TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I spoke with an old army buddy today. This situation is like when parents tell you it's bedtime, and you have to go to bed whether you like it or not. The government is guilty, and they will be held accountable. They're desperate, talking about helicopters to escape, but it would take a long time. The police don't want to be involved. They see good, hardworking Canadians standing up for themselves. This moment is significant, and more people are realizing the truth through cell phone videos. The state and media are lying, and it's obvious to the world. There's no way out for the government.

They're just trying to live their lives, paying taxes, and have been here for ten years. The speaker expresses outrage and questions who the other person is. They challenge the person to arrest them instead. The speaker states they don't care about themself, but cares about the community. They demand that "these guys" stop what they're doing and that the community needs to push back. The speaker apologizes for being so clear, but finds the "bloviating" exhausting and repeats the challenge to be arrested. The speaker concludes by stating "the perception is."

Speaker 0 launches into a furious monologue, directing insults at someone who would report fellow Americans to the federal police, calling them dumb, idiotic, unpatriotic, and un-American. The speaker says, “Eat a dick,” and condemns anyone celebrating the capture or arrest of fellow Americans. They insist they are not moving on to other news and insist on staying on the topic, expressing anger toward those they reference as helping “the feds.” The speaker demands that the others understand they should not think the situation will benefit them or make them feel safer. They declare, “God is just and swift,” and threaten a confrontation, signaling they will address the matter aggressively while claiming to have “friends in high places” who will listen without payment, asserting they know they are a “good fucking person,” American, and a Christian who loves the nation. In contrast, they accuse the others of not loving their country, not being Christian, and not caring as much as they claim. The speaker asserts they have ample time and resources, contrasting themselves with others who supposedly have less. They reference a public figure, Candace, suggesting someone is upset by her actions toward someone named Charlie, and claim they have time to engage as needed. The speaker rejects the idea of having four kids, stating they have “a bunch of anger,” substantial intelligence, and many friends, and they condemn their opponents with coarse language. They declare they will not threaten violence and assert they would not harm a fly, stating they love flies even though they think they are awful. They insist they do not have to harm anyone, claiming God tells them not to seek retribution on their enemy and that vengeance belongs to God. The speaker ends by reiterating, “Fuck you,” and asserting that God loves them and will handle the situation, directing final hostility toward the unnamed others.

Speaker 0: When I was actually walking out here, somebody sent me a photo of a CNN headline about what happened in Minneapolis. And this is the headline. I'm just gonna read it. Outrage after ICE officer kills US citizen in Minneapolis. Well, that's one way to put it, and that is the way that many people in the corporate media have put this attack over the last twenty four hours. And I say attack very, very intentionally because this was an attack on federal law enforcement. This was an attack on law and order. This was an attack on the American people. The way that the media by and large has reported this story has been an absolute disgrace and it puts our law enforcement officers at risk every single day. What that headline leaves out is the fact that that very off ICE officer nearly had his life ended, dragged by a car six months ago, thirty three stitches in his legs. So you think maybe he's a little bit sensitive about somebody ramming him with an automobile? What that headline leaves out is that that woman was there to interfere with a legitimate law enforcement operation in The United States Of America. What that headline leaves out is that that woman has is part of a broader left wing network to attack, to docks, to assault, and to make it impossible for our ICE officers to do their job. If the media wants to tell the truth, they ought to tell the truth that a group of left wing radicals have been working tirelessly, sometimes using domestic terror techniques to try to make it impossible for the president of The United States to do what the American people elected him to do, which is enforce our immigration laws. The president stands with ICE. I stand with ICE. We stand with all of our law enforcement officers. And part of that is recognizing that you people in the media, not everybody in this room, but many people in this room have been lying about this attack. She was trying to ram this guy with his with her car. He shot back. He defended himself. He's already been seriously wounded in law enforcement operations before, and everybody who's been repeating the lie that this is some innocent woman who was out for a drive in Minneapolis when a law enforcement officer shot at her, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Every single one of you. Questions? Thank you, mister Vice

The exchange centers on content posted online to the Department of State of Canada and the implications of that content. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about what she posted and asks for a screenshot to verify the online statements. Speaker 1 asserts that she referred to someone as “a Zionist scumbag” and says “he's not my prime minister,” adding, “But really, you're gonna come to my door and you're worried that I'm going to do something.” Speaker 0 notes that there were “threats” and explains the purpose of the visit: to address such threats, which could lead to consequences if continued. Speaker 1 responds that the focus should be on “actual real crime” rather than harassing her over online remarks, and argues that the visit is a waste of tax dollars. Speaker 0 warns that if the behavior continues, there could be an arrest and charge, stating, “if you made some threats that are concerning… you could be arrested and charged.” Speaker 1 demands to see what she allegedly said, asking, “Show me what I said,” and accuses the interaction of harassment and harassment for expressing dissent about the prime minister. The dialogue touches on the nature of the statements. Speaker 1 repeats hostility toward the prime minister and labels the act as “harassing people for what they say online because I don't like our stupid prime minister, and he's a Zionist sunbag,” while Speaker 0 reiterates the right to express opinion but cautions against threats. The conversation escalates with Speaker 1 calling the environment “Communist Canada” and questioning the officers’ pride in their work, challenging, “How do you like working for that?… Do you go back home and look at your family in the mirror and say, this is what you do for a living?” Speaker 0 emphasizes the possibility of documenting the behavior and filing a report if the conduct continues, with a vague reference to “the Trump Blah blah blah blah blah.” Speaker 1 maintains, “I will say whatever the fuck I want about our prime minister. You can't stop my speech. Sorry. Opinion. Yeah. Exactly.” The dialogue ends with Speaker 1 stating, “Okay. Have a nice day. Goodbye now,” and Speaker 0 reiterating the threat assessment: “Be threatening. That's all I'm asking you.”

Speaker urges RCMP officers to pull their force and go to their commander. He tells them: "Go to your commander. You're not putting your job at risk, but if enough of you go to your commander, what happens if 50 officers go to the commander and said, we don't wanna be here. This is wrong. This is against our moral code." He warns that "The target that's been put on the backs of the RCMP because of this, good people don't like the cops anymore." He adds, "Normally, it's the bad people that don't like the cops that make your life difficult." He notes, "Now the good people are gonna be looking in the eye when they when you pull them over." He concludes, "Think about that." "Go to your commander and say you wanna leave."

"That's your Canadian government right there that just did this. I went to Bosnia, Somalia, and Afghanistan, and I did not fucking serve my country for this bullshit that's fucking in front of us. Right? The government has committed their own fucking atrocity at this Canadian government. Right?"

What's happening at this hotel? Reports indicate that individuals have been filming children at a nearby primary school. Don't touch me; I'm just trying to understand the situation. You're pushing me away, but I need answers. This is unacceptable. Illegals have been filming children here. Why are you preventing me from getting information? It's ironic that you're calling the police on me when there are serious allegations about people filming children just up the road. You have no evidence? There is evidence. Where is it? The community deserves answers about what's going on with the children.

A speaker confronts police, calling their actions 'There’s absolutely no nobility in what you're doing. You should be fucking ashamed of yourselves. It's called fascism. It's called fucking fascism.' He asks, 'Did he commit a crime? Is he free to go? Is he being charged with anything?' and, 'Why was he pulled over? What are the charges?' He accuses profiling: 'Are you just pulling over all the brown people who drive by because you arrested another man for what? Was he charged with anything?' He demands accountability: 'What’s your name? Okay. Why don’t you show your fucking faces, you coward?' He notes unmarked cars: 'Unmarked cars. No faces.' 'Yeah. Just says police. Police is awfully generic. So you have a badge number?' The encounter ends with insults: 'Yeah. You'll fuck yourself. You're not welcome here. Get the fuck out of our neighborhood. Jesus Christ.'

There's been companies that have been threatened, and "to cover up information that could prevent current threats to companies or specific people that are involved with." "If I feel threatened, I can tape over my license plate." Being escorted by police staff, they imply that "as long as they're with you, you can do whatever you want." "Let's play by your own rules. Beat fucking veterans on the street in in, Ottawa and shit like that." They claim "Tax dollars at work, they're they're not serving and protecting people anymore. No. They're serving their selves." They mention a Fairmont Hotel plan to "suppress the people." They say "No. They haven't found the kid yet. No. They're not even looking for that lost kid." They compare drones, "You got drones flying around here, but no drones. How many drones flying for the kid? Five year old kid." "And they got this for a bunch of ostriches. Right? Crush a family's Ostriches. Family farm." "This is what bunch of us went to Afghanistan for."

Burnt out, the speaker proclaims he is "the happiest person you have ever met" yet "sick of all of my soldiers, including Charlie, dying so you guys can mock each other." He repeats "Mock. Mock. Mock." and asks, "You think that that's a solution?" noting that "every major religion speaks out against mockery." He says he saw "mockery" and a "mob" energized with mockery, naming "John Oliver," "Matt Walsh," and "Louder with Crowder." He argues "This is all the mockery that's existed on both sides of the equation, and it's killing my soldiers, my people, and I'm done." He adds, "I don't wanna see my men die anymore. I'm sick of it. I didn't see Charlie die." Then declares, "I stood up. My soldiers stand up. I stand up. And I'm not apologizing for standing up. I did what I was trained to do."

The speaker asserts that the Canadian government has committed an atrocity, stating, "That's your Canadian government right there... The government has committed their own fucking atrocity at this Canadian government." They recount having served in Bosnia, Somalia, and Afghanistan, and declare, "I did not fucking serve my country for this bullshit that's fucking in front of us." The speaker emphasizes that the government is responsible for the current situation.

The speaker confronts someone who is trying to arrest them and demands to know why. They accuse the person of assault and claim to have recorded everything. The speaker repeatedly tells the person to back off and accuses them of being a "fucking dick." They mention that the incident will be shared on YouTube and ask for the person's name and badge number. The speaker accuses the person of being a communist and urges them to call their police chief. They express anger and shame towards the person and mention something about a horse.

People reacted strongly, demanding action, but the speaker says they have sacrificed for two years, facing ostracization, harassment, and threats. The speaker states that while others lived normal lives, they risked everything. The speaker emphasizes that nobody got hurt on their watch, and the allegation concerns something from six years ago that was hidden from them. The speaker also claims the alleged victim wasn't even harmed.

Speaker 0 states that they sacrificed their life to secure this country’s freedom, specifically its freedom of speech. They accuse the addressed party of arresting people for words while turning a blind eye to crimes committed by invaders. They also condemn the addressed party as “a disgrace to your uniform, and an insult to mine.”

Speaker 0 articulates that they sacrificed their life to secure the country’s freedom, specifically highlighting freedom of speech as a core element of that liberty. They claim that, in contrast to that principle, authorities are now arresting people for what they say, while they claim that crimes committed by invaders are being ignored or overlooked. They express strong personal condemnation of the person or entity they address, describing them as a disgrace to their uniform and as an insult to the speaker’s uniform as well. The statement frames the current actions of arresting individuals for words as a betrayal of the country’s foundational freedoms for which the speaker believes they or others sacrificed their lives. It also contrasts the supposed commitment to free expression with the alleged tolerance of crimes by invaders, conveying a sense of anger and moral outrage directed at the addressed authority. The rhetoric connects individual sacrifice and constitutional rights to present-day policing or enforcement actions, implying a conflict between patriotism, sacrifice, and perceived misapplication of authority. The speaker’s critique is tied to a broader claim about what the country’s freedom entails and whom it protects, asserting that the actions taken by those in uniform are inappropriate or dishonorable relative to the speaker’s understanding of freedom, loyalty, and duty. The overall message is a vehement rebuke of current practices perceived as suppressing speech and a pointed defense of the values associated with the speaker’s own sacrifice. The language emphasizes personal consequence and identity through references to uniforms, aiming to assert moral authority and solidarity with those who share the speaker’s view on liberty and justice.

The speaker condemns the Canadian government, saying, "That's your Canadian government right there that just did this." They note, "I went to Bosnia, Somalia, and Afghanistan, and I did not fucking serve my country for this bullshit that's fucking in front of us." They add, "Right? The government has committed their own."

Speaker 0: Good morning. It's going to be a nice day. I'll keep this short. This message is for the police of Ottawa. You should resign. You are an embarrassment to law enforcement. Treating truckers like terrorists is wrong. I've witnessed people shoveling sidewalks, roads, and helping the homeless. The convoy has done more for the homeless than the mayor. They offer blankets, food, and friendship. They care about their country and are tired of the prime minister and premier. So, with respect, step down and make way for change.

The speaker states that an uninvited individual acted disrespectfully by being near the family, demonstrating their character. The speaker believes this person knows it's inappropriate to be near the family. The speaker asserts that actions speak louder than words. The speaker accuses political operatives of trying to turn the situation into a political issue of hate, bigotry, and racism. The speaker claims conservative operatives have been posting nonstop about the case.

The speaker condemns the current actions of the Canadian government, asserting that “that’s your Canadian government right there that just did this.” They remind the audience that they themselves served in Bosnia, Somalia, and Afghanistan, and they state that they did not serve their country for “this bullshit that’s fucking in front of us.” They emphasize agreement with the sentiment by asking, “Right?” and then assert that “the government has committed their own fucking atrocity at this Canadian government.” The speaker reiterates the point with “Right?” signaling concurrence and emphasis on the perceived atrocity by the government.

The speaker contends that veterans, and by extension the sacrifices made by soldiers, are being betrayed by the current government. They question what veterans fought for with Canada, the UK, and other nations, asking what those sacrifices were for if the government now harasses families, suppresses people, and acts like a bully. They imply that the sacrifices of the 158 who died in Afghanistan were for nothing and accuse the government of taking over farms and suppressing families. A persistent refrain is that the RCMP and authorities are behaving like a gang. The speaker declares, “End gang life. How about we end the RCMP? That's what we should end because that's all you are is a gang,” asserting that the organization is harassing the family. They criticize the presence of law enforcement equipment and tactics, mentioning cars, drones, jammers, and other surveillance or enforcement tools, and contrast this with the claim that those being oppressed are only the family. Throughout, there is a confrontation with the notion of Remembrance Day. The speaker argues that “here we are for Remembrance Day, and we're showing what the freedoms what those soldiers died for was nothing because you're taking away all our freedoms.” They claim that the government’s actions render the soldiers’ sacrifices meaningless, tying the erosion of freedoms to current governmental behavior. The speaker personalizes the grievance by invoking their own family. They state, “My uncle died at 21 over Norway for you, assholes,” anchoring the critique in a family tragedy and linking it to the broader claim that sacrifices are being undermined. They emphasize that “before Remembrance Day” this message aims to demonstrate that what was fought for was for nothing, due to government behavior that disregards rules. A recurring assertion is that “No rules apply to the RCMP or the CFIA. It only applies to the family that you're suppressing.” The speaker juxtaposes the supposed lack of accountability for authorities with the heightened scrutiny faced by the family they say is being harassed. Throughout, phrases such as “Phoenix,” “Leave,” and “Thank you for your service” appear as charged, emblematic interruptions, underscoring the speaker’s insistence on resisting the current regime and defying what they view as oppressive tactics.

If he did his job, I wouldn't need to do this. I received a malicious report. Look, they're all pointing. Someone's on the roof. There he is, laying down. We have dangerous people in our country causing trouble.

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.

I'm Darcy Waldron. Yes, from Cayuga. You believe the shooter should have been a better shot, as seen on Facebook? I'm working. You think the shooter should have been more accurate. That's wrong and un-American. As a veteran, I'm appalled. What have you done for this country? This is absurd. You're absurd, and I'm exposing you. Translation: I am Darcy Waldron from Cayuga. You think the shooter should have been more accurate, as stated on Facebook? I am working. You believe the shooter should have been better. This is wrong and un-American. As a veteran, I am disgusted. What have you contributed to this country? This is ridiculous. You are ridiculous, and I am making you famous.

Speaker 0 states: "You're under arrest for your breach of CSO. Can you come inside with us, please? We can do it right here." They ask, "Do you drop it? Sounds good." The conversation then shifts to the reason for the arrest: "Are you aware of that? I am not aware of that." The arrestee or another speaker questions the justification, asking, "You know why you're arresting this man for? He refused to apologize for his religious beliefs." A subsequent accusation is made: "So you have become a modern day Nazis right now doing the beatings." The location and context are referenced: "This is Calgary, Alberta, Canada, twenty first century right now."