TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @TomTSEC

Saved - March 17, 2026 at 5:11 PM

@TomTSEC - Tom Quiggin

Back in the bad old days, I used to work for the RCMP as an intelligence contractor. Part of my work involved threats to the PM and federal judges. We got frequent referrals from the PMO demanding actions on “threats” to the PM. Most of them were nonsense and we simply filed them. Some threats were followed up if there was an indication of an actual threat. For instance, simply saying the “PM is a scumbag” is not a threat. There is no indication of a threat. Saying the “PM is a scumbag and I wish somebody would shoot him” is not a threat and there is no indication of a threat. However, saying “The PM is a scumbag and I wish somebody would shoot his kids who attend the XYZ school” *** is indicative of a potential threat. The difference -and the real trick here – is to assess when someone is simply angry (which is normal and permissible) and when someone is contemplating collecting information and acting out on their anger. (which MIGHT/POSSIBLY indicate a threat) The big failure in this video is that the police did not (could not???) demonstrate if the woman had made an actual threat simply beyond stating the fact that she thinks he is a scumbag. There is something known as a threat curve. If the complaints about the PM as simply that he is a scumbag/liar or whatever, the threat curve remains flat. If there are signs that the complainants are collecting intel/info on the PM/family and contemplating action, then the flat line starts to curve upwards. When that curve reflects a sharp upwards trend, it is time for action. *** Based on actual case involving a senior fed official

@Tablesalt13 - Tablesalt 🇨🇦🇺🇸

🚨BREAKING - THE MEME POLICE ARE IN CANADA New video shows Toronto police door-knocking to talk to (a presumably leftist) lady about her online post She fights back HARD: "I will say whatever the FK I want about our Zionist Prime Minister" WOW! https://t.co/L9N0eXFwqA

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 questions Nicole about online posts to the Prime Minister of Canada, asking if she has anything to say about that. Speaker 1 asks for specifics: what post, what she specifically said, and whether there is a screenshot. Speaker 0 cites that she online said something specific and asks for clarification. Speaker 1 replies that she said, "he's a Zionist scumbag, and he's not my prime minister," adding that she believes she is not spoken to properly and questions whether she looks like a threat. Speaker 0 explains that they came to talk because those threats were made. Speaker 1 pushes back, saying that the officers should be busy addressing real crime rather than harassing her over things she says online, and questions whether she seriously looks like a threat. Speaker 0 acknowledges and continues. Speaker 1 accuses the officers of wasting tax dollars and asserts that they should not be harassing her for what she says online because she dislikes the prime minister. Speaker 0 states Nicole should be aware that if such behavior continues, there will be consequences, implying potential arrest for threats. Speaker 1 asks what kind of threats they are referring to and demands to see what she said, noting that she still has not been shown. Speaker 0 attempts to explain what she said and what constitutes threats, warning that if those threats continue, she could be arrested and charged. Speaker 1 complains about being interrupted, asking to show what she said, and then launches into a hostile remark, calling the situation Communist Canada and asking how the officers can take pride in their work. Speaker 0 reiterates that she may have her opinion, but she insists she cannot say what she says. Speaker 1 refuses to discuss further, telling them not to touch her door. Speaker 0 says a report will be filed, stating that the search behavior continues, and mentions Trump in a dismissive way ("the Trump blah blah blah blah blah"). Speaker 1 asserts she will say whatever she wants about the prime minister and that they cannot control her speech, calling it just words. Speaker 0 responds that they are asking for non-threatening language. Speaker 1 concludes by stating they will continue to speak freely and that the conversation is over, wishing them a nice day and goodbye.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: That you've made some online posts to the Prime Minister of Canada. Do have anything to say about that? Speaker 1: Can you be more specific? What post? What I specifically said? Do you have a screenshot? Speaker 0: Yeah. You specifically said, and you made it online. Speaker 1: Well, because, I mean, he's a Zionist scumbag, and he's not my prime minister. So Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 1: But, really, you're gonna come to my door and you're worried that I'm going to do something. Do I seriously look like a threat to you? Speaker 0: So that's why we came to talk. Right? So those threats are made You Speaker 1: know what? You guys should be busy Right. Taking care of actual real crime than standing here harassing me over fucking shit I say online. Speaker 0: I understand. Speaker 1: But Okay. Yeah. No. Don't be wasting tax dollars doing this bullshit. Speaker 0: Nicole, if such behavior continues, if there is a Speaker 1: What are gonna do? Put me in jail because I don't like our prime minister? Speaker 0: No. No. But if you made some threats that are conservative Speaker 1: What kind of threats should Speaker 0: I make? Speaker 1: You still haven't shown me what I said. Speaker 0: Talking over me, man. I'm trying to explain to you what the Speaker 1: Show me what I said. Speaker 0: So if those threats are continued Speaker 1: Show me what I said. Speaker 0: Right? You could be arrested and charged. Just wanna let you know. Speaker 1: Communist Canada. How do you like working for that? You're How are you proud of yourself? Do you go back home and look at your family in the mirror and say, this is what you do for a living? You harass people for what they say online because I don't like our stupid prime minister, and he's a Zionist sunbag? Speaker 0: You can have your opinion. You Speaker 1: cannot Whatever. Speaker 0: So you Speaker 1: I don't have to discuss anymore with this. Speaker 0: So listen. You can't Speaker 1: Excuse me. Don't touch my door. Speaker 0: That's what I'm letting you know. So Speaker 1: Don't touch my door. Speaker 0: We will put a report in. It's documented. The search behavior continues. The Trump Blah blah blah blah blah. Speaker 1: I will say whatever the fuck I want about our prime minister. You can't my speech. Sorry. Opinion. Yeah. Exactly. Speaker 0: Be threatening. That's all I'm asking. Speaker 1: What you say is threatening, I say is just words. Okay. Okay. Have a nice day. Goodbye now.
Saved - May 10, 2025 at 3:19 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Something troubling is occurring in China as the government has stopped reporting critical economic data, including land sales, foreign investment, unemployment figures, and retail sales. This lack of transparency raises concerns about the state of the economy, suggesting that it may be failing. The absence of information on vital statistics, such as cremations, adds to the alarm.

@TomTSEC - Tom Quiggin

Something bad is happening in China. China has gone dark in reporting the following: land sales, foreign investment, unemployment numbers, business confidence, numbers of investors in financial markets, real estate valuation, retail sales, and even vital data on cremations. The only reason this would be happening is that the economy is failing. China Shuts Down Its Economic Data https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/china-shuts-down-its-economic-data-5853771?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=left-sharing-widget-v2

China Shuts Down Its Economic Data theepochtimes.com
Saved - July 12, 2024 at 8:42 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Gangs of youths in Brampton/Mississauga are conducting organized home invasions. They assess houses by knocking on doors in the evening to determine who is inside and what valuables are present. They then target selected houses for mass home invasions, where they forcefully enter and commit assault/robbery. Despite being caught, they often receive lenient treatment due to their youth and protected group status. The situation reflects the changing landscape of Canada.

@TomTSEC - Tom Quiggin

ORGANIZED HOME INVASIONS Gangs of "youths" in Brampton/Mississauga are now doing organized criminal reconnaissance on houses. They typically do it in gangs of 4 to 6 youth with one older adult in attendance. They knock on doors later in the evening to see who is in the house. They want to know who is living there and what may be in the house/garage/driveway. Once the reconnaissance and assessment are done, they then chose certain houses for a mass home invasion where five or more individuals smash in the door and do their assault/robbery. Even when they are (rarely) caught, they received preferred treatment by the legal system because they are youth and come from a protected group. (Just a hint, they are likely not Mennonites). The new Canada is going to be great.

Saved - April 12, 2024 at 7:12 PM

@TomTSEC - Tom Quiggin

This is Canada. This is us. We let this happen. https://t.co/nhbgGPRLco

Saved - February 29, 2024 at 7:00 PM

@TomTSEC - Tom Quiggin

Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act) also has a retro-active section where you can be held liable for something you said on the Internet years ago. So, with the new law, an anonymous person can launch a complaint on something you said five or ten years ago. #thoughtcrime https://t.co/fZwPsczZ3N

View Full Interactive Feed