Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

WATCH: CNN’s Shermichael Singleton Singleton goes postal on the Hunter Biden pardon, saying this “facade” President Biden and Democrats created as “this great arbiter of morality and truth...protecting norms and institutions of our country” has proven to be utter “trash”... “Democrats portrayed the President as this great arbiter of...

CurtisHouck's profile picture

Curtis Houck

124,326 subscribers

745,585 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

10 Comments

Burning Bunny's profile picture
Burning Bunny1 year ago

@MrShermichael Doocy drops the 🎤...

WarriorHeart2024's profile picture
WarriorHeart20241 year ago

@MrShermichael Who is the dude in the hat? Doesn't he know the rules of the cowboys? Take your hat off inside. He must have never been taught manners

Kimberly Klacik's profile picture
Kimberly Klacik1 year ago

@MrShermichael My guy!

Loren Karkip's profile picture
Loren Karkip1 year ago

@MrShermichael What guts and eloquence! That is simply on point. I only pray that God continues to protect and guide his imperfect vessel, Trump, to do his best for all Americans.

Alan Rice's profile picture
Alan Rice1 year ago

@MrShermichael Don’t you love it when they eat their own!!

Dave's profile picture
Dave1 year ago

@MrShermichael Arrogant democrats don’t seem to understand that we’ve seen through their B.S. the whole time.

MichaelJEllis's profile picture
MichaelJEllis1 year ago

DNC leadership has had one mission since the Obama administration: controlling power at all costs and destroying those who oppose them. To that end they will (i) weaponize government against their opponents and opposing political party, and (ii) screw their own voters by determining who gets chosen for elected office. They drank their own neo-Marxist Kool-Aid and are only in it for power, not principle.

Alghero Man 🇺🇸 🇮🇹 🇻🇪's profile picture
Alghero Man 🇺🇸 🇮🇹 🇻🇪1 year ago

@MrShermichael This guy is 100% correct. 🔥🔥🔥

Giuseppe's profile picture
Giuseppe1 year ago

@MrShermichael Go back to the 2020 debate. Biden denial of the laptop as lies and Russian disinformation. Msm pretending

Dr. Jeff Koloze's profile picture
Dr. Jeff Koloze1 year ago

@MrShermichael As @edhenry would say, it's DELICIOUS to see the corrupt @Democrats not only lose BILLIONS of donors' $$$, but also suffer continuously from @JoeBiden, the liar supreme. How I love correlative conjunctions! Best thing I ever taught my students...

Related Videos

Rep. Thomas Massie: "I've heard [Trump] recently say [the Epstein 'sex trafficking ring'] is a hoax. But if it's a hoax, his attorney general fell for it, his FBI director fell for it, his vice president fell for it, and even his own sons fell for it." This clip of Massie (Thomas Massie), a former engineer and the United States representative for Kentucky's 4th congressional district, is taken from an episode of the Children’s Health Defense series Financial Rebellion posted to Rumble on August 14, 2025. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "So the Epstein files and that whole sex trafficking ring, that's, exposing that is emblematic of what Trump promised, or the promise that he projected when he was elected. That there's always been this group of rich and powerful and politically connected people that have been outside of the reach of the judicial system. If they get in trouble, they just buy off a judge or buy off a witness and move on. And we were told, or led to believe that that would be exposed, that Trump was going to be the bull in the china shop and expose these rich elites who've been beyond the law. "And, you know, I've heard him recently say it's a hoax. But if it's a hoax, his attorney general fell for it, his FBI director fell for it, his vice president fell for it, and even his own sons fell for it. If it's a hoax, because they all promised that this would be revealed. Even after the election, we were still being promised that this sex ring would be revealed and the things that the government knows about it would be shown to the American people. But that's not happening. And when it became apparent that this is a massive cover up, I decided that I could. I, realized I could introduce legislation and force it to the floor for a vote. "Politics is the art of the doable. And this wasn't doable. A year ago, there weren't enough Democrats who would get on board. But now, I don't care how they get to the foot of the altar, as long as they get there. Foot of the cross. But some of these Democrats are seeing the light now that it's not their president who's in the White House. And some of them are very sincere, like my co-sponsor, Ro Khanna, who's having this press conference with me on September 3rd. There's this parliamentary procedure in the House rules that's been there forever that says if you can get 218 signatures, people physically have to sign the document. "You can bring any bill to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote. You bypass the committee where it's died, you bypass the speaker, who may not want it, because he's trying to protect people from taking a vote that would expose their preferences. And maybe if they vote the wrong way, which they might be inclined to do because they have donors who want them to vote the wrong way, then they would draw the ire of their constituents. "But suffice it to say, I think I'm going to get 218 signatures, because I think every Democrat will sign this and I've already got 12 co-sponsors on the actual legislation to release all of the Epstein material. And I can get into why we won't run into the same problem that the president ran into when he said, pretty please, mother, may I, will the judge release the grand jury transcripts? That's not what we're doing. We are saying the DOJ has evidence that they submitted to the grand jury, and we are by law compelling them to release that evidence, all of the evidence. We're not going to the judicial branch of government. We're going to the executive branch and saying, you have to release this with my legislation."
3:24

Rep. Thomas Massie: "I've heard [Trump] recently say [the Epstein 'sex trafficking ring'] is a hoax. But if it's a hoax, his attorney general fell for it, his FBI director fell for it, his vice president fell for it, and even his own sons fell for it." This clip of Massie (Thomas Massie), a former engineer and the United States representative for Kentucky's 4th congressional district, is taken from an episode of the Children’s Health Defense series Financial Rebellion posted to Rumble on August 14, 2025. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "So the Epstein files and that whole sex trafficking ring, that's, exposing that is emblematic of what Trump promised, or the promise that he projected when he was elected. That there's always been this group of rich and powerful and politically connected people that have been outside of the reach of the judicial system. If they get in trouble, they just buy off a judge or buy off a witness and move on. And we were told, or led to believe that that would be exposed, that Trump was going to be the bull in the china shop and expose these rich elites who've been beyond the law. "And, you know, I've heard him recently say it's a hoax. But if it's a hoax, his attorney general fell for it, his FBI director fell for it, his vice president fell for it, and even his own sons fell for it. If it's a hoax, because they all promised that this would be revealed. Even after the election, we were still being promised that this sex ring would be revealed and the things that the government knows about it would be shown to the American people. But that's not happening. And when it became apparent that this is a massive cover up, I decided that I could. I, realized I could introduce legislation and force it to the floor for a vote. "Politics is the art of the doable. And this wasn't doable. A year ago, there weren't enough Democrats who would get on board. But now, I don't care how they get to the foot of the altar, as long as they get there. Foot of the cross. But some of these Democrats are seeing the light now that it's not their president who's in the White House. And some of them are very sincere, like my co-sponsor, Ro Khanna, who's having this press conference with me on September 3rd. There's this parliamentary procedure in the House rules that's been there forever that says if you can get 218 signatures, people physically have to sign the document. "You can bring any bill to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote. You bypass the committee where it's died, you bypass the speaker, who may not want it, because he's trying to protect people from taking a vote that would expose their preferences. And maybe if they vote the wrong way, which they might be inclined to do because they have donors who want them to vote the wrong way, then they would draw the ire of their constituents. "But suffice it to say, I think I'm going to get 218 signatures, because I think every Democrat will sign this and I've already got 12 co-sponsors on the actual legislation to release all of the Epstein material. And I can get into why we won't run into the same problem that the president ran into when he said, pretty please, mother, may I, will the judge release the grand jury transcripts? That's not what we're doing. We are saying the DOJ has evidence that they submitted to the grand jury, and we are by law compelling them to release that evidence, all of the evidence. We're not going to the judicial branch of government. We're going to the executive branch and saying, you have to release this with my legislation."

Sense Receptor

24,701 views • 10 months ago

CNN’s Dana Bash: “Are you saying that you think that [Marco Rubio] is somebody who the party should seriously consider over the sitting vice president?” Scott Jennings: “No, as far as I know, Marco Rubio has said that he's supporting J.D. Vance, if J.D. Vance runs for president, that's my expectation is that the vice president will run. And if he wants to be the nominee, he will likely be the nominee. Rubio says he's for him. The president himself has said he thinks they would be a great ticket.” “And J.D. Vance tweeted out Marco Rubio's speech this weekend and said, everybody needs to watch this. Look, I think between Vance and Rubio, you have two clear thinkers. And yes, they do approach, I think their views and how they came to be Republican leaders in different ways, but they both have one thing in mind, and that's defending the future of western civilization.” “And I think that's why they would work well together. But no, right now it is pretty obvious to me and most Republicans, that J.D. Vance is highly likely to be the nominee in '28.”
1:02

CNN’s Dana Bash: “Are you saying that you think that [Marco Rubio] is somebody who the party should seriously consider over the sitting vice president?” Scott Jennings: “No, as far as I know, Marco Rubio has said that he's supporting J.D. Vance, if J.D. Vance runs for president, that's my expectation is that the vice president will run. And if he wants to be the nominee, he will likely be the nominee. Rubio says he's for him. The president himself has said he thinks they would be a great ticket.” “And J.D. Vance tweeted out Marco Rubio's speech this weekend and said, everybody needs to watch this. Look, I think between Vance and Rubio, you have two clear thinkers. And yes, they do approach, I think their views and how they came to be Republican leaders in different ways, but they both have one thing in mind, and that's defending the future of western civilization.” “And I think that's why they would work well together. But no, right now it is pretty obvious to me and most Republicans, that J.D. Vance is highly likely to be the nominee in '28.”

RedWave Press

549,172 views • 4 months ago

Donald Trump told the story of how he decided on the war, which was that stock prices were so high he could afford to attack Iran. To get advice on the decision he asked Susie Wiles. Now you know why they had no clue the Strait of Hormuz would shut down. Try to read it. “We're doing great. I went to Susie my beautiful Susie Wiles. There's nobody like Susie. I went to Susie. Right? And everybody's with her and she's a great woman really she's a great woman. But I went to Susie. I always go to Susie. I said Susie do you mind if I take a little excursion here? Do you mind if I you know we're hitting all these records, right? Most more people are working in the United States today than ever before as I can name this I don't want to bore you Because this is all about Ireland but you're a big part of it because you're a big part of this country but I said do you mind if I take a little excursion my chief of staff because I want to do this. I have Marco here. We have a lot of our great people JD is here. They're all here and I say let's let's do this. We're gonna do it right should have been done by many presidents should have been done Long before 47 years. It's 40 years of living in terror You know, they're they're called the bully of the Middle East But they're really the bully of the world because he used oil to bribe right? He used oil to bribe and to you know gain power. I don't know what they gained. What are they gained? What the hell? How are they doing? Not so good. They're all gone now. Every one of them. They're all gone. We don't even know who to our biggest problem. We don't know who to deal with over here. I can call the speaker of the house He's so powerful. I can call him. I can make a deal maybe I can even call your Democrat counterpart this guy. I said to Kelly. What do you think of your counterpart? He said he's a great guy. This is Republican Democrat. I never thought I was gonna hear that about you. Let me shake your hand. When Kelly when Kelly tells me that I said that's the way it used to be You know, that's the way it not so long ago and maybe someday that's the way it'll be again. It's really great. But I said you mind of I take a little excursion Because we have to do something and it'll be a short term excursion? But we have all these great things going and we had to say you know, we could have. What could have gone up up? It was only going in one direction. But I think now it's gonna go much higher than it would have gone had we not taken this little journey. And so I appreciate all of the people that have worked with us I was not an easy decision to make we have a country that was hotter than any country anywhere in the world and Doing great in every way and I say oh, we have to put out this this cancer. It's a cancer We had to take that operation and we did and it was very successful and continues frankly as somebody said very they could leave today. And it would take ten years to rebuild the damage has been done. But I think we have to make it a little bit more permanent because no other president has to go through this and we shouldn't have any other President having to go through this kind of a thing and If they didn't want to do it if for some reason they didn't want to do it. Would have the same problem. We don't ever want to have that problem again Not with lunatics. We can't have lunatics controlling nuclear weaponry. So I just want to thank everybody.”
3:19

Donald Trump told the story of how he decided on the war, which was that stock prices were so high he could afford to attack Iran. To get advice on the decision he asked Susie Wiles. Now you know why they had no clue the Strait of Hormuz would shut down. Try to read it. “We're doing great. I went to Susie my beautiful Susie Wiles. There's nobody like Susie. I went to Susie. Right? And everybody's with her and she's a great woman really she's a great woman. But I went to Susie. I always go to Susie. I said Susie do you mind if I take a little excursion here? Do you mind if I you know we're hitting all these records, right? Most more people are working in the United States today than ever before as I can name this I don't want to bore you Because this is all about Ireland but you're a big part of it because you're a big part of this country but I said do you mind if I take a little excursion my chief of staff because I want to do this. I have Marco here. We have a lot of our great people JD is here. They're all here and I say let's let's do this. We're gonna do it right should have been done by many presidents should have been done Long before 47 years. It's 40 years of living in terror You know, they're they're called the bully of the Middle East But they're really the bully of the world because he used oil to bribe right? He used oil to bribe and to you know gain power. I don't know what they gained. What are they gained? What the hell? How are they doing? Not so good. They're all gone now. Every one of them. They're all gone. We don't even know who to our biggest problem. We don't know who to deal with over here. I can call the speaker of the house He's so powerful. I can call him. I can make a deal maybe I can even call your Democrat counterpart this guy. I said to Kelly. What do you think of your counterpart? He said he's a great guy. This is Republican Democrat. I never thought I was gonna hear that about you. Let me shake your hand. When Kelly when Kelly tells me that I said that's the way it used to be You know, that's the way it not so long ago and maybe someday that's the way it'll be again. It's really great. But I said you mind of I take a little excursion Because we have to do something and it'll be a short term excursion? But we have all these great things going and we had to say you know, we could have. What could have gone up up? It was only going in one direction. But I think now it's gonna go much higher than it would have gone had we not taken this little journey. And so I appreciate all of the people that have worked with us I was not an easy decision to make we have a country that was hotter than any country anywhere in the world and Doing great in every way and I say oh, we have to put out this this cancer. It's a cancer We had to take that operation and we did and it was very successful and continues frankly as somebody said very they could leave today. And it would take ten years to rebuild the damage has been done. But I think we have to make it a little bit more permanent because no other president has to go through this and we shouldn't have any other President having to go through this kind of a thing and If they didn't want to do it if for some reason they didn't want to do it. Would have the same problem. We don't ever want to have that problem again Not with lunatics. We can't have lunatics controlling nuclear weaponry. So I just want to thank everybody.”

Jim Stewartson, Decelerationist 🇨🇦🇺🇦🇺🇸

670,664 views • 3 months ago

🚨 MARCO RUBIO ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEBATE WITH POPE LEO: "What the President basically said is that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon because they would use it against places that have a lot of Catholics and Christians and others for that matter!" "It goes back to the central point. I think the President, without trying to speak for him, but I think I can characterize it this way. He doesn't understand why anybody, leave aside the Pope." "The President and I for that matter, I think most people, I cannot understand why ANYONE would think that it's a good idea for Iran to ever have a nuclear weapon." "Look what they're doing with the Straits right now. They're holding the whole world hostage." "They have these sailors on commercial ships that are going to starve to death out there. They don't care. They don't care that this is melting the economies around the world, even of their own allies." "This is what they're doing with the Straits. What do you think they would do if they had a nuclear weapon? They would hold the world hostage with that nuclear weapon. That's what they would do."
1:22

🚨 MARCO RUBIO ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEBATE WITH POPE LEO: "What the President basically said is that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon because they would use it against places that have a lot of Catholics and Christians and others for that matter!" "It goes back to the central point. I think the President, without trying to speak for him, but I think I can characterize it this way. He doesn't understand why anybody, leave aside the Pope." "The President and I for that matter, I think most people, I cannot understand why ANYONE would think that it's a good idea for Iran to ever have a nuclear weapon." "Look what they're doing with the Straits right now. They're holding the whole world hostage." "They have these sailors on commercial ships that are going to starve to death out there. They don't care. They don't care that this is melting the economies around the world, even of their own allies." "This is what they're doing with the Straits. What do you think they would do if they had a nuclear weapon? They would hold the world hostage with that nuclear weapon. That's what they would do."

Eric Daugherty

18,840 views • 1 month ago

My Thoughts on the Colorado Supreme Court's 14th Amendment Case: First of all if I was on the Supreme court I would not have voted to remove Trump from the ballot. I think there are too many questions as to what constitutes an "Insurrection" and if Trump would have been culpable of such. With that said, to those who are blaming Democrats for this, you can all take note that the 6 people who brought this suit were Colorado voters, 4 of which are Republican and 2 who are unaffiliated. 0 were registered Democrats. The Colorado Supreme court didn't just wake up and decide one morning, "Let's ban Trump from the ballot". They took on a case brought by mainly Republicans and then made a decision after considerations. Now SCOTUS will likely have the final say, and I think that everyone, Democrat and Republican alike, should listen to what they have to say and how they rule. I support whatever decision they come to.
1:18

My Thoughts on the Colorado Supreme Court's 14th Amendment Case: First of all if I was on the Supreme court I would not have voted to remove Trump from the ballot. I think there are too many questions as to what constitutes an "Insurrection" and if Trump would have been culpable of such. With that said, to those who are blaming Democrats for this, you can all take note that the 6 people who brought this suit were Colorado voters, 4 of which are Republican and 2 who are unaffiliated. 0 were registered Democrats. The Colorado Supreme court didn't just wake up and decide one morning, "Let's ban Trump from the ballot". They took on a case brought by mainly Republicans and then made a decision after considerations. Now SCOTUS will likely have the final say, and I think that everyone, Democrat and Republican alike, should listen to what they have to say and how they rule. I support whatever decision they come to.

Brian Krassenstein

479,066 views • 2 years ago

"It's not a congressional program. Only the president can say anything about this." ~Semivan Semivan: Congress Doesn't Have the Right or Need-To-Know About a Crash Retrieval Program Thoughts? Grusch decided Congress had a need-to-know, and Congress hadn't been told. "Which I don't think was true." ~Semivan ~~~ Semivan: "Some of the congressmen now that are being briefed (laughs) on it are not very happy because they think they have a right to know this. And I like to point out, I spoke to a couple of the committees and I told them, 'Look, it's not a congressional program. It's an executive program, and it's run by the president and only the president can say anything about this. I can't say anything about it, the president has to come out.'" (Note: Semivan was careful to cover his azz and say these were answers about a, hypothetical, crash retrieval program. Although, from his past comments, I'm pretty sure he knows (or at least believes) it exists. See here: Semivan Blockbuster I know where the legacy programs are located. You should take [Grusch] and everything he says to the bank. It's our inalienable right to know about this. ) ~ Semivan: "It's what Dave Grusch said. Dave Grusch...worked for AARO (He meant the UAPTF) and he went to various intelligence agencies and questioned the people that were actually working on these programs. And they all told them the same thing, the same story. So he takes this back, and he decides Congress has a need-to-know, and Congress hasn't been told. Which I don't think was true. He didn't know that, but he thought the public also had a right to know. And I'm perfectly fine... He did the exact right thing you're supposed to do if you're a government employee if you think there's something going on that's not legal. And he did it the right way. So, I give him a load of credit for that. And then he explains what it was, and then he's briefing some of the congressmen on this. Now the congressmen are upset, saying, 'Well, wait a minute, we're in charge of spending for the government and what have you. We should have the ability to know this.' But what Congress doesn't realize is these programs, you know, they exist at a very, very high classified level. They're Special Access Programs, and I would say, maybe the Gang of Eight, if them, have the clearances to basically know of these programs. And even if they were to be told of the programs, they could never discuss it, nor could they ever debate it, publicly. It's not theirs to do. They would be told, officially, but just, you know, as a professional courtesy that these things are going on. "Don't forget, the CIA works directly for the President of the United States, all right? So if the CIA would be running this program (AFAIK, they are. ~Joe), they just, basically, talk to the president and the president talks to them. And those conversations are not subject to congressional notification, approval or anything else. And when CIA goes to the oversight committees and briefs their programs, the committees can't tell them, 'We don't like what you're doing.' Well, they can say that. But the only thing they can do, they can't stop the programs. All they can do is stop the funding. "So, you know, the intelligence agencies that work directly for the president answer to him and him only, really. They do tell Congress, because Congress does give them money and there is...that's been going on since 1975 now, and it's a great thing to do. And they've been very, very open and honest with Congress, and Congress, I think, has been wonderful about it. As a matter of fact, you know, Congress has, basically, said in some of these programs, 'Holy cow, this is great! Give a round of applause, you need more money, because what you guys are doing [is] great.' The relationship has always been very good. I thought, you know, between them." (But the folks in the intelligence agencies who are aware of the alleged Legacy UAP-related programs, do NOT tell Congress about them. Except, as Semivan said, MAYBE some members of the Gang of Eight. Certainly NOT members of Congress like Rep. Anna Paulina Luna or Rep. Eric Burlison. I think they have zero chance of being read in right now.) Semivan: "But that doesn't mean if the president, like Truman or Eisenhower, issued a presidential executive-action document or something along those lines, where he said, 'This is an extraordinary circumstance. I'm creating this super-secret thing that nobody gets to know about, not even Congress.' That's, basically, his...he can do that. That's in the power, that's in the Constitution. He has that right to do that without acknowledging." (THAT is how these alleged Legacy UAP programs are protected.) Semivan: "Now, has he (a president) done that without telling somebody? Probably there's one or two people in Congress that know about it at any given time. Maybe one or two people in the National Security Council know about it. Most presidents probably got a very generalized briefing on it, you know, saying, 'Yeah, this is real. If you wanna know more, we can tell you more. But, if you know more then you don't have plausible deniability anymore. And/or, you can't do anything about it anyway, because we don't understand it. But if something happens [and] we discover something that's groundbreaking or earth shattering, we'll come back and tell ya.' "So, imagine if you're a President of the United States. Do you really want to know this? Do you really want to have that hanging on your shoulders? I think not. Particularly when you have somebody else doing the job for you."
4:36

"It's not a congressional program. Only the president can say anything about this." ~Semivan Semivan: Congress Doesn't Have the Right or Need-To-Know About a Crash Retrieval Program Thoughts? Grusch decided Congress had a need-to-know, and Congress hadn't been told. "Which I don't think was true." ~Semivan ~~~ Semivan: "Some of the congressmen now that are being briefed (laughs) on it are not very happy because they think they have a right to know this. And I like to point out, I spoke to a couple of the committees and I told them, 'Look, it's not a congressional program. It's an executive program, and it's run by the president and only the president can say anything about this. I can't say anything about it, the president has to come out.'" (Note: Semivan was careful to cover his azz and say these were answers about a, hypothetical, crash retrieval program. Although, from his past comments, I'm pretty sure he knows (or at least believes) it exists. See here: Semivan Blockbuster I know where the legacy programs are located. You should take [Grusch] and everything he says to the bank. It's our inalienable right to know about this. ) ~ Semivan: "It's what Dave Grusch said. Dave Grusch...worked for AARO (He meant the UAPTF) and he went to various intelligence agencies and questioned the people that were actually working on these programs. And they all told them the same thing, the same story. So he takes this back, and he decides Congress has a need-to-know, and Congress hasn't been told. Which I don't think was true. He didn't know that, but he thought the public also had a right to know. And I'm perfectly fine... He did the exact right thing you're supposed to do if you're a government employee if you think there's something going on that's not legal. And he did it the right way. So, I give him a load of credit for that. And then he explains what it was, and then he's briefing some of the congressmen on this. Now the congressmen are upset, saying, 'Well, wait a minute, we're in charge of spending for the government and what have you. We should have the ability to know this.' But what Congress doesn't realize is these programs, you know, they exist at a very, very high classified level. They're Special Access Programs, and I would say, maybe the Gang of Eight, if them, have the clearances to basically know of these programs. And even if they were to be told of the programs, they could never discuss it, nor could they ever debate it, publicly. It's not theirs to do. They would be told, officially, but just, you know, as a professional courtesy that these things are going on. "Don't forget, the CIA works directly for the President of the United States, all right? So if the CIA would be running this program (AFAIK, they are. ~Joe), they just, basically, talk to the president and the president talks to them. And those conversations are not subject to congressional notification, approval or anything else. And when CIA goes to the oversight committees and briefs their programs, the committees can't tell them, 'We don't like what you're doing.' Well, they can say that. But the only thing they can do, they can't stop the programs. All they can do is stop the funding. "So, you know, the intelligence agencies that work directly for the president answer to him and him only, really. They do tell Congress, because Congress does give them money and there is...that's been going on since 1975 now, and it's a great thing to do. And they've been very, very open and honest with Congress, and Congress, I think, has been wonderful about it. As a matter of fact, you know, Congress has, basically, said in some of these programs, 'Holy cow, this is great! Give a round of applause, you need more money, because what you guys are doing [is] great.' The relationship has always been very good. I thought, you know, between them." (But the folks in the intelligence agencies who are aware of the alleged Legacy UAP-related programs, do NOT tell Congress about them. Except, as Semivan said, MAYBE some members of the Gang of Eight. Certainly NOT members of Congress like Rep. Anna Paulina Luna or Rep. Eric Burlison. I think they have zero chance of being read in right now.) Semivan: "But that doesn't mean if the president, like Truman or Eisenhower, issued a presidential executive-action document or something along those lines, where he said, 'This is an extraordinary circumstance. I'm creating this super-secret thing that nobody gets to know about, not even Congress.' That's, basically, his...he can do that. That's in the power, that's in the Constitution. He has that right to do that without acknowledging." (THAT is how these alleged Legacy UAP programs are protected.) Semivan: "Now, has he (a president) done that without telling somebody? Probably there's one or two people in Congress that know about it at any given time. Maybe one or two people in the National Security Council know about it. Most presidents probably got a very generalized briefing on it, you know, saying, 'Yeah, this is real. If you wanna know more, we can tell you more. But, if you know more then you don't have plausible deniability anymore. And/or, you can't do anything about it anyway, because we don't understand it. But if something happens [and] we discover something that's groundbreaking or earth shattering, we'll come back and tell ya.' "So, imagine if you're a President of the United States. Do you really want to know this? Do you really want to have that hanging on your shoulders? I think not. Particularly when you have somebody else doing the job for you."

Joe Murgia

56,972 views • 9 months ago

"My view is that you're putting the cart before the horse if you think that somehow you can have a bunch of policy points and nicely drafted bills, that somehow you're going to offer up to fix all these problems when Donald J. Trump is president. He's not going to sign them. ... I think it's kind of weird that people are saying, 'Well let's talk about housing and all of that,' ignoring what is standing in the way of getting all of that done, which is this criminal. And that's the point of my campaign—to show people you can't do one without the other."
1:28

"My view is that you're putting the cart before the horse if you think that somehow you can have a bunch of policy points and nicely drafted bills, that somehow you're going to offer up to fix all these problems when Donald J. Trump is president. He's not going to sign them. ... I think it's kind of weird that people are saying, 'Well let's talk about housing and all of that,' ignoring what is standing in the way of getting all of that done, which is this criminal. And that's the point of my campaign—to show people you can't do one without the other."

George Conway ⚖️🇺🇸

108,842 views • 15 days ago

.Philip Melanchthon Wegmann: “You've long been an opponent of weaponization in government. How do you respond to criticism that referring Obama administration officials, and even potentially the former president, is just more weaponization, and this is a potential race to the bottom?” DNI Tulsi Gabbard: “I think that's a very disrespectful attack on the American people who deserve the truth. They deserve to have faith and trust in the integrity of our democratic republic, which is under bent — which has been undermined by President Obama through his direction of this manufactured, fake intelligence document, knowing that it was filled with lies and knowing that it would and could then be used for all of the actions that came after.” Karoline Leavitt Karoline Leavitt: “And I would just add, there needs to be accountability for that weaponization, Phil, that we've seen. And no one has been a victim of the weaponized government more than President Trump, not just because of this political scandal. You all recall his house was raided. So, I think, you know, it's very disingenuous for people to say, how dare they speak of former President Obama about this based on evidence and based on intelligence when the former President of the United States, Donald Trump's home, was raided, when he was forced to sit in a Manhattan courtroom and many other courtrooms across the country for crimes he never committed when he was — when he was impeached and indicted and the entire country witnessed that, that's the weaponization of justice. Now, the President is back because the American people see the truth. Nearly 80 million Americans reelected him back to this office. And he believes that we need to have justice and accountability. And I think the nearly 80 million Americans who reelected him agree with that.”
1:40

.Philip Melanchthon Wegmann: “You've long been an opponent of weaponization in government. How do you respond to criticism that referring Obama administration officials, and even potentially the former president, is just more weaponization, and this is a potential race to the bottom?” DNI Tulsi Gabbard: “I think that's a very disrespectful attack on the American people who deserve the truth. They deserve to have faith and trust in the integrity of our democratic republic, which is under bent — which has been undermined by President Obama through his direction of this manufactured, fake intelligence document, knowing that it was filled with lies and knowing that it would and could then be used for all of the actions that came after.” Karoline Leavitt Karoline Leavitt: “And I would just add, there needs to be accountability for that weaponization, Phil, that we've seen. And no one has been a victim of the weaponized government more than President Trump, not just because of this political scandal. You all recall his house was raided. So, I think, you know, it's very disingenuous for people to say, how dare they speak of former President Obama about this based on evidence and based on intelligence when the former President of the United States, Donald Trump's home, was raided, when he was forced to sit in a Manhattan courtroom and many other courtrooms across the country for crimes he never committed when he was — when he was impeached and indicted and the entire country witnessed that, that's the weaponization of justice. Now, the President is back because the American people see the truth. Nearly 80 million Americans reelected him back to this office. And he believes that we need to have justice and accountability. And I think the nearly 80 million Americans who reelected him agree with that.”

Curtis Houck

18,224 views • 11 months ago

WATCH: Alexa Henning absolutely nukes panel of liberals on ABC News Live melting down over Trump’s slate of cabinet appointments: “It sounds like everyone on the panel kind of forgot what happened last week. I mean, Donald Trump ran and united independents, Republicans and Democrats. I traveled with the President. I saw what he was building in Wisconsin and Michigan. He won 312 electoral college votes and the popular vote and flipped the House and flipped the Senate. And the loyalty question, I just have a problem with that talking point. What are you supposed to appoint when you are president and you win — the people elect you? No one here, I don't believe, was elected. You choose the people that are going to support your agenda. Barack Obama did that. Joe Biden did that. And Donald Trump is going to do that. And regarding DOJ, we just watched some of the most polarized, politicalized actions from Merrick Garland. He jailed grandmothers and pastors for praying. He arrested parents for speaking out at school boards. I mean, that was someone that directly went after his political — Biden’s political opponents and they after Donald Trump. So, I think there's a lot of goldfish memory going on. A lot of people forgot what has transpired over the last five years, eight years even and Donald Trump — the fact is he united so much of the country around these ideas that we would have — we would see power restored back to the American people and away from the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. and a lot of people joined his campaign because of what RFJ said. I mean, yes, no one should be surprised by this, but I've never heard anyone say, oh, crap, this is not what want. This is exactly what people wanted overwhelmingly and voted elected him.”
2:01

WATCH: Alexa Henning absolutely nukes panel of liberals on ABC News Live melting down over Trump’s slate of cabinet appointments: “It sounds like everyone on the panel kind of forgot what happened last week. I mean, Donald Trump ran and united independents, Republicans and Democrats. I traveled with the President. I saw what he was building in Wisconsin and Michigan. He won 312 electoral college votes and the popular vote and flipped the House and flipped the Senate. And the loyalty question, I just have a problem with that talking point. What are you supposed to appoint when you are president and you win — the people elect you? No one here, I don't believe, was elected. You choose the people that are going to support your agenda. Barack Obama did that. Joe Biden did that. And Donald Trump is going to do that. And regarding DOJ, we just watched some of the most polarized, politicalized actions from Merrick Garland. He jailed grandmothers and pastors for praying. He arrested parents for speaking out at school boards. I mean, that was someone that directly went after his political — Biden’s political opponents and they after Donald Trump. So, I think there's a lot of goldfish memory going on. A lot of people forgot what has transpired over the last five years, eight years even and Donald Trump — the fact is he united so much of the country around these ideas that we would have — we would see power restored back to the American people and away from the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. and a lot of people joined his campaign because of what RFJ said. I mean, yes, no one should be surprised by this, but I've never heard anyone say, oh, crap, this is not what want. This is exactly what people wanted overwhelmingly and voted elected him.”

Curtis Houck

89,029 views • 1 year ago

CNN’s Shermichael Singleton couldn’t hold back a grin as Jake Tapper melted down over President Trump’s latest AI video dropping a “payload” on protestors. But then Shermichael Singleton said what no one else on the panel would admit about the meme. TAPPER: “What’s the point that he’s making, Shermichael? That he wishes he could drop…human feces on his fellow Americans?” SINGLETON: “Look, this is what I think. I think a lot of Republicans look at this, and I’ve texted with a lot of folks about it…they thought it was hilarious.” “Some of my Democratic friends thought it was a little over the top, but even they acknowledged to me, you know, I got to give it to Trump. He is good at sort of goading our side with some of these sort of satirical videos and other memes that he typically would post on social media.” “It makes him more relatable to the average person.” “You wouldn’t typically see this from a president, but the average person looks at this, Jake, and they sort of laugh or they dislike it, but I don’t think it’s something to sort of set your hair on fire over.”
0:33

CNN’s Shermichael Singleton couldn’t hold back a grin as Jake Tapper melted down over President Trump’s latest AI video dropping a “payload” on protestors. But then Shermichael Singleton said what no one else on the panel would admit about the meme. TAPPER: “What’s the point that he’s making, Shermichael? That he wishes he could drop…human feces on his fellow Americans?” SINGLETON: “Look, this is what I think. I think a lot of Republicans look at this, and I’ve texted with a lot of folks about it…they thought it was hilarious.” “Some of my Democratic friends thought it was a little over the top, but even they acknowledged to me, you know, I got to give it to Trump. He is good at sort of goading our side with some of these sort of satirical videos and other memes that he typically would post on social media.” “It makes him more relatable to the average person.” “You wouldn’t typically see this from a president, but the average person looks at this, Jake, and they sort of laugh or they dislike it, but I don’t think it’s something to sort of set your hair on fire over.”

Overton

379,486 views • 8 months ago

🚨Governor DeSantis pitches Federal Balanced Budget Amendment to Kentucky Legislature. Kentucky will be the 29th of 34 States needed to send the Amendment back to the States for ratification. “We're $38+ TRILLION in debt and it is escalating very quickly every day. We now spend more on interest just to service the debt than we do on national defense, and those numbers are going to escalate as some of these bonds have to be refinance in the future. I'm proud to be a Republican. This is not a Democrat problem, or this is a bipartisan debt problem. So Florida has obviously certified this. 28 States in total have. We've got a couple more that we think will happen relatively soon. Kentucky hopefully would be one of those. The reason I'm here is because I don't think Congress is going to fix itself. I think the incentives up there are such that we're likely to continue more of the same. There's a culture that's developed. There's a muscle memory that's developed. And you can't just say elect new people and all of a sudden they're going to fix it because here's the deal. Even if somehow we did elect new people and they did fix it, the next Congress can come in and undo it. And so unless you have changes, permanent constitutional changes to the incentive structure in Congress, you are not going to solve this problem. And the question is, how much more can you go into debt before we have a major debt crisis? I mean, at some point. Reality is going to bite, and I think the U.S. has been able to get away with this longer just because we're the best bet in town. Whatever problems we have, a lot of these other countries have other problems. But so why would you guys want to be involved at the state level? Because that's what our founding fathers envision. This is America's 250th anniversary of independence, and obviously it took them a decade or so to fashion a Constitution. But when they created the Constitution, they believed that the states were the most important units of government. They were creating a federal government, but it was limited and enumerated to certain tasks. There were local governments created by the state governments, but ultimately was the states that created the federal government and that ratified the Constitution. So they saw the states having a very, very important role. What about with constitutional amendments? Well, I think we just think muscle memory is, well, yeah, Congress proposes these amendments. You need two thirds of each house. They can propose it, and then it goes to the states for ratification. That's one way to propose it. The other way to propose it is via the states with Article V, and you have two thirds of the state certified. A proposal can be fashioned, and then it can go to the states for ratification. The founders knew that Congress could be the problem. So they obviously wanted to provide a mechanism for we, the people working through our states to be able to institute the reforms that would be necessary. We have the power to do it in our states. Many states have stepped up, and obviously I think Kentucky would be a great, great candidate to join the movement to prevent Congress from bankrupting this country. And if we can do that, that'll be one of the best things these states have ever done.”
6:12

🚨Governor DeSantis pitches Federal Balanced Budget Amendment to Kentucky Legislature. Kentucky will be the 29th of 34 States needed to send the Amendment back to the States for ratification. “We're $38+ TRILLION in debt and it is escalating very quickly every day. We now spend more on interest just to service the debt than we do on national defense, and those numbers are going to escalate as some of these bonds have to be refinance in the future. I'm proud to be a Republican. This is not a Democrat problem, or this is a bipartisan debt problem. So Florida has obviously certified this. 28 States in total have. We've got a couple more that we think will happen relatively soon. Kentucky hopefully would be one of those. The reason I'm here is because I don't think Congress is going to fix itself. I think the incentives up there are such that we're likely to continue more of the same. There's a culture that's developed. There's a muscle memory that's developed. And you can't just say elect new people and all of a sudden they're going to fix it because here's the deal. Even if somehow we did elect new people and they did fix it, the next Congress can come in and undo it. And so unless you have changes, permanent constitutional changes to the incentive structure in Congress, you are not going to solve this problem. And the question is, how much more can you go into debt before we have a major debt crisis? I mean, at some point. Reality is going to bite, and I think the U.S. has been able to get away with this longer just because we're the best bet in town. Whatever problems we have, a lot of these other countries have other problems. But so why would you guys want to be involved at the state level? Because that's what our founding fathers envision. This is America's 250th anniversary of independence, and obviously it took them a decade or so to fashion a Constitution. But when they created the Constitution, they believed that the states were the most important units of government. They were creating a federal government, but it was limited and enumerated to certain tasks. There were local governments created by the state governments, but ultimately was the states that created the federal government and that ratified the Constitution. So they saw the states having a very, very important role. What about with constitutional amendments? Well, I think we just think muscle memory is, well, yeah, Congress proposes these amendments. You need two thirds of each house. They can propose it, and then it goes to the states for ratification. That's one way to propose it. The other way to propose it is via the states with Article V, and you have two thirds of the state certified. A proposal can be fashioned, and then it can go to the states for ratification. The founders knew that Congress could be the problem. So they obviously wanted to provide a mechanism for we, the people working through our states to be able to institute the reforms that would be necessary. We have the power to do it in our states. Many states have stepped up, and obviously I think Kentucky would be a great, great candidate to join the movement to prevent Congress from bankrupting this country. And if we can do that, that'll be one of the best things these states have ever done.”

Chris Nelson 🏝️🇺🇸

366,028 views • 4 months ago

This is brilliantly put by Vice President Vance on the lack of ideological diversity at Harvard 🔥🔥 "If 80% of people voted for one candidate, you would say 'Oh that's kind of weird. That's not a super healthy democracy.' If you said 'Oh 95% voted for one party's candidate' you'd say that's North Korea. The ideological diversity of these universities has to get much better. And I think if that got better, if you actually had a place where people were open to debating these things, and weren't terrified they were going to lose their job for saying something that was a little outside of the Overton Window, I think the science would get better. The quality of the institution would be so much better, and that's what I want because we need high quality universities. Right now the problem is we don't have them." He's spot on. The ideological diversity of the average American university resembles that of North Korea. This must change. JD Vance
1:10

This is brilliantly put by Vice President Vance on the lack of ideological diversity at Harvard 🔥🔥 "If 80% of people voted for one candidate, you would say 'Oh that's kind of weird. That's not a super healthy democracy.' If you said 'Oh 95% voted for one party's candidate' you'd say that's North Korea. The ideological diversity of these universities has to get much better. And I think if that got better, if you actually had a place where people were open to debating these things, and weren't terrified they were going to lose their job for saying something that was a little outside of the Overton Window, I think the science would get better. The quality of the institution would be so much better, and that's what I want because we need high quality universities. Right now the problem is we don't have them." He's spot on. The ideological diversity of the average American university resembles that of North Korea. This must change. JD Vance

Charlie Kirk

2,808,126 views • 1 year ago

Collins: Is that common knowledge about Trump trying to assist in the Epstein investigation? Have you seen any evidence of that? Crockett: That's the first time I heard of it. So I'm gonna say, no, I don't have any documentation to that effect. And I was able to sit down during the Barr deposition. And so I would imagine that he would have the information as it relates to who the informants were and that kind of stuff. And I can just tell you point blank that it never came up, that the president somehow was an informant for the FBI.
1:18

Collins: Is that common knowledge about Trump trying to assist in the Epstein investigation? Have you seen any evidence of that? Crockett: That's the first time I heard of it. So I'm gonna say, no, I don't have any documentation to that effect. And I was able to sit down during the Barr deposition. And so I would imagine that he would have the information as it relates to who the informants were and that kind of stuff. And I can just tell you point blank that it never came up, that the president somehow was an informant for the FBI.

Acyn

270,255 views • 9 months ago

VP VANCE PREDICTED: PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET ANGRY, AND RIGHTFULLY SO "This stuff we can and we should prosecute, and I'm just telling you, this is going to be a real problem, and the people are going to get really pissed at Senate Republicans if we don't have the U.S. attorneys on the ground to actually achieve justice. People are going to get angry, and rightfully so." If you want justice, you've got to empower the President of the United States to actually appoint the officers of justice all over the country. The Democrats are stalling that, and we're going to wake up in a couple of years, if we don't have more U.S. attorneys approved, if we don't have more judges approved, we're going to wake up in a couple of years and realize that we've done a lot of great work at the Trump administration, but justice is not being meted out as it should be because we don't have the people on the ground. That is a big problem, and I know that's somewhat unrelated to Arctic Frost, but it actually is related to Arctic Frost, because you cannot get the justice for the people who are targeted by the Biden administration unless we've got good people, especially in these U.S. attorneys offices, and that's something we've got to pay attention to over the next year. Spying on President Trump, prosecuting him, investigating senators, congressmen, and congressmen who are just aligned with the President of the United States some of this stuff is going to get covered by statute of limitations, but some of this stuff we can and we should prosecute, and I'm just telling you, this is going to be a real problem, and the people who watch your show are going to get really pissed at Senate Republicans, excuse my language, if we don't have the U.S. attorneys on the ground to actually achieve justice, people are going to get angry, and rightfully so. If you want justice, you've got to empower the President of the United States to actually appoint the officers of justice all over the country. The Democrats are stalling that, and we're going to wake up in a couple of years, if we don't have more U.S. attorneys approved, if we don't have more judges approved, we're going to wake up in a couple of years and realize that we've done a lot of great work at the Trump administration, but justice is not being meted out as it should be because we don't have the people on the ground. That is a big problem, and I know that's somewhat unrelated to Arctic Frost, but it actually is related to Arctic Frost, because you cannot get the justice for the people who are targeted by the Biden administration unless we've got good people, especially in these U.S. attorneys offices, and that's something we've got to pay attention to over the next year. Spying on President Trump, prosecuting him, investigating senators, congressmen, and congressmen who are just aligned with the President of the United States some of this stuff is going to get covered by statute of limitations, but some of this stuff we can and we should prosecute, and I'm just telling you, this is going to be a real problem, and the people who watch your show are going to get really pissed at Senate Republicans, excuse my language, if we don't have the U.S. attorneys on the ground to actually achieve justice, people are going to get angry, and rightfully so.
3:02

VP VANCE PREDICTED: PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET ANGRY, AND RIGHTFULLY SO "This stuff we can and we should prosecute, and I'm just telling you, this is going to be a real problem, and the people are going to get really pissed at Senate Republicans if we don't have the U.S. attorneys on the ground to actually achieve justice. People are going to get angry, and rightfully so." If you want justice, you've got to empower the President of the United States to actually appoint the officers of justice all over the country. The Democrats are stalling that, and we're going to wake up in a couple of years, if we don't have more U.S. attorneys approved, if we don't have more judges approved, we're going to wake up in a couple of years and realize that we've done a lot of great work at the Trump administration, but justice is not being meted out as it should be because we don't have the people on the ground. That is a big problem, and I know that's somewhat unrelated to Arctic Frost, but it actually is related to Arctic Frost, because you cannot get the justice for the people who are targeted by the Biden administration unless we've got good people, especially in these U.S. attorneys offices, and that's something we've got to pay attention to over the next year. Spying on President Trump, prosecuting him, investigating senators, congressmen, and congressmen who are just aligned with the President of the United States some of this stuff is going to get covered by statute of limitations, but some of this stuff we can and we should prosecute, and I'm just telling you, this is going to be a real problem, and the people who watch your show are going to get really pissed at Senate Republicans, excuse my language, if we don't have the U.S. attorneys on the ground to actually achieve justice, people are going to get angry, and rightfully so. If you want justice, you've got to empower the President of the United States to actually appoint the officers of justice all over the country. The Democrats are stalling that, and we're going to wake up in a couple of years, if we don't have more U.S. attorneys approved, if we don't have more judges approved, we're going to wake up in a couple of years and realize that we've done a lot of great work at the Trump administration, but justice is not being meted out as it should be because we don't have the people on the ground. That is a big problem, and I know that's somewhat unrelated to Arctic Frost, but it actually is related to Arctic Frost, because you cannot get the justice for the people who are targeted by the Biden administration unless we've got good people, especially in these U.S. attorneys offices, and that's something we've got to pay attention to over the next year. Spying on President Trump, prosecuting him, investigating senators, congressmen, and congressmen who are just aligned with the President of the United States some of this stuff is going to get covered by statute of limitations, but some of this stuff we can and we should prosecute, and I'm just telling you, this is going to be a real problem, and the people who watch your show are going to get really pissed at Senate Republicans, excuse my language, if we don't have the U.S. attorneys on the ground to actually achieve justice, people are going to get angry, and rightfully so.

Svetlana Lokhova

254,268 views • 5 months ago

"If we have evidence or if we have bodies, we should release that to the world." ~EB Did Burlison See a Craft at the Location He Visited? Umm, No. (Long one here with a transcript and my comments in ( ). Work today so I was a little limited with this stuff. Looking forward to the Davis interview tomorrow!) In 2025, Rep. Eric Burlison spent "almost the entire day" with the White House staff as they negotiated various aspects of the Big Beautiful Bill. While he was there, he requested help with the UFO topic because the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets kept getting blocked and struggled to get access to certain information and locations. So, he asked for a White House-level briefing, "the same briefing the President... If you're taking the request, that's my highest request." (He didn't say if he ever received that briefing.) Burlison: "Furthermore, I would like to be able to have a green light to go visit some of these locations. And the gentleman that I was asking kind of smirked. And I said, 'Is this comical to you? I mean, do you think that I'm not a serious person?'" (I mean, funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? 😀 ) Burlison: "He said, 'No.' he goes. 'I just want to go with you.' And so, it turns out he did. He was able to go with me. He had to follow the proper channels as well. And we visited the first of many sites, hopefully. I'm gonna be cautious in talking about that because I don't want to jeopardize the ability to go to the remaining locations, if you will. I truly think that, for them, this was a test of whether or not this would become a circus for them. And so, I think that I'm just treading cautiously before I release too much information about what I've learned and where I went." (I understand not giving out the location to avoid a "circus" of UFO people trying to visit, but I don't see why he can't tell us what he learned right now. Hopefully, when all the visits are done, he can share the details with us.) James Fox: "Congressman, when you say you went to visit the site, are you implying that the alleged site that could, potentially, be housing non-human technology? Is that kind of what one is alleging here?" Burlison: "Yeah. Or, once did house non-human technology, right? Now, from my insights from Grusch and others, they had...it was pretty obvious that that first site that we were going to did not have active material, but, potentially, could have in the past. So what was important was to see the facilities and the structures, and to try to ascertain for A), first and foremost, did those facilities exist? And then were they designed in such a way that would have been, you know, one could easily see that that could have been utilized for reverse engineering." (Saying that a location/facility could have been utilized for reverse engineering craft not made by humans is not enough to make the waves we need to force the tidal wave of Disclosure. We need for Burlison (or someone else) to be able to visit a facility that has a craft there now, and folks working on it who are willing to speak about their experiences there. I don't see that happening any time soon.) Leslie Kean: "May I ask If the people at the site were cooperative and helpful for you?" Burlison: "Yes." Leslie Kean: "Or were they resistant to having you visit?" Burlison: "No, they were very cooperative. What I kind of interpreted from this is that a lot of what's happening today is that you have things that have happened in the past, and the people today, you know, you're talking about personnel that have changed over many times. And so, a lot of times they're not aware of the history of some of the things that you're talking about because that's not something that they're working on, currently. But they certainly were extremely helpful." (They were either not aware of the history or, they were, and lied about it. Can't rule that out. And the fact that they were helpful/cooperative doesn't really mean much. If you want to avoid unwanted attention, you put your best face on. Or, maybe they really were ignorant and wanted to do their best to help Burlison and the other folks? No way to know.) Burlison: "I had specifically wanted to meet with a particular individual that works at that location, and I actually expected them to turn me down, but was surprised that they actually arranged a meeting in a SCIF with the person that I requested. So, I do think that they're being cooperative." (Hopefully, when all of these locations have been visited, we get to learn this person's name. Full transparency, right?) Burlison: "And now that the President has [posted on Truth Social about UFOs], I think it gives everyone all the way down the line an understanding that this is to be taken seriously and to follow through." (We shall see.) Burlison: "On the way back after the visit, the White House staffer and the other person that had made it happen both said to me that they loved doing this. This was one of the funnest things they've ever done in their job, and that these other future site locations are not at all gonna be a burden to them. If anything, they're excited and looking forward to it." (Are we going to learn who those people are? Transparency? If not, why not? We pay their salaries.) James Fox: "I had a really quick follow-up question, Congressman. If you did find what you're looking for, is there a particular protocol, or what's the directive if you find what you're looking for?" Burlison: "If I find what I'm looking for, I'm gonna be very careful to protect any kind of national-security interest. But at the same time, I've been very clear that it is not the right of this country to withhold basic, fundamental evidence that we may or may not be alone. And so, if we have any kind of evidence of that, we should be telling the world and not holding back. And give as many details as possible, and release...be as transparent as possible without jeopardizing our secrets and national security. Or secrets that pertain...that our national security is dependent upon." (For now, keep the method of propulsion (energy source) secret and away from our adversaries and tell us everything else!) Burlison: "Well, I'm just gonna speculate, okay? If we have a type of technology that we have reverse engineered, that gives us a strategic advantage that our adversaries have not? I think that, for example, letting the world know that we have this craft, here it is, here's a photo of it, but you don't have to tell the world how exactly the...what you've reverse engineered, or how that operates." (Photos aren't going to cut it. If they exist, we need to see these craft (and bodies?) in person, with our own eyes. Put them in the Smithsonian and let us see all of it. And allow independent scientists to do their own analysis so we can verify that it's non-human or anomalous.) Burlison: "In the same way that when the nuclear bomb first was invented and utilized, the world knew, we revealed to the world that we have this capability, but we certainly are not gonna tell people how to make one and the specifics behind that. So, I think that for me, that's how I would answer that question. If you were asking me, 'What would you be willing to protect as far as national security?' That would be the nature of it. "Now, I think if the technology that's derived has nothing to do with changing our threat dynamic with an adversary, and it might benefit society and the world, by all means, let's release it. Let's let the world scientific minds utilize anything that we might have discovered. And so, that's where I personally stand." (But we all that it's not going to be that simple. Most likely (if this is all legit), we'll have craft and bodies, and the tech from the craft can give us an advantage over our adversaries, while at the same time, potentially, be used to change and improve the world and human condition. So what do we do? Keep it secret? Tell the world and take our chances?) Burlison: "I don't know, I couldn't tell you what Hillary meant by that." (EB was referring to the recent interview/deposition about Epstein where Hillary Clinton said that she would release UFO files but they would be "subject to any national security implications" and it should be done so that "no national security information is disclosed." She didn't get specific.) Burlison: "If we have evidence or if we have bodies, we should release that to the world. If we, you know, if what Eric Davis said to me - and now that was not in a hearing in which he had been sworn in, and I'm not saying that he was telling me a falsehood - when he said that there are four alien species - and that kind of went viral - I mean, if we, if we do have evidence of that, I want the world to know. I don't see why that would be of national security interest to withhold that from the world." (Unless, the people who have seen the bodies say something like, "Their skin is something that can be used as armor and we can't allow our adversaries to learn about that. Just trying to think of reasons why the gatekeepers will tell us that information needs to be kept secret.)
7:02

"If we have evidence or if we have bodies, we should release that to the world." ~EB Did Burlison See a Craft at the Location He Visited? Umm, No. (Long one here with a transcript and my comments in ( ). Work today so I was a little limited with this stuff. Looking forward to the Davis interview tomorrow!) In 2025, Rep. Eric Burlison spent "almost the entire day" with the White House staff as they negotiated various aspects of the Big Beautiful Bill. While he was there, he requested help with the UFO topic because the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets kept getting blocked and struggled to get access to certain information and locations. So, he asked for a White House-level briefing, "the same briefing the President... If you're taking the request, that's my highest request." (He didn't say if he ever received that briefing.) Burlison: "Furthermore, I would like to be able to have a green light to go visit some of these locations. And the gentleman that I was asking kind of smirked. And I said, 'Is this comical to you? I mean, do you think that I'm not a serious person?'" (I mean, funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? 😀 ) Burlison: "He said, 'No.' he goes. 'I just want to go with you.' And so, it turns out he did. He was able to go with me. He had to follow the proper channels as well. And we visited the first of many sites, hopefully. I'm gonna be cautious in talking about that because I don't want to jeopardize the ability to go to the remaining locations, if you will. I truly think that, for them, this was a test of whether or not this would become a circus for them. And so, I think that I'm just treading cautiously before I release too much information about what I've learned and where I went." (I understand not giving out the location to avoid a "circus" of UFO people trying to visit, but I don't see why he can't tell us what he learned right now. Hopefully, when all the visits are done, he can share the details with us.) James Fox: "Congressman, when you say you went to visit the site, are you implying that the alleged site that could, potentially, be housing non-human technology? Is that kind of what one is alleging here?" Burlison: "Yeah. Or, once did house non-human technology, right? Now, from my insights from Grusch and others, they had...it was pretty obvious that that first site that we were going to did not have active material, but, potentially, could have in the past. So what was important was to see the facilities and the structures, and to try to ascertain for A), first and foremost, did those facilities exist? And then were they designed in such a way that would have been, you know, one could easily see that that could have been utilized for reverse engineering." (Saying that a location/facility could have been utilized for reverse engineering craft not made by humans is not enough to make the waves we need to force the tidal wave of Disclosure. We need for Burlison (or someone else) to be able to visit a facility that has a craft there now, and folks working on it who are willing to speak about their experiences there. I don't see that happening any time soon.) Leslie Kean: "May I ask If the people at the site were cooperative and helpful for you?" Burlison: "Yes." Leslie Kean: "Or were they resistant to having you visit?" Burlison: "No, they were very cooperative. What I kind of interpreted from this is that a lot of what's happening today is that you have things that have happened in the past, and the people today, you know, you're talking about personnel that have changed over many times. And so, a lot of times they're not aware of the history of some of the things that you're talking about because that's not something that they're working on, currently. But they certainly were extremely helpful." (They were either not aware of the history or, they were, and lied about it. Can't rule that out. And the fact that they were helpful/cooperative doesn't really mean much. If you want to avoid unwanted attention, you put your best face on. Or, maybe they really were ignorant and wanted to do their best to help Burlison and the other folks? No way to know.) Burlison: "I had specifically wanted to meet with a particular individual that works at that location, and I actually expected them to turn me down, but was surprised that they actually arranged a meeting in a SCIF with the person that I requested. So, I do think that they're being cooperative." (Hopefully, when all of these locations have been visited, we get to learn this person's name. Full transparency, right?) Burlison: "And now that the President has [posted on Truth Social about UFOs], I think it gives everyone all the way down the line an understanding that this is to be taken seriously and to follow through." (We shall see.) Burlison: "On the way back after the visit, the White House staffer and the other person that had made it happen both said to me that they loved doing this. This was one of the funnest things they've ever done in their job, and that these other future site locations are not at all gonna be a burden to them. If anything, they're excited and looking forward to it." (Are we going to learn who those people are? Transparency? If not, why not? We pay their salaries.) James Fox: "I had a really quick follow-up question, Congressman. If you did find what you're looking for, is there a particular protocol, or what's the directive if you find what you're looking for?" Burlison: "If I find what I'm looking for, I'm gonna be very careful to protect any kind of national-security interest. But at the same time, I've been very clear that it is not the right of this country to withhold basic, fundamental evidence that we may or may not be alone. And so, if we have any kind of evidence of that, we should be telling the world and not holding back. And give as many details as possible, and release...be as transparent as possible without jeopardizing our secrets and national security. Or secrets that pertain...that our national security is dependent upon." (For now, keep the method of propulsion (energy source) secret and away from our adversaries and tell us everything else!) Burlison: "Well, I'm just gonna speculate, okay? If we have a type of technology that we have reverse engineered, that gives us a strategic advantage that our adversaries have not? I think that, for example, letting the world know that we have this craft, here it is, here's a photo of it, but you don't have to tell the world how exactly the...what you've reverse engineered, or how that operates." (Photos aren't going to cut it. If they exist, we need to see these craft (and bodies?) in person, with our own eyes. Put them in the Smithsonian and let us see all of it. And allow independent scientists to do their own analysis so we can verify that it's non-human or anomalous.) Burlison: "In the same way that when the nuclear bomb first was invented and utilized, the world knew, we revealed to the world that we have this capability, but we certainly are not gonna tell people how to make one and the specifics behind that. So, I think that for me, that's how I would answer that question. If you were asking me, 'What would you be willing to protect as far as national security?' That would be the nature of it. "Now, I think if the technology that's derived has nothing to do with changing our threat dynamic with an adversary, and it might benefit society and the world, by all means, let's release it. Let's let the world scientific minds utilize anything that we might have discovered. And so, that's where I personally stand." (But we all that it's not going to be that simple. Most likely (if this is all legit), we'll have craft and bodies, and the tech from the craft can give us an advantage over our adversaries, while at the same time, potentially, be used to change and improve the world and human condition. So what do we do? Keep it secret? Tell the world and take our chances?) Burlison: "I don't know, I couldn't tell you what Hillary meant by that." (EB was referring to the recent interview/deposition about Epstein where Hillary Clinton said that she would release UFO files but they would be "subject to any national security implications" and it should be done so that "no national security information is disclosed." She didn't get specific.) Burlison: "If we have evidence or if we have bodies, we should release that to the world. If we, you know, if what Eric Davis said to me - and now that was not in a hearing in which he had been sworn in, and I'm not saying that he was telling me a falsehood - when he said that there are four alien species - and that kind of went viral - I mean, if we, if we do have evidence of that, I want the world to know. I don't see why that would be of national security interest to withhold that from the world." (Unless, the people who have seen the bodies say something like, "Their skin is something that can be used as armor and we can't allow our adversaries to learn about that. Just trying to think of reasons why the gatekeepers will tell us that information needs to be kept secret.)

Joe Murgia

18,941 views • 3 months ago

We are praying for this nation. We're people of the Book, and the Book tells us to pray for our leaders, even if we don't agree with them. And Trump is one of our leaders. He was a president. And Joe Biden is one of our leaders. He is the current sitting president. There aren’t many things that President Biden does that I agree with, but it is my job to pray for him anyway. And certainly to not bring him harm. I can disagree with him and still honor the office and still honor the person. And certainly not engage in any kind of stupidity like some of the rhetoric that has gone on in the last 48 hours—and really has gone on for the last several years. Some of you are really too serious about what happens in the White House. If you'd concentrate half as much on what happens in your house, you’d be in a whole lot better shape. That's really the common denominator of success. It hasn't got anything to do with those guys up there. Yes, they do some things that affect our lives, but I've had several of them try to ruin my life, and they hadn't pulled it off. And I've had several of them try to make my life better, and they haven’t pulled that off. I'm old, and I've seen presidents that were going to be the end of democracy, and they weren't. And I've seen presidents that were going to be the second coming of Jesus, and they were not even close. I think the problem is that the level of anger has to do with the expectations of what the office can provide. Treat these people like people—they have families, they have children, they have friends. I've got friends who are congressmen, friends who are senators, and the stuff that they have to put up with… Some of you are just out of control, and you should not spend your money on Financial Peace University—You should spend it on counseling. Concentrate on fighting for or against ideas. When you have to vilify or destroy a person because you disagree with their idea, you've already lost the argument, because you've lost the high ground. You don't have to destroy people for your idea to win.
1:14

We are praying for this nation. We're people of the Book, and the Book tells us to pray for our leaders, even if we don't agree with them. And Trump is one of our leaders. He was a president. And Joe Biden is one of our leaders. He is the current sitting president. There aren’t many things that President Biden does that I agree with, but it is my job to pray for him anyway. And certainly to not bring him harm. I can disagree with him and still honor the office and still honor the person. And certainly not engage in any kind of stupidity like some of the rhetoric that has gone on in the last 48 hours—and really has gone on for the last several years. Some of you are really too serious about what happens in the White House. If you'd concentrate half as much on what happens in your house, you’d be in a whole lot better shape. That's really the common denominator of success. It hasn't got anything to do with those guys up there. Yes, they do some things that affect our lives, but I've had several of them try to ruin my life, and they hadn't pulled it off. And I've had several of them try to make my life better, and they haven’t pulled that off. I'm old, and I've seen presidents that were going to be the end of democracy, and they weren't. And I've seen presidents that were going to be the second coming of Jesus, and they were not even close. I think the problem is that the level of anger has to do with the expectations of what the office can provide. Treat these people like people—they have families, they have children, they have friends. I've got friends who are congressmen, friends who are senators, and the stuff that they have to put up with… Some of you are just out of control, and you should not spend your money on Financial Peace University—You should spend it on counseling. Concentrate on fighting for or against ideas. When you have to vilify or destroy a person because you disagree with their idea, you've already lost the argument, because you've lost the high ground. You don't have to destroy people for your idea to win.

Dave Ramsey

213,063 views • 1 year ago

Parrish: I was going to let folks come on and shill for the Iranians. You’ve done a really great job of that… Martin: I want people to understand this is what the Republican party feels about the 61% of Americans, Republicans, independents, and Democrats that disagree with this war that you somehow are shilling for the Iranian regime. If you go and question your government spending $2 billion a day on a war… It is not unpatriotic to question this president. Parrish: I never said it was unpatriotic.
4:02

Parrish: I was going to let folks come on and shill for the Iranians. You’ve done a really great job of that… Martin: I want people to understand this is what the Republican party feels about the 61% of Americans, Republicans, independents, and Democrats that disagree with this war that you somehow are shilling for the Iranian regime. If you go and question your government spending $2 billion a day on a war… It is not unpatriotic to question this president. Parrish: I never said it was unpatriotic.

Acyn

190,574 views • 1 month ago