funded group.

And what they're doing is they're using that front in an effort to then divide on that topic as well. So it's a multifaceted approach using minority classes in order to actually push the end goal, which would be communism. Wow. And also, too, you can actually look on the flyers for these organizations. So PSL, Neville Seingham is actually an open admirer of Mao Zedong. I mean, like, it's all up there and it's out there for you to find. But it's just crazy because most people, you know, you see this aspect of propaganda that's being shown to you. And you're not going to be like, who's funding that?

You know, you're going to say, like, tell with that person, I'm going to fight for this. But that's, they don't actually realize the more nefarious perspective of what's happening behind the scenes. So I absolutely believe this is true that I'm sure other countries, fund similar things, but also it was a reaction to some of the ice raids, right? I mean, it was a visceral reaction that a lot of people had the idea of people just showing up and pulling people out of schools and pulling people out of Home Depot and pulling people that were just hardworking people that maybe snuck over here because they didn't have a legal way to get over here.

But since they've been here, they've been good people. And they're a part of communities. And that's what freaks people out because what people, when people thought about ice, they thought, great, we're going to get rid of the gang members. They didn't think great, you're going to get rid of a landscaper. But the question is, why didn't they do it then during, why did these riots and why did this disagreement not happen under? I don't disagree with you. I think, Obama Biden. Listen, I'm sure these riots, some of these riots absolutely are manufactured. I'm sure they are. I'm sure these pallets of bricks that get left off on corners

when they know that there's going to be a BLM riot. That's bananas. Well, and they fundraise. But to your point, so how do you fix it? something like the immigration system as a whole, right? You definitely don't have an open border. That's crazy. Because you need to know if people are criminals that are coming in. You don't want cartel members coming in. You don't want murderers coming in and serial killers.

Like, there's a reason why we have borders. All the above, right? There's a reason why we have borders. But the thing that freaks people out is, like, how many corporations rely on illegal labor? Oh, how many slaughterhouses? I actually, yeah, we actually, last year I was putting. out some messaging on them because I'd watch this documentary about the slaughterhouse. They're actually using migrant children, like 14, 15 in some of these slaughterhouses.

And the lobbyist from Tyson Chicken Corporation contacted my chief of staff at the time and was like trying to basically say like, hey, like basically back off. But like I don't care. Like it's wrong. Like I don't care where you're on the spectrum. We shouldn't allow migrant labor with children specifically because child slave labor. I'll tell you a story that a high-level government official told me. I don't want to, I don't know if he said it on here or not, so I don't want to say his name.

Wait, so he was on here, so then that narrows it. Okay, it's okay. Someone actually said to him that they don't want to stop the illegal immigration because they need cheap labor. Correct. I actually think that it'll never stop, at least not in Congress. That they don't have to pay them any benefits. They don't have to take care of their insurance. Or pay them at all. Well, they pay them, but they don't have to pay them what they're supposed to pay them. Well, I've heard cases where people, specifically contractors, will walk on people if they know that they're here illegally.

And like, so going back to like, how do you fix this is one of the top cases that I handle aside from Social Security help and refunds, like within my congressional office. So a congressional office does constituent services and it's basically like customer service. Like have you been victimized by the federal government, you know, call this number? That's your congressional office. So specifically on immigration cases, like if you've had an issue with the State Department visas, all of those. that, you can contact your local congressmen. And so what I will say is that we've had people that have spent like tens of thousands of dollars to come here, but it takes like 20-something years to do. And that's part of the problem is there's been such an influx and such a bog down of the actual

system that our actual system is not functioning at the capacity that it should actually help people come here the correct way. Well, especially poor people, right? And if you want to immigrate to the United States, the application, one of the things they ask you is, are you an expert in something where people in the United States can't do it? Like a doctor or maybe you're a musician and like no one else could sing your songs. Like you, maybe you could get citizenship from that. But if you're just a landscaper, you're just a guy who lives in a third world country and you want a better life and you say, I heard you can get across and I heard when you get across you can

get work. Like, what is that guy going to do? That guy doesn't have the money to hire a lawyer. How is he going to prove that he's more valuable than a United States citizen that's already here doing the exact same job? I do think that unless we are able to, A, assign probably more lawyers, more judges to actually hear these cases, it's going to continue to be a problem. And I have heard, okay, on the floor, these are conversations between members that, to a certain extent, especially when you're talking about, you know, like an e-verify system within the ag industry that actually members of that committee don't. want that because they know that the farmers are actually heavily relying on some of these illegals to work in their fields. Yeah, and construction crews and fill in the blank.

So I can confirm that. Yeah. So isn't the solution force people to pay everybody exactly the same way? Well, yeah, because you don't have the decrease in wages. However, I think the bigger problem that we have here, though, is that at least specifically in my district and then also, too, having argued this, is that this gray area that's been created, in my opinion, they don't want a solution for they do it intentionally with the understanding that both sides are going to fundraise off of it in my opinion if i was to be able to actually fix this i would say that you have to i would say pause let the system run through take everyone in vet them make sure that they're not criminals etc but then the system allows time for it to actually catch up to itself and then you

can continue as is what you just said was so scary that they don't want to resolve it because they want the issue to exist so they could fundraise for it against it that's so nuts and probably so accurate that's probably so accurate because anytime anything ever happens one of the first things they do is like please donate like throw it up so all the people that are very reactionary like I can't believe this is happening and you're as crazy as most elected officials might send out that email but the email fundraisers actually are taking like 80% of that dollar that's like usually the average red share and it's like I'm in the wrong business. This is crazy. The scariest thing

about nonprofits is how much profit they make. It's really weird when you see the salaries of some of these people that are non-profits. I will never. A million dollars a year. You're like, what is how is that? And they do nothing. That is crazy. Or what's going on with the L.A. fire

thing, you know, where they can't figure out where all the money went. It went to 188 different non-profits. Who is it Spencer? Is this a Spencer Pratt? I was like Spencer Pratt. I was like Spencer Pratt for governor. He's a little pit bull. that dude's on that thing. They burnt, his fucking house got burnt down.

And then they promised all these celebrities are like, yeah, donate. We'll give it to the victims. It's like, where did it go? There's like this fine print that he wrote. It's really weird, but it exposes the legality of these systems. It's legal for them to operate like that where, you know, an enormous percentage of all the money that comes in goes to overhead. It goes to salaries.

And they do the fine print. It's like, but it's such a scam. It's such a weird scam. And it's such a devious thing because you're, You're pulling on people's heartstrings. Which is why, going back to what I said, we need younger people and we need more normal people to run for office. We need AI to take over. I don't know about that.

AI is our gods. No. No, no, no. AI is our governor. AI is our king. That's what we'll say in school now. A.I. is our king. We need to, I think AI can be used in good senses.

Like I can, and I ask croc things a lot, and I will argue points. But I think we need to work alongside it because there's this aspect of AI. that removes the humanity. Like, I don't think you can teach AI empathy. And there's a certain aspect of humanity that needs to be kept involved in these decision-making processes. For example, if you have a drone that's been targeted to, let's say, eliminate a terrorist at this grid location and it's functioning solely on AI, well, what's going to enable it

to be able to pause on destruction of a location if there's children within it? I mean, if it's a bot, it's not thinking. That's true. But the U.S. history of drone use is no better than what you just described. Well, there are oversights and massive investigations, especially if it's in regards to civilian casualties. But civilian casualties are the majority of deaths from drones. I would say based on the people that I have talked with and interacted, it's definitely happened in the past and it's definitely problematic. However, people get in trouble for it.

But it's the majority. I'd have to, I mean, I don't. The majority of the people that. that died were civilians. They weren't the intended targets. Well, and that's a problem. And that's where a lot of these people do. You have LOWACs, so there's massive investigations with the Jags, etc., that get involved in these investigations. But I'm saying, like, would AI be better than that? I don't know. Well, I think you can have, I think you can have an AI decision-making process, but where there's a human involved in that step process. So, like, the human would be the final step in authority. So the AI would rank it. And, like, granted, I'm not an AI programmer, but I am saying that I think that there's an interface where you can have humans involved in the final step. Well, the most terrifying solution is not that, is don't use the missiles.

Instead, you have a drone that specifically targets one person. Yeah, there's suicide drones. Yeah. But, I mean, even worse, like flies through the house and, like, lands on the dude's head and blows up. Don't freak me out too much because the Chinese have a little spy drone that's, like, literally this big. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

They have bug drones now. Mosquitoes. I'm sure our government does, too. There's no way the Chinese are the only ones who do it. especially if they really have been back engineering UFOs for the last 45 years. I don't think that any other government is as advanced in regards to that topic as we potentially are, and I say that because if that were the case, then they would be the world superpower. I agree with that, but I also think that even though we probably have the best military contractors,

we also get infiltrated by the Chinese government and the Russian government all the time. Oh, that's. And Congress gets infiltrated. Yes. Like how many people have all of a sudden, like, girlfriends, stuffers? Hot Chinese girlfriend, quink. No comment on that. Guys are weak.

We're so weak. All you have to do is be hot and we're stupid. He's my biggest fan that guy. Of course. There's always going to be people like that that infiltrate universities, that infiltrate research centers. They get information back to the CCP. There's that famous story. I think Mark Andreessen told us about how, what was it in Berkeley?

I forget what the corporation was, but the power went down and saw all these CCP people panicked because they were supposed to send the information back. And if they don't, hey, maybe your grandmother doesn't get her medicine. Maybe, you know what I mean? Maybe your family gets a visit. Like, you have to be on time. The University of Michigan has now had like, what, too? I think those agro-terrorism was like University of Michigan. Yeah, it's like all over the country.

They've been infiltrated by like these governments have like very cleverly inserted their ideology into these universities. like Yuri Bespinoff talked about this, that Russia was doing this in the 1980s. It was 1984. The one thing that's been interesting is, and a lot of people aren't talking about, there's one representative member, Republican from California that's addressing it. But when they have surrogates have children here for U.S. citizenship, but then they take them back and fully integrate them and educate them in China. And so technically they're U.S. citizens, but they are being totally raised with the ideology and perspective of the Chinese government.

And that's an interesting perspective. And they come back over here and they're full U.S. citizens. Yep. Working for the Chinese government. Yes, access to all of our resources, everything, education system. And then we sell the Chinese government land around our military bases. Oh, that has been. I get, you know, I love our libertarian brothers, okay, but, and sisters.

But I have gone into so many debates on this because they're like, well, you know, we shouldn't limit an American's ability to actually sell their property. And I'm like, yeah, but the Chinese government literally wants to eliminate the West as we know it. And so we have to be cognizant of that. And also, too, by the way, it's not like you're just like buying a military installation. You think that they're not actually like actually putting tech and are observing, monitoring, pulling all of our resources. I mean, it's crazy. Like Mike Baker talked about this on the podcast that they sell cell phone towers.

Huawei. To these companies, well, Huawei, which was, they were really problematic. But they sell these cell phone towers near these bases. And so they sell them at a discounted rate. And then the Huawei stuff was crazy because it actually had like. like a third-party access built into some of their systems. And a lot of the tech that they actually sell here, whether it's to our law enforcement, so like any time you have specifically, I would say, like, within even our craning and

like our actual shipping operations, those things are sending signals back home. Yeah, well, we're so stupid. We can't make those things. Well, we should. We should be making. So there's policy changes where if you have an American business, you can now actually get a big tax instead of for manufacturing back home. It's great, but it's going to take 10 years for us to even catch up to where they

now we just got to stay the course what a what a dumb idea like everyone has a cell phone no one can make a phone what is that no one saw that coming that that's bananas all of them get made in the 70s for manufacturing and i think that that's where you're seeing this you know aspect of people that are very like if you talk about and i'm not like an isolationist by any means but like i do believe that we should have especially with covid everyone saw this we should have certain things that are just manufactured here i think tech is extremely important i think palmer lucky is doing like laptops or something now. In the United States are trying to actually move that over.

Elon should make a phone. I bet he's thinking about it because he's in some sort of a dispute right now with Apple because Apple won't – there's something about the way GROC AI shows up. And he's saying that their algorithm is essentially rigged where Open AI is like GROC AI is never featured. Oh, really? I have a GROC app on my phone. So maybe that'll incentivize him to make a phone.

Elon make a phone and we'll try it out. Elon Musk says Apple is rigging the app store for chat GPT. The tech mogul is threatening immediate legal action, accusing the iPhone maker of unequivocable antitrust violation designed to favor his AI rival. Oh, is his AI rival to Sam Altman. Yeah. Yeah. It's interesting.

I wonder if that there's, I mean, you don't just say something like that, do you? No, no. He definitely, he's not, he's not his dummy. He's smart. There's definitely something. Oh, readers added context. 2025, Deep Seek reach number one. and deep seeks the Chinese one, right?

Oh, and deep seeks freaky about some of the stuff that it can do. Just one month ago, perplexity also reached number one overall in India's app store. Both of these occurred after the Open AI Apple Partnership announced on June 10, 2024. But what about the United States? Because the United States is the biggest market when it comes to like, we're probably the highest percentage of people that use Apple in the world. It's literally when you go to buy a phone, it's usually an iPhone. I'm almost, I think it's something crazy with kids. It's like 84% or something like that.

Oh, don't get me. If you have a kid, keep them off phones as long as you can. Yes, for sure. But the point is, like, the app store in America is that is the monopoly in this country if you want to get an app. I mean, it's not a monopoly, but the leader, the head leader. To be honest with you, I've only ever had iPhone. And so that's the only platform I've ever used.

I know it's like Android versus iPhone. No, I have both. They're both really good. The Android's way better than. it used to be. I had it back in the day, but it's, it's right there where an iPhone is right now, just different and it gives you a lot more access to stuff. Well, it's still freaky, though. Then you have these phones that are considered actual safe phones that aren't ripping your data and basically turning on every 10 minutes to kind of be able to target you

for sales, whatever it might be. I can tell you that, you know, given my job and some of this stuff, I'm totally freaked out by having an iPhone and I look forward to the day where I don't have to have a phone. I'm going to get a flip phone. You're going to, they're going to already have a chip in your head by then. No, absolutely. Me, of all people, no chips. We're chip free. I don't know if there are any phones that really truly are safe.

I mean, I know that there's some phones that run on alternative operating systems that aren't Google. What is that alternative system that they use with pixel phones that now, at least the French government, when they find people that have Google phones, they immediately look at that person as a point of interest. Because they're like, we can't track you. Yeah, because they're using this other operating system. What is it called again? I can't remember it, but it's what Adam Curry uses. It's a deg Googled iPhone that uses an alternative operating system. So this doesn't send data.

I'm sure the GPS sucks. It's probably called Graphene. That's right. Graphene OS. So there's multiple different OSs that people use outside of the Google, but you can only use it on Android phones and a lot of people use it on pixel phones. So you can actually buy them. What is that guy's name? The Asian gentleman who has that Rob Braxton.

He sells them. And he is like a security advocate. He's always talking to you about how insecure all your technology is and explaining why they added this and what this means now and where your data is going and how they can track you. It's made me. So he sells de-gold Googled iPhones. Oh, he's a response to Joe Rogan.

Joe Rogan is wondering what I'm hiding five years ago. I was fucking around. I was just saying, what's that guy hiding? He's scared. So this guy's been at this forever, right? So five years ago, we were talking about him, and he was making these phones five years ago. Well, and from a government perspective, you have this aspect of a lot of people don't want to reform FISA. FISA in the way that it can surveillance Americans is pretty freaky.

We would like to. Really freaky. Really freaky. And we, you know, I actually did. not get a committee assignment on house arm services as a vet because I voted against FISA and I was one of two

that voted against it and they said that I was not a team player but we actually look at... Play for the team. It seems to be like an ongoing thing. I am playing for the team but it's just not the DC team. Isn't that a nutty thing to say? Yeah. Like whatever happened to representative of the people? What are we doing?

There's actually, there's still a few good representatives. I believe you. It's few and far between. Well, I think it's hard. It's probably hard to state the course. It's probably hard to keep your morals and your ethics why everyone around you isn't. You have to not.

So some of the best representatives, best even people in government are the ones that did not have to do this job. Right. And that's because if you're giving up something to come here, it means that you're doing it for the right reasons. If you have nothing to gain from this position and this is the only thing you've ever wanted to be, you're usually not the best person for that job. And I say that because you are then only going to do what it takes to get reelected, which means that you are willing to compromise your principles because there will be decisions that you have to take where you're going to have to stand firm on your principles and be like,

I can't vote for that. And there's massive pressure campaigns. Like when a certain bill comes up, if I'm voting against it, you have planted stories in the press. You have super PACs that will come in and drop text messages in your district to your constituents saying that did you know that representative so-and-so voted against this? And so you have to be able to be like, all right, I'm just going to just disconnect. And at a certain point, you do have to do that because then you're just, you'll go crazy.

You definitely go crazy if you read all the bots. Oh, you can't read. Don't fight with the bots. Don't fight with the bots. No, people do read them. It's just interesting that's like representative, like when you see representatives today, some of them are kind of characters, you know, where they become. It's like Gotham. Yeah.

Where they become popular. You know, they become like Federman. You know, he's not too, he's changed. He's like actually makes sense on such. Much more reasonable than most. Yeah. He's a logical guy. He's a very nice guy.

I think it's hilarious that he still wears the hoodie and the shorts. And he's like, he's exploiting a rule. I mean, he's in the Senate. Kind of right. He's kind of right. And that is really how he likes to dress. Like when I saw him in D.C., it was like 10 degrees out. This dude had shorts on and a hoodie, a car heart hoodie.

And he's just, but he's like, that's genuine. genuinely him, I think. He's a good guy. Well, he's a big guy, too. So, like, there's only a certain things. He's a lot. Probably easily warm, like being in the cold. Not saying that we know he sweats, but just, you know. For sure, he does. He's a big guy. But, yeah, no, he's reasonable. But the point is that he's kind of a character. Like, Jasmine Crockett's a character. AOC's a character. There's characters. And they, you know, they're, like, main characters in this political show that we're all watching on television. Oversight. So I actually was on oversight with all this people, except for Fetterman. And what I'll tell you.

is oversight tends to bring out the characters for sure. But I will say is that actually I have been able to on certain things. Like with AOC, I introduced a piece of legislation. So there was a partner bill in the Senate with Bernie Sanders. And I think Josh Hawley took cap credit card interest at 10%. And then we started getting, I started getting a lot of heat for it because people are people like, you can't do that. And I was like, well, most of these banks that we're talking about are actually taking

government bailout. So if you're taking a government bailout and you're essentially operating off the goodwill of the federal government, then you should be held. standard because then you have like predatory lending and what ends up happening some of these people will take out a you know a credit or max out their credit cards and that for the rest of their life they're paying back the debt and then also there's something that we've been able to introduce so this is like the more populous representation where you see both the right and the left kind of agree on certain things and there's another bill that I'm introducing with another democrat and another republican that's a more

moderate Republican but it's actually to cap student loan interest at 2.5 percent that would be wonderful because I was just going to ask you about that. I was reading this woman on X, and she was talking about how she graduated with student loans that equaled, I think it was $28,000. She's paid off, she's never missed a payment, paid off $24,000, and she still owes $60,000. Yeah, so what they do is they actually, and I've been quote on this, but it creates an indentured servant basically for the rest of their life. They're paying off this debt, and you can never actually, you know, function in a tough fare. Absolutely insane. If she's telling the truth, and I believe she is, that's absolutely insane. That you could owe $60,000 plus dollars after a $24,000 or $28,000 a loan when you've paid $24,000 of it off. It's for people that are actually trying to better themselves that might have to take out months for that. It's crippling. And then they actually can't get a good start at being contributing members of society because they're always functioning in the debt. Yeah. If you want to make America great again, have less people in debt, have less losers. Opportunity.

Yeah, have more people that can get things going on because they're not burdened by some crazy debt that really is not right. It's not right that you do that to an 18-year-old kid and saddle them down like that for the rest of their life. And to be clear, like I'm not talking about student loan forgiveness and I think you're not either. But, you know, I had to join the military. I paid for my college using the GI Bill. And so do I think student loans forgiveness is fair? No. But is this a way that we can actually make a happy medium to where people are actually given the opportunity to pay back the debt? And yes. And so I look forward to introducing. that, but that's a piece of legislation that should be on the floor and that it's not. I think in an ideal world, education is free. In an ideal country where you really care about the people and you really want more success stories, education is free. Difficult to get into. You have to be qualified, a true meritocracy, but education should be free. And if these certain people from different parts of the country don't seem to be getting in, address that, figure out what's wrong with their school system and throw federal funds at that. It's not impossible to figure out why certain school systems are doing poorly and other ones are doing great.

I will tell you, like, from a personal lens in perspective, so when I was in my freshman year in high school, I moved up to L.A. with my mom. And by the time I graduated, I went to six high schools and an adult school. That's actually, I, like, barely graduated. And what I will say is that one of the high schools I went to is. Why did you go to different schools so much? It just how it ended up functioning. So, like, my freshman year, my mom went through a divorce. My dad got arrested.

So I have an interesting background. So there's that. A lot of stuff. Yeah. But I ended up actually going to Venice High School one of these times. And that was around my junior year. And what the L.A. Unified School District was doing at the time is they were actually busing in kids from other parts of L.A. County.

And at the time, specifically in the early 2000s, there was a big issue with the black and Chicano gangs in L.A. And so, you know, what was happening outside in the neighborhoods was carrying on into the school districts. And when you have gang activity and like kids, the only opportunity that they have is like being able to join a gang and that's it. You know, they're never going to go to college. They're never going to have the opportunity. And so that carries on into the education system. They're never given a chance. And so I think in Florida we've been doing it right with school choice. President Trump's been pretty big on that. But being able to give students or their parents the ability to send them to good schools without gang activity outside

if there's zip code, that matters. And that does impact people. And cracking down on gang activity. It's, so there was a kid that was shot in the parking lot of my school. Oh. And shot and killed. You had actually pull up the article Venice High School shooting. No, listen, you don't have to tell me. Venice was crazy. Back before he was gentified, it was rough. Yeah. And it's kind of getting crazy now with homeless people. I haven't been back since I basically left. So when I was 19, I joined the military. And then my mom ended up leaving California with my little brother and sister probably about like five years ago now. Venice is always such an interesting part of L.A.

Yeah. Because it's like L.A. but really weird. Like weird people. Like interesting. L.A. is weird though as a whole. Yeah, but Venice has like a surf culture, you know. Dog town. Dog town.

There's a lot of people that are artists that live there. That affects the vibe of the place. Like Venice in the 90s was really cool. Well, in the early 2000s it was cool too, but it was rough. I mean I am what's always been filled with crime well I got jumped yeah and when I was yeah I got jumped yeah I got jumped in high school I swear like part of the reason why I'm such a huge advocate for like standing up to bullies is probably because of that yeah damn Venice was rough back in the day I had a buddy of mine who lived there in the park where he

used to take his kid someone got shot in it yeah and he's like okay great where do I take my kid now I can't you know honestly so like seeing all that though like being able to see that and then kind of tell that story like I do think that there's power in that because people there's people that go through that and like think like man I might not be able to like be successful but that's not true you can always fight your way out of it I join the military at 19 best thing I ever did and I met a lot of other people in the military who like grew up in inner city Chicago or wherever it was they were able to go back and help their family and like to my mom's credit you know my mom also has like an incredible story but she had me at 20 years old single mom

my dad ended up eventually getting clean, but my husband and I moved him in with us, and then he got sober. And so that story in itself, I think, you know, you tell your story and it empowers other people, especially to be fighters and not just give up. Right, because a lot of people have bad childhoods. Yeah, and people aren't going to tell you that. Like, no one's going to be like, you know, but. But it's also great for someone to hear a story like yours or someone who came out of a similar

childhood maybe that they're having or maybe even worse than they're having. And you see what you've been able to do. Like, that's powerful to people. Well, and it is. And it's powerful, I think, to an idea that would like to box certain people, whether like you're a woman or you're Hispanic into this stereotype on, like, how you should believe and think and you're poor. You come from a single mom.

I think that was one of the most important things about Obama becoming president. We heard like, oh, girl, the guys comes from a single mom, and he became the president of the United States. It was like, for a lot of people. It's like, okay. Relatable. Yeah, well, maybe my life isn't what I wished it would be. but look what that guy's able to accomplish.

Maybe I can do something too instead of thinking I'm going to be a loser forever. Well, what was interesting is I shared my story. So, like, remember, I told you, I started out as an activist. And I would tell people this because, you know, I do feel like, too, at a certain sense, when you tell your story, you can share that you're empowering other people to take something and turn it into a positive. And within, like, maybe a couple weeks of me getting elected, I all of a sudden started having this Washington Post reporter reaching out to my family and actually asked my mom,

whether she had proof that my grandmother had actually passed away HIV positive. Oh, God. And was harassing. They were trying to catch you in lies. Yeah. And so they put out this nasty, nasty article about me, basically trying to say that I had fabricated my dad's incarceration record. They had tried to say that I was a registered Democrat in Washington, like all this

stuff that was categorically false. And I had actually gotten contacted from like my old started. A nice little smear piece. Oh, it was terrible, but I had receipts. And so after this came out, I said, no, hold up. And I actually gave Fox News all of my stuff that I had and I was able to refute. And then Time Magazine had actually reached out. And they said, would you mind if we conduct like an interview on your background?

I said, have at it. Here's my information. I had actually even gotten my DNA done to like prove that I'm Hispanic because of the fact that I'm lighter skin. When I got elected, there was like this controversy on how Hispanic was I. And like it was actually a thing. I'm like, I'm also like Speedy Gonzalez with a sombrero running around. You know, it's like, what am I supposed to ask how? That's so racist. That's so racist. How Hispanic are you? How Hispanic? Isn't that funny that that's the time where the left is allowed to be racist? Just like so crazy.

That is such a crazy thing to say. How Hispanic is she? How black are you? Exactly. Mr. Obama. You don't look that black to me. It was, it was crazy, but I actually gave all this information to Time magazine. You imagine saying that to Obama? How black are you? When people would ask me, actually mention that. That's a reporter, actually, because of the fact that he's half white and half black. And I said, I'm sorry, last time I checked, am I not allowed to be white too? Because there's this aspect of I wasn't Hispanic enough because I'm white, but then also this aspect of I'm not white enough because I'm Hispanic. So, like, which are you? Oh, boy.

That's so ridiculous. That's such a ridiculous thing to ask. It's like, it goes in the face of what's supposed to be about their principles. Their principles are supposed to be not seeing color at all. Oh, there's a lot. They're going to attack you and say you're pretending to be Hispanic or that you're barely Hispanic enough. I'm not Hispanic enough. What percentage are you?

I'm half. That's 50 fucking percent. That's so crazy. And then I had to explain, though, to a reporter, I said, well, if my mom's half and my dad's half, what does that make me? And she goes, a quarter, I said, no, that's not. I'm three quarters Italian. Imagine someone telling me that I'm not Italian. That's hilarious.

That's so racist. That's such a crazy thing that they allow it. as long as it's coming from their side. And also, too, if I were on the other side, I'd probably be like a rock star. So, long story short, so this article comes out, Time Magazine investigates after doing like 20-something hours on background. I gave them all the evidence. And they actually ended up writing an article on me called The Influencer that came to Congress

and then named me as Time Magazine's next 100 most influential in the world. Well, that's nice of them. I'm just glad that it vindicated me because it was not a fun spot to be in. It's just weird. you know, I know that it's always going to be a part of politics, but it's so disappointing as an enlightened culture that we don't disavow that kind of reporting. And recognize from both sides how detrimental it is to finding out what's real and what's true. It was done, though, because of the fact that people like me specifically don't meet a certain stereotype. And so it was an effort to discredit that effort.

Oh, I get it. But it's like for people wondering, you know, why. I think most people are going to know why they did it. It's pretty obvious, but it's just bizarre that we allow it as long as it's from our side. Progressives will allow the most devious behaviors from their side. Republicans are the same thing, the most devious shit, as long as it's beneficial to their side. That's what's really stupid. And we need to disavow that.

You could disagree with someone, don't think they're the right person for the job, vote against them. That's all great. But when you start, like, deceiving people with false depictions of who a person is and making up a bunch of stupid shit and calling into question how Hispanic they are. They're so ridiculous. Just stop. This is childish. It's like this shouldn't be where we're at in 2025. No.

It shouldn't be where we're at as a mature nation. You know, we're 300 years old now. Figure it out. It was, I think it was actually for my mom especially. like I've I've been through the ringer politics so like I'm kind of battle-hearted for it. I'm like, oh, another hit piece. Like I don't care. But it was my mom and like what she was subjected to.

And I was like, you know, my mom is really cool. Like she put herself through law school when I was in high school. Like she left an abusive marriage. She has come a long way. And so for like her to be treated like that, I was like, it's like one thing in politics. Like you leave the family out of it. It's immoral. It's gross.

And it's again, it's one of those things that we shouldn't tolerate. We shouldn't be doing it. We shouldn't advocate for it. We shouldn't be happy. if it's done against the side that's ideologically opposed to us. It's gross. It's gross. It's gross as a civilized group of human beings that calls itself a country.

It's gross. It's like there's other ways to do it. You know, you don't have to just be a twat all the time. I prefer debating on ideology tends to be the best. But people always, it's like in fighting. You can't like just go and sucker punch someone. It's kind of like the same thing. And that was kind of they try to sucker punch me and I was like.

Jackie Chandan. You don't have to be fighting if you believe what you believe and you have a rational argument. You can have a conversation. And this seems to be something that people don't want to do anymore for some weird reason. They want to just stick to what they think, stick to what they believe, and they don't want to hear a rational opposing viewpoint because they're so married to their stupid ideas. It's a lot interesting how Congress functions when the cameras are off. and I think people would definitely change their opinion because a lot of people will do it for clicks, ratings. And social media has not helped with that because people are looking for what can go viral next.

There's like this viral theory that people, you know, they think that they can only be successful in their policy or their argument, whether it's committee hearings or whatever. They want that clip that they can post and then get notoriety for. So social media has been both a blessing and a curse in the social media sphere or in the political sphere because you can get your information out directly. to the American people using it and refute bad information. But then there's also this aspect of, like, I wish people could see the conversations that take place behind the scenes because it wouldn't be so inflammatory. Right.

That makes sense. Well, full transparency will come with the chip. Anna, just put the chip in your brain. No chips. Don't take the chip. Everybody will have full transparency. It seems like this whole thing, your whole journey in becoming involved in politics, has been pretty stressful.

is that it's definitely not something I want my son to do is what you thought it was what did you think it was going to be like before you got in and what was different once you got in there so when I first started out in politics I started out so I joined the military at 19 I paid my way through college I wanted to be a doctor so I got into a med school program at SG and Grenada and I was supposed to go to that and then I kid you not like the day before I was supposed to leave I got recruited to work for a nonprofit to basically help lead out Hispanic activism nationally. And I thought that's how I could make a difference. And then I realized

that as part of that job they were putting me on television, I had a booker. And so I was talking about stuff happening, but it was more the commentary on inflammatory things. I actually wanted to address what was happening with human trafficking. And I actually requested the State Department's report. I was a big activist with that. I was working with the nonprofit at the time. And I realized that they only wanted me to talk about what was getting them the ratings. And so I did realize, I was like, well, they keep, though, talking about what people in D.C. are doing. So if I want to change the discussion, I have to go to Washington to do it. So I called my husband. I was like, we're going to run for office because what do you mean we? Yeah, because what do you mean? I was

like, well, from what I gather, everyone, it's like a team effort. And it's totally true. If your spouse isn't on board, good luck, because politics is nasty. And so he ended up basically figuring it out with me. And for someone like me, there's no how to manual and how to run from off. It's usually family, like literally family affairs where like people like their parent did it or they have like a direct immediate tie to it. So I figured it out. And now that I'm in office, I'm realizing that I can make an impact to an extent with some influence, but it would be a lot more helpful if there were 10 other of me. And so when I'm done in office, I'm going to help recruit younger candidates that have the ideological perspective I do to run them. And then I'm going to

help do things for them behind the scenes to help get them in you're going to be a mastermind behind the scenes to help it just it just seems like a super broken process it's not so I've traveled a lot I've seen a lot of other parliaments I'm a member of the house democracy partnership institute I've gone to a lot of countries and we still have the best system I believe that yeah but we need but I still believe it's a mess it's a mess though because good people don't want to run and they have to. Right. Young people have to run.

It's also a mess because the people that have been in positions of power for so long or so set in their ways and are so deeply ingrained in the system and all the tentacles of all these different special interests and all the money that's all connected to all these decisions is so, it's just so, I don't know if it's possible to unwind all that stuff. It is if you have enough fresh blood. So like how do you shock a system, right? and you need to infuse it. And so right now we have an interesting time period

because we have division. So like going back to kind of the declassification efforts that we've been working on, for the first time in U.S. history, you have an aspect of the government that's being transparent and releasing information. Like, we're helping wherever we can on that.

But that is only possible because the right people with the right mindset were appointed in those agencies to be able to try to force the system to do something. But there's this aspect of, that's just the executive branch, but you have the legislative branch.

And the legislative branch needs younger people that want to do this because they truly believe in fixing the system. And you cannot be a pessimist in this job or else you will go crazy. You would go crazy. So you have to be an optimist and understand that there is a solution for it. And going back to kind of like those little quantum breadcrumbs, I've had enough stuff happen where I know I'm on the right path. But I also think that part of what I'm supposed to do is like to help other people do this. So I'm going to help kind of execute that mission. How much long are you going to be in office?

I don't know, but not definitely. In the next 10 years, I promise you I'm going to be with a beekeeper and a flip phone. And that's it. No internet. All right. Well, if I'm still doing a podcast, then let's talk. Tell me about the whole. Hopefully then we'll know UFOs are real.

They've already landed. At least we'll get some declassified stuff, right? Hopefully. Remember back when we didn't know who killed JFK? Yeah, well, now we know. All right. Well, thank you very much for being here. I really appreciate it.

It was fun talking. Thank you, yeah. Bye, everybody.