TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
I believe you will win. We will provide everything you need to succeed. Our success is not due to equipment, but your courage. Thank you. The world is watching because we cannot let Vladimir Putin succeed here, as it would set a precedent for other countries.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Greenland is crucial for national security, a topic discussed long before my campaign. With around 45,000 residents, there are questions about Denmark's legal claim to the territory. If Denmark does have rights, they should relinquish them for the sake of global security. The presence of Chinese and Russian ships is concerning, and we cannot allow that to continue. If the people of Greenland choose independence or to join the U.S., I would impose high tariffs on Denmark.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Our troops in Gaza and throughout Israel are continuing the legacy of Jewish heroes who have fought for our nation for thousands of years. Their main objective is to defeat the enemy and ensure the safety of our visitors. We remember the atrocities committed by Amalek, and we are determined to never let it happen again.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
We admire your fight for your homeland and promise to support you. In 2017, we will push against Russian aggression and make sure they pay a heavier price. Our fight is not with the Russian people, but with Putin. We will take your calls to Washington, inform the American people of your bravery, and make the case against Putin to the world. We believe you will win and will provide whatever you need to succeed. The world is watching because we cannot allow Vladimir Putin to succeed here.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
President Trump is interested in Greenland for strategic reasons, following a historical precedent of US interest dating back to Abraham Lincoln and Harry Truman. With Russia and China active in the region, my main job is commander in chief, to keep Americans safe. Greenland's rare earth minerals are also key, given our current weak position. I foresee an arrangement similar to the Marshall Islands, where Greenland maintains independence and its own foreign policy, but the US guarantees its security and defense. Incoming missiles from Russia would likely pass over Greenland, but the rare earth minerals are of bigger concern right now. Recent polls show that the people of Greenland want independence from Denmark and want closer ties with the US in defense and mining. The melting Arctic also makes Greenland's rare earths more accessible.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 notes that Trump used the Davos stage to demand Greenland back, warning allies to back off or face massive tariffs, calling Greenland “a piece of ice.” Speaker 1 says the goal is a piece of ice for world protection; the U.S. could have kept the land but chose not to, giving Greenland a choice to say yes and be appreciated or no and be remembered. Greenland is reportedly protesting in the streets, saying “hands off our country.” Speaker 0 adds that Trump has struck a deal framing a future agreement on Greenland and the Arctic, posted on Truth Social, stating that based on a productive meeting with the Secretary General of NATO, Marruta, a framework for a future deal with respect to Greenland and the Arctic has been formed, and that tariffs scheduled for February 1 will not be imposed. Speaker 2 challenges the claim, noting NATO doesn’t own Greenland, and questions whether Marruta can make such a deal. Speaker 0 continues the exchange, joking about not wanting a Met Gala, and suggests the post hints at the U.S. taking control of Canada as well because of Arctic interests. Canadian Prime Minister Carney responds by saying Canada will invoke Article 5 and support NATO to protect Denmark, with Denmark also unwilling to cede sovereignty following the framework. Speaker 2 adds that two people are deciding the fate of Greenland, and another participant begins to speak. Speaker 0 provides population context, saying about 57,000 people live in Greenland. Speaker 0 then mentions Putin’s response, quoting a brief remark that he’s “kinda behind this idea.” Speaker 2 notes Ravasi’s commentary and asks for a referendum, which Speaker 3 says would give Greenlanders a semblance of deciding for themselves, though it’s unclear how such a referendum would impact broader strategic interests. Speakers turn to Ralph Schulhammer, who is in Austria, to assess European reaction. Speaker 3 says Trump’s rhetoric in Davos was “very Trumpian” but contained carrots as well as sticks: he highlighted ancestry, support for a strong Europe, concerns about migration and energy policy, and suggested that Europe must strengthen itself to be a true partner; otherwise, the U.S. may retreat. The discussion acknowledges sentiment that Europe’s elites tend to frame issues as global rather than addressing national needs, with Speaker 3 arguing that policy-wise there can be shared interests, but communication strategy differed from Trump’s approach. The panel considers whether Greenland’s referendum would matter, noting that many peoples pursue autonomy but that Greenland’s outcome would not necessarily alter large strategic interests. They discuss historical precedents of land acquisitions and acknowledge the Greenland dispute sits at the intersection of Arctic strategic interests and great-power competition, including China and Russia’s activity in the region. Speaker 3 emphasizes that the future of Europe should be anchored in defending European territory and citizens, not only global agendas, and critiques the perception that Europe should always prioritize global issues over internal concerns. In closing, Speaker 0 references Macron’s overture to meet in Paris, noting Trump’s remark that Macron won’t be in power much longer. Ralph Schulhammer is thanked for his insights, with recognition of his Hammertime podcast.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
We admire your fight for your homeland and promise to support you. In 2017, we will go back to Washington to push against Russian aggression. Our fight is not with the Russian people, but with Putin. We will inform the American people of your bravery and make the case against Putin to the world. We believe you will win because of your courage. The world is watching because we cannot allow Putin to succeed here, as it would set a dangerous precedent for other countries.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
War is coming to the Arctic Circle, with Greenland seen as part of a broader clash for the world’s most important trade route. Russia and China have already laid claim to large portions; the United States now seeks in. The discussion notes the growing competition over the Arctic, Iran, and Europe as flashpoints. Trump is calling for a Pentagon budget increase from 1.0 trillion to 1.5 trillion for 2027. He tweeted that after negotiations, the military budget should be 1.5 trillion “in the very troubled and dangerous times,” and suggested capping CEO compensation in defense contracts at 5 million per year. Following the tweet, Lockheed Martin stock jumped, as did other defense contractors. Glenn Greenwald is cited, saying the Pentagon fails its audit for the seventh consecutive year and questions how hundreds of billions of dollars move around, then notes a preference to increase budgets from 850 billion to 1.0 trillion to 1.5 trillion. Tucker Carlson is quoted suggesting war is coming and that Trump may know something others do not. Speaker 1 frames the budget increase as the kind of funding a country anticipates a global or regional war would have, calling it a “war budget,” not a peacekeeping one, and suggests we’re moving toward a big war. Speaker 0 adds that a large-scale attack against Iran is likely before the end of the year, and questions what will happen in the Arctic Circle. The panel introduces Ben Freeman, author of The Trillion Dollar War Machine, who joins to discuss. Freeman’s point is that the president justifies a larger foreign war budget by pointing to money generated abroad, including oil resources in places like Venezuela. The panel agrees the implication is that the military is “paying for itself” through conquest, and a speaker notes this echoes imperial patterns. Another participant emphasizes that China’s military budget is about a third to a quarter of the U.S. budget, but China has triple the personnel, arguing that quantity does not necessarily equal capability and that the U.S. remains the strongest military force. There is a claim that the current budget primarily funds contractors, not service members, veterans, or families; defense contractors’ revenues largely come from U.S. government contracts, and this is reflected in stock surges when large budgets are announced. The discussion cites a statistic that about 54% of the defense budget goes to Pentagon contractors, and notes a contrast: one in four military families faces food insecurity despite the existing trillion-dollar budget. The panel argues that perpetual war is used to justify the size of the budget, not merely to address threats, but to keep the defense industry tidal-wanked into profits. They discuss whether diplomacy with Russia could be a more effective path, and acknowledge a shift in U.S. policy rhetoric compared to earlier promises to avoid endless wars. There is mention that the Senate voted to limit presidential actions in Venezuela; the president defends war powers as constitutional, while critics point to campaigns that promised restraint on war. Ben Freeman promotes his book, The Trillion Dollar War Machine, noting its availability in hardback, Kindle, and audiobooks, and the discussion ends with praise for the book and thanks to Freeman.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker addresses the US Army soldiers who went missing in Lithuania on March 25 while repairing and towing a tactical vehicle. Three soldiers were found deceased yesterday, and the fourth was found deceased today. The president, the secretary of defense, and the entire White House are praying for the victims' friends and family. The speaker states that this is a reminder of the selfless sacrifice of military men and women who risk their lives around the world every day.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
We support your fight for your homeland against Russian aggression. In 2017, we will take the case against Putin to Washington. Our fight is not with the Russian people but with Putin. We promise to bring your bravery to the American people and the world. We believe you will win, and we will provide what you need to succeed. The world is watching because we cannot let Putin succeed here, as it may lead to success in other countries.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
In 1943, nearly a thousand American soldiers sailed to Greenland to protect it from Nazi Germany, which controlled Europe and had set its sights on the Arctic. Their ship was torpedoed by a Nazi U-boat, and four chaplains sacrificed their life vests so that others might live. Their sacrifices helped win our freedom. Americans and Greenlanders stood together, but today, Greenland faces new threats from Russian aggression and Chinese expansion. Their shared legacy lives on in joint missions and Arctic patrols. Now is the time to stand together again for peace, security, and the future. America stands with Greenland.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
I'm Rod Martin, reporting live. A shocking new poll reveals that 57% of Greenlanders want to join the United States. Forget the pundit narrative; this is what the people actually want. Their top reasons? More economic and employment opportunities, and a belief that America will protect their environment better than Europe. Surprisingly, they also cite the "trauma of the Danish colonial experience" as a factor. They see America as the land of opportunity and freedom. We aren't looking to erase their Greenlandic identity, but this presents a huge opportunity. Greenland could become independent in free association with the U.S., like Palau or Puerto Rico, controlling their destiny while benefiting from being part of America. Think tax exemptions, a free trade zone with the EU, access to minerals, and strategic defense advantages. Don Jr. was right, and this poll proves it!

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Greenland is essential for national security, a topic discussed long before my campaign. With around 45,000 residents, there's uncertainty about Denmark's legal claim to the territory. If they do have rights, they should relinquish them for the sake of global security. We cannot ignore the presence of Chinese and Russian ships in the region. If Denmark wants to resolve this, they should act quickly, as the local population may lean towards independence or joining the U.S. Should that happen, I would impose high tariffs on Denmark.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
We will fight for our homeland and push against Russian aggression. Our fight is not with the Russian people, but with Putin. We promise to take your calls to Washington, inform the American people of your bravery, and make the case against Putin to the world. We believe you will win and will provide what you need to succeed. The world is watching because we cannot allow Putin to succeed here, as it would set a dangerous precedent for other countries.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Dmitry Sims junior introduces Brandon Weichert, a geopolitical analyst and author, and notes that Trump has floated annexing Greenland, the Panama Canal, and Canada, and the discussion aims to go beyond hype. Weichert argues that Trump’s approach is generally an art-of-the-deal tactic, starting with extreme positions to push concessions, and he breaks down the issues individually. On the Panama Canal Zone, Weichert says Trump is very serious about co-opting it. He notes the Canal was built by Americans and argues it should not have been handed over to Panamanians, who have allowed Chinese influence to grow in the area, including two large ports at both ends and $1 billion in infrastructure by state-owned Chinese firms. He suggests Chinese presence enables power projection and that the Canal Zone has been used for fentanyl flows and illegal migrants. Citing a colleague, Joe Humeyer, he asserts that a permanent U.S. hold could interdict fentanyl and migrant flows at the source, rather than at the border. On Greenland, Weichert describes the move as part of the art-of-the-deal dynamic, noting public opinion among Greenlanders is shifting toward independence from Denmark and could lead to rapid incorporation into the United States if independence occurs, drawing an analogy to Texas and California in the 19th century. For Canada, he contends the issue is likely a negotiation tactic: U.S. leverage over Canada’s trade benefits—which the U.S. says props up the Canadian economy—could destabilize Canada or trigger a regime change, potentially leading to U.S. annexation of parts like Alberta and Saskatchewan. He ties this to a broader Arctic great game among the United States, Russia, and China. Weichert adds a smaller, less widely reported point: Trump allegedly cut deals with tech magnates (David Sacks, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen, Steve Bannon) to secure AI-dominance, including allowing tech workers (H-1B visas) and ensuring access to energy, with Canada’s geothermal resources (notably in Alberta) playing a key role, thereby linking energy to AI ambitions. On prioritizing the Arctic, Weichert ranks Greenland as the most important, as it is the geographical pivot around which the Arctic orbits, enabling power projection and deterring Chinese access to rare earth resources. Canada follows as a longer-term project; the Northwest Passage represents a strategic alternative to Russia’s Northern Sea Route, and pressure on Canada could push toward surrender or realignment over the Passage. Regarding Greenland’s Arctic significance, Weichert says Russian analysts view U.S. drilling in the Arctic as an attempt to counter submarine threats, including Poseidon, a nuclear torpedo, and to establish a base network to mitigate submarine threats. He agrees deterrence is a factor, noting U.S. neglect of northern deterrence and the need to project naval power in the Arctic. Weichert distinguishes the primary driver as China, while acknowledging Moscow and Beijing’s alignment has grown due to Russia’s Arctic foothold and the Ukraine war, which has pushed Russia and China closer. He doesn’t deny that squeezing Russia in the Arctic is a Washington aim, but argues the main impetus for Trump is countering China. On implementation, Weichert says the Panama Canal Zone could be reabsorbed via a national security clawback, regardless of Panama’s preferences. Greenland, if independence occurs, could be absorbed or granted statehood, with congressional movement underway. He notes potential opposition from Democrats and Republicans alike, but predicts House Republicans and Senate Republicans will largely back Trump on Greenland, while Canada faces stronger pushback. Macron’s EU opposition to Greenland annexation is dismissed by Weichert as Europe being subordinate to U.S. and Russian interests; he muses that ending NATO over Greenland and Canada could simplify the great-power dynamics, though he acknowledges such a move would be controversial. Weichert maintains Greenland’s development of natural gas, oil, and rare earth minerals is central; Greenland’s resources and environmental regulations could facilitate rapid U.S. development if Greenland becomes a U.S. territory or state. He addresses U.S. shipbuilding capacity and Arctic power, noting the U.S. defense industrial base lags behind Russia and the need to revitalize shipyards with a new mission and potential reforms under the Trump administration, possibly aided by experts like John Conrad of gCaptain, to dramatically increase production within two years.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Those who fought at Normandy, Selma, Seneca Falls, and Stonewall did so to protect our fundamental freedoms. They sacrificed their lives to ensure we do not submit to tyranny. The United States is not a tool for the ambitions of would-be dictators; it represents the greatest idea humanity has ever created.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Susan Kokinda argues that the current moment marks the end of eighty years of British-led American foreign policy and the revival of a past strategic clarity embodied by the old war plan red. She contends that the mainstream view portrays Donald Trump as threatening alliances with Greenland, but she maintains Trump is dismantling imperial control and reviving a clear-eyed understanding of the real adversaries. Key points she highlights: - NATO and Greenland: NATO leaders are discussing protecting Greenland from the United States, with Bloomberg reporting that the United Kingdom and Germany are considering deploying NATO forces to Greenland to shield it from the U.S. Chatham House warns that the US, NATO’s leading power, threatening to attack a NATO member would damage Article Five’s credibility, and European states may seek support from global South states in the future. Chatham House also worries about potential U.S. cooperation on Arctic energy with Russia and a 28-point peace plan for joint Russian-U.S. rare earth extraction in the Arctic, signaling a realignment away from postwar Atlantic structures. - Greenland’s status: The notion that Greenland belongs to Denmark is described as an imperial relic. Greenland gained self-government in 2009, but Denmark still controls foreign policy, currency, and defense. Greenlandic and Danish tensions have risen, with Greenlanders seeking direct negotiations with the United States, bypassing Copenhagen. Kokinda asserts that when Trump talks about Greenland, he is addressing the dismantling of European colonial influence in the Western Hemisphere, a move NATO fears could unravel the postwar order. - War Plan Red: War Plan Red was a contingency for war with Britain, with Canada as Britain’s proxy. It was approved and updated under Navy Secretary Charles Francis Adams III. Adams III is the great-grandson of John Quincy Adams and the grandson of Charles Francis Adams Sr., Lincoln’s minister to Britain who prevented diplomatic recognition of the Confederacy. The implication is that the republic and empire are incompatible, and Trump is dusting off the modern equivalent of this plan. - Domestic cartels and economic policy: Kokinda claims British financial interests shape both international and domestic systems, including housing, health care, and the military-industrial complex. Trump has targeted large institutional investors in single-family housing, aiming to curb monopolistic practices by banning such investors from buying single-family homes. Barron’s noted real estate funds fell after the announcement. Trump also directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase up to $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities to lower mortgage rates. She cites Trump’s call to move money away from private insurers toward direct payments to Americans to address health care costs. - Military-industrial complex reform: Trump demands that major defense contractors end stock buybacks and cap executive salaries, arguing they should be industrial rather than financial institutions. He plans to deliver this economic message at Davos and frame it as breaking the financial parasites to allow the real economy and families to grow. - Overall thesis: The strategy behind Greenland is not territorial expansion but ending NATO as an instrument of imperial control and securing the Western Hemisphere from monarchies. The war plan red framework shows the United States once understood who the real enemy was, and Trump is reviving that clarity. Domestic policies target housing, health care, and the defense sector to dismantle the cartels that Kokinda says oppress ordinary Americans. Kokinda invites viewers to subscribe to Promethean Action for more on these arguments and to join a broader movement to “finish off the British empire once and for all.”

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Greenland is crucial for national security, a topic discussed long before my campaign. With around 45,000 residents, there's uncertainty about Denmark's legal claim to the territory. If they do have rights, they should relinquish them for the sake of global security. The presence of Chinese and Russian ships nearby is concerning, and we cannot allow that to continue. If Denmark seeks a resolution, it's unclear if they have legitimate claims. The people of Greenland might favor independence or joining the U.S. If that happens, I would impose high tariffs on Denmark.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
- War is coming to the Arctic. The discussion notes that attention is focused on the Arctic, with General Mike Flynn and others echoing this concern. Medvedev publicly floated a referendum inviting 55,000 Greenland residents to vote to join Russia, and Greenland’s prime minister Jens Fredrick Nielsen stated that if faced with a choice, Denmark (NATO and the EU) would be chosen over the United States. - General Mike Flynn’s view: He emphasizes that the Arctic is a strategically critical region due to its resources and the potential for major power competition. He explains that there are treaties between the United States (and Denmark) dating back to 1951, which would need to be reconsidered or broken in the event of major shifts. He recounts the historical Bluey programs in Greenland during World War II, which supported naval facilities, communications, weather stations, and airfields to defeat Nazi Germany, illustrating Greenland’s ongoing strategic importance. - Arctic geography and assets: Flynn highlights Russia’s large icebreaker fleet (about 50–60, including nuclear-powered ones) versus the United States’ aging, non-nuclear icebreakers (about four). He notes that icebreakers enable passage and influence strategic transit routes, and that Russia’s investments in icebreakers reflect its need to operate in Arctic waters, where the United States lacks similar capabilities. He asserts the Arctic’s significance for resources and for transit of those resources, underlining why the region is pivotal in geostrategic terms. - Broader strategic framing: Flynn argues that the focus on the Middle East has been excessive and costly—citing Afghanistan and Iraq expenditures and outcomes—and contends that Greenland and the Arctic are central to a wider strategic picture. He says the Arctic hinges on geography and timing, including the Greenland Strait and the Denmark Straits, and stresses that Greenland’s status matters beyond its fisheries or natural resources. - The Iran and Venezuela threads, and the Pacific as the overlooked front: The discussion connects Greenland to a broader frame in which China’s rise (and BRICS) is a constant factor. Flynn suggests a shift toward viewing policy as a problem of economic containment, aimed at slowing China’s and Russia’s strategic ascendance, including in the Pacific. He warns of the risk of threats or actions that could provoke responses domestically. - Intelligence and policy execution concerns: Flynn questions the current state of U.S. intelligence capabilities, arguing that CIA collection may be weaker than commonly portrayed and urging tougher scrutiny of intelligence claims that inform presidential decisions. He stresses the importance of direct accountability and asks for clear objectives, timelines, and consequences if goals aren’t met for multiple theaters (Venezuela, Eastern Europe, Greenland, the Indo-Pacific). - Domestic and governance issues: The conversation includes concerns about corruption and “the rot” inside the U.S. government, asserting that domestic reform is necessary. Flynn emphasizes the need to fix homeland capabilities, including energy security and infrastructure, and to ensure the United States remains strong economically and militarily. - Operational considerations and caution about escalation: Flynn warns that the “response now” may come at home rather than in a regional theater, given that adversaries can reach the United States more easily. He cautions against drifting into war due to misaligned messaging and the risk of overextension. - President and strategy: The speakers discuss the potential political pressure on President Trump regarding foreign policy, urging transparent articulation of objectives for Venezuela, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Greenland, and the Indo-Pacific, along with a plan to “unask” or withdraw if goals are not achieved. They stress prioritizing American interests and domestic resilience. - Final notes: The conversation ends with a call for focusing on practical, America-first issues—gas prices, inflation, and the cost of living—while acknowledging the broader strategic stakes in Greenland, the Arctic, and global power dynamics.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 discusses Greenland as a serious policy proposal and recounts a recent exchange with the Danish ambassador to the United States. Denmark is described as being uneasy about the conversation around Greenland. The speaker emphasizes that Denmark is a friend and ally, and that friends and allies can have conversations. The ambassador stated that Greenland is not for sale, to which the speaker responded that “everything's for sale” and that a conversation will take place. The speaker notes that this discourse has contributed to a growing independence movement in Greenland. If Denmark does nothing, Greenland may end up with nothing and could break off on their own. It is presented as plausible that Greenlanders, about 50,000 in number, might decide to become American. A recent poll in Greenland showed positive results regarding this possibility. The speaker asserts that becoming American would be, in many ways, “the greatest gift we can give anyone on planet Earth.”

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
We gather here today to protect our country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. We want to show the world that the United States is a loyal friend and a formidable enemy. We ask for your favor and increased faith, as we believe that anything is possible. We still have faith in the best for our country.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Your fight for your homeland is admirable, and it is our fight too. In 2017, we will advocate strongly against Russian aggression in Washington. It’s time for Russia to face consequences, but our conflict is with Putin, not the Russian people. We promise to amplify your bravery and make your case known globally. I believe in your victory and will do everything possible to support you. Your courage, not just equipment, has driven our success. The world is watching because we cannot allow Putin to prevail here; his success would embolden him in other nations.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2017, we will fight against Russian aggression. Our fight is not with the Russian people but with Putin. We promise to take your calls to Washington and inform the American people of your bravery. We will make the case against Putin to the world. We believe you will win and we will provide everything you need to succeed. The world is watching because we cannot allow Putin to succeed here, as it would mean his overall success.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: Have you considered talking to the president of Colombia who you called a drop leader? Speaker 1: No. I haven't really thought too much about him. He's been fairly hostile to The United States, and I haven't given him a lot of thought. He's he's gonna have himself some big problems if he doesn't wise up. Speaker 2: Did you say Colombia is producing a lot of drugs. Have cocaine factories that they make cocaine, as you know, and they sell it right into The United States. So he better wise up or he'll be next. He'll be next too. I hope he's listening. Speaker 0: So was this operation a message that you're sending to Mexico, to Claudia Scheinbaum, president there? Speaker 2: Well, it wasn't meant to be. We're very friendly with her. She's a good woman, but the cartels are running Mexico. She's not running Mexico. The cartels are running Mexico. We could be politically correct and be nice and say, oh, yes. Is no. No. She's very, you know, she's very frightened of the cartels that are running Mexico. And I've asked her numerous times, would you like us to take out the cartels? No. No. No, mister president. No. No, no, please. So we have to do something because we lost the real number is 300,000 people, in my opinion. You know, they like to say a 100,000. A 100,000 is a lot of people, but the real number is 300,000 people. And we lost it to drugs, and they come in through the southern border, mostly the southern border. A lot plenty come in through Canada too, by the way, in case you don't know. But but they come in through the southern border, and something's gonna have to be done with Mexico. Cuban government, the Trump administration's next target, mister secretary, very quickly. Speaker 3: Well, the Cuban government is a is a huge problem. Yeah. The the the the Cuban government is a huge problem for Speaker 2: some So is that a yes? Speaker 3: Cuba. But I don't think people fully appreciate. I think they're in a lot of trouble. Yes. I'm not gonna talk talk to you about what our future steps are gonna be and our policies are gonna be right now in this regard, but I don't think it's any mystery that we are not big fans of the Cuban regime, who, by the way, are the ones that were propping up Maduro. His entire, like, internal security force, his internal security opera apparatus is entirely controlled by Cubans. One of the untold stories here is how, in essence, you talk about colonization because I think you said Dulce Rodriguez mentioned that, the ones who have sort of colonized, at least inside the regime, are Cubans. It was Cubans that guarded Maduro. He was not guarded by Venezuelan bodyguards. He had Cuban bodyguards. In terms of their internal intelligence, who spies on who inside to make sure there are no traitors, those are all Cubans. Speaker 0: He felt very strongly. We we needed for nationals. We need Greenland for national security, not for minerals. We had some we have so many sites for minerals and oil and everything. We have more oil than any other country in the world. We need Greenland for national security.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Greenland's leaders presented a significant proposal to Trump after a poll indicated that 57% of residents support joining the United States. The prime minister emphasized that the decision regarding Greenland's future—whether to remain under Danish control, become independent, or join the U.S.—should be made by its people. This poll alarmed Danish leaders, who reached out to the Trump administration, expressing concerns that Greenland might struggle to prevent Russia from controlling crucial Arctic shipping routes. In response, Denmark is reportedly willing to make major concessions, including allowing a substantial expansion of the U.S. military presence in Greenland, in exchange for Trump halting his efforts to acquire the island.
View Full Interactive Feed