reSee.it - Related Video Feed

You think that if you speak very loudly about the war... He's not speaking loudly. Your country is in big trouble. Can I ask, wait a minute? No. You've done a lot of talking. Your country is in big trouble. I know you're not winning this. You have a damn good chance of coming out.

I appreciate your support and love for me. I am glad to be back here. We are currently facing a war in our country, but it is not based on race or political parties. This war is between those who love the United States and a small group of people who despise our nation and its values. It is a battle between the government establishment and ordinary citizens. We need a leader who can guide us to victory in this war, and that leader is the person standing before you.

Speaker 0: The discussion reports that Russia has covertly tested three new weapon systems over the past twenty-eight days, with two of them described as complete game changers. These tests are said to be causing nerves inside NATO, and none of these three have been made public by President Putin, who typically announces such developments. One system, however, is not being kept secret. Speaker 0: According to the report, Russian President Putin just rolled out their most advanced hypersonic missiles to date. These missiles are described as "no one can shoot down"—at least in the view of the speaker—unless future assessments prove otherwise. The specific system named is the Orenshik Oreshnik hypersonic missiles. They are set for combat duty by the end of the year, and they are characterized as capable of extremely high speeds and long-range strikes. The deployment of these missiles is framed as something NATO will be watching very closely. The report suggests that European leaders are exhibiting a willingness to engage in war-related actions, with two particularly troubling points highlighted: the idea that they want to be part of the conflict and the accompanying casualties. It is claimed that they want to participate in the death and destruction in the European Union and in The UK. Speaker 0: The report specifically notes German Chancellor Mertz saying that they are ready to draft young men to war if they cannot reach their volunteer numbers, effectively suggesting compulsory service to fight Russia. Speaker 0: It is also stated that the UK is telling its populace to prepare to sacrifice their sons and daughters, and the speaker emphasizes that "Sons and daughters, colleagues, veterans will all have a part to play, to build, to serve, and if necessary, to fight." The speaker adds that more families will know what sacrifice for our nation means. Speaker 1: The accompanying commentary underscores the need to explain the changing threat and the necessity of staying ahead of it, reinforcing the idea that sacrifice and readiness are central to national defense in the current context.

Speaker 0 asserts that kindergarten classes look “completely disgustingly changed” and that those children are not belonging there, calling them “anchor babies” and alleging they are “chemical weapons” and “biological chemical weapons” sent to destroy the fabric of the country. He adds that these people do not vote like white Christian men and vote against the interests of “small town, small America.” He then says, “White people in America, you will be replaced and your children will be black Muslims if you don't stand up now,” claims that “AIPAC is one of the main components to the people at the head of Hollywood that are brainwashing your children to vote Democrat, to take your guns, and to take your freedom,” and declares that it is time to fight back. Speaker 2 responds by stating that there is a war being fought against “our people,” and it is “in our school systems,” “in our cafeterias,” and “in our grocery stores,” and that replacement is happening “on our phones,” and “in our hospitals.” He calls for fighting back, organizing, and having more children, and urges turning minds and hearts toward Christ. Speaker 1 encouragements follow: “We need to stand up,” and “We need to stand tall.” Speaker 1 then proclaims, “I’m proud to be white, and I’m proud to be American,” and calls others to action: “America, fight back. Stand strong. Be brave.” The speakers exhort others to inspire those around them, and to affirm faith with “Amen.” Speaker 2 closes with “God bless America.”

The speaker asserts total loyalty and personal sacrifice for the country, stating: “Unequivocally, I spent four years in prison as a j sixer. I suffered for my country. I’ve never been bought, paid for. I never sat down with the feds. I’ve never had a conversation with any federal agent, asset, anybody from APAC, Israel, Venezuela, China, anywhere. I’m born American born and raised. I will fight and die for this country, and I probably end up, Will, fighting and dying in a crusade one day.” They warn that when the crusades start, the audience will see who the psyops are and who the men are. The speaker addresses Will directly and emphasizes personal history and integrity, contrasting themselves with alleged manipulation by others. They reference a claim about a person who said he was Tim Hill’s cellmate, saying that Tim Hill “specifically talk[ed] about you.” The speaker labels Tim Hill as a “sniveling little jealous guy,” accusing him of trying to tear down a strong man’s movement and calling it unfortunate. A broader critique follows about people who “are willing to lie to grip down other people’s character because they don’t have anything in their life.” The speaker disparages what they describe as “40 year old virgin types,” implying that such individuals lie to manipulate and undermine others rather than confront them openly. Overall, the transcript presents a narrative of personal loyalty, alleged independence from federal influence, and readiness for violent confrontation in the speaker’s framing, while accusing others of jealousy, deceit, and moral hollowness as a means to undermine a movement.

Put on notice: if you harm us, we will respond in unprecedented ways. The forgotten men and women of our country will no longer be overlooked. The 2024 election is our final battle. They have taken our jobs and wealth, but the future belongs to patriots, not others. We will drive out globalists and communists. America will win again—like never before. We will restore our jobs, secure our borders, and reclaim our dreams.

But this is a a war. This isn't a battle, and we absolutely will win this war. It is a war. It is indeed a war. And I have to say they have won some battles, Jasmine, but we we have to keep our eye on the war, and and everybody needs to pick up a weapon and and get involved because this is for the the the safety and and lasting of the country. And everybody needs to pick up a weapon.

The speaker argues that pushing for war with Iran is a dangerous delusion. They claim: “That’s all you gotta do is just push a button, give an order, and bam. Iran will be blown up.” They challenge the audience to understand how combat power works and to see that many war advocates are “singing from the same sheet of music.” The speaker names several individuals as examples of this chorus: Rebecca Hendrix, Victoria Coates, Rebecca Grant, Mike Pompeo, General Jack Keane, and Senator Lindsey Graham, indicating that all of these figures promote a similar line of thinking about provoking a war with Iran. The central claim is that these hawkish voices believe one can “do this massive armada” and that Iran cannot respond effectively. The speaker insists that such views are incorrect, stating that Iran can and would “make life incredibly difficult and kill many Israelis.” They note the explicit claims by Iran that they would attack and kill targets and people in Israel, and attack Americans and kill Americans through bases throughout the region. The speaker emphasizes that if the advocacy for war succeeds in provoking Iran, “you’re gonna get a lot of Israelis killed and a lot of Americans killed.” The speaker also acknowledges uncertainty about Iran’s precise calculations, noting that Iran’s claims about what they would do may be posturing or may reflect a real intent to respond, but that the speaker cannot predict which. They argue that Iran may choose not to act if it believes retaliation would be excessive or counterproductive, but if Iran does move as it has said it would, the consequences would be severe for Israelis and Americans. In summary, the speaker condemns the assumption that a war with Iran can be conducted unilaterally or without severe retaliatory consequences, warning that the consequences could include significant loss of life among Israelis and Americans if Iran follows through on its stated intentions. The dialogue frames the issue as a critique of a pervasive pro-war chorus and underscores the potential human cost of such policy.

Speaker 0 states that 2017 will be the year of offense and promises to push the case against Russia in Washington, advocating for a heavier price for Russian aggression. The speaker clarifies that the fight is with Putin, not the Russian people. The speaker promises to take their calls to Washington, inform the American people of their bravery, and make the case against Putin to the world. Speaker 1 believes they will win and promises to do everything possible to provide what they need to win. Speaker 1 attributes their success to courage, not equipment. Speaker 1 states that the world is watching because Vladimir Putin cannot be allowed to succeed, because if he succeeds there, he will succeed in other countries.

We are in a war most people don't even see. But it's not just bombs or bullets. It's information, technology, and control over what you believe. Every day, powerful forces shape the news you read and the thoughts you hold. This is fifth generation warfare. And whether you know it or not, you are already on the battlefield. The choice is yours. Remain unaware or recognize the fight and take a stand.

The speakers discuss a perceived ongoing, multifaceted threat to the United States, tying it to terrorism, political influence, media control, and foreign lobbying. Speaker 0 emphasizes that a hostile group inside the country is attempting to strip Americans of liberties, describing past weather modification and disaster scenarios as intentional acts of terror. They claim a plan to attack Tampa by causing a catastrophic hurricane, which was foiled by doxxing people involved with the operation, including escorts from the US Department of Transportation. They insist that “we are actively being engaged in terrorism and acts of war by a hostile threat that lives among us,” and reject the idea that political changes in Washington reduce these dangers. The speaker asserts that rulers and elites are connected to a web of influence—pharma lobbies, media, and political donors—and contends that many figures in Congress, including APAC-connected individuals, should be exposed by name and faced with accountability. They accuse major pharmaceutical companies and biotech entities of controlling Washington and allege deep, longstanding ties to Israel and global governance structures. They also reference past events to argue that powerful actors have corrupted institutions and policies, including COVID responses, financial bailouts, and foreign influence, and claim that whistleblowing pressure is forcing deals and leadership changes, such as Regeneron’s acquisition moves. Speaker 0 asserts a strategy of direct exposure and intimidation to compel action from elites, insisting, “If you want Trump to have his signals redirected… start dedicating the amount of time that you take for mRNA and what Trump has or has not taken off the market to talking about Duke Country University,” tying local activism to national influence. They claim to know the homes and addresses of various political and corporate figures and urge naming and targeting of these individuals and their families as a means to provoke consequences. They condemn what they describe as a global Jewish-led, “Judeo Bolshevik supremacy” apparatus that they say dominates media, government, and finance, and they contrast this with their view that Western nations should resist such influence. Speaker 1 pushes the idea that fighting the perceived threat requires a similar “warfare” approach, including suppressing media outlets, boycotts, and leveraging “white hats” to prevent infiltration of elections, banking, and networks. They stress that the core battle concerns remaining loyal to a particular political and religious framing, including a discussion of Jesus and Christian theology to frame what they view as moral imperatives in this struggle. The dialogue links religious beliefs to political action, arguing that the enemy uses the “honor of honorable men” and “empathy of empathic people” to wage war, and emphasizes that justice is manipulated to serve said groups. Both speakers critique mainstream politicians and institutions, arguing that current leadership is compromised or controlled by hidden forces. They claim that Trump is not the savior, that many conventional leaders are CIA or part of other hidden systems, and that real change requires public pressure on those they identify as treasonous or genocidal. They dismiss “color commentary” on ideological battles and call for concrete, direct actions by ordinary people to disrupt and deter the actions of the perceived adversaries, while explicitly rejecting violence as a recommended tactic. They advocate exposing names, addresses, and networks of influential figures to create fear of consequences, asserting that such pressure is essential to avert the alleged takeover.

The speaker describes an unseen conflict: 'We are in a war most people don't even see.' He insists: 'But it's not just bombs or bullets. It's information, technology, and control over what you believe.' He adds: 'Every day, powerful forces shape the news you read and the thoughts you hold.' He labels it: 'This is fifth generation warfare.' He warns: 'And whether you know it or not, you are already on the battlefield.' He concludes with a choice: 'The choice is yours.' 'Remain unaware or recognize the fight and take a stand.' The overall message emphasizes personal responsibility in facing a clandestine strategic contest.

The speaker contends that the European Union does not have the authority to determine international law or dictate how the United States defends its national security. They assert that the United States is actively responding to threats to its security, describing the country as being “under attack from organized criminals in our hemisphere” and stating that the president is taking measures to defend the nation in this operation. The speaker notes a contrast in international reactions: many countries advocate for the United States to supply and deploy nuclear-capable Tomahawk missiles to defend Europe, yet those same countries view the United States placing aircraft carriers in the hemisphere near the speaker’s location as problematic. This juxtaposition is highlighted to illustrate perceived inconsistencies in support or criticism from other nations. Overall, the speaker emphasizes that the president’s stated mission is to protect the United States from threats against the United States, and asserts that the current operation aligns with that objective by defending the country.

We will defeat these people who hate our children. It has been a tough battle, but we will prevail. Let's keep fighting and taking more calls.

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.

Inflation has significantly increased, and our enemies are aware that if they harm our citizens, we will retaliate. This message is shared in the presence of numerous pastors, faith leaders, and endorsers.

The president will be at his dinner later this week. This is about protecting our children. It's more than just politics or votes or just anything. It's about national security, protecting Americans, protecting our children. Please tell the truth. Tell, like, how violent it really is.

We will not back down; we will fight back. This is a critical moment. When someone can donate $250 million to a campaign and gain full access to the U.S. Treasury, it signifies a serious conflict. We are at war. Thank you.

We will never quit. We will never quit. We will never quit. We must keep this mindset and never stop until we die. Our country has seen too much sacrifice to allow us to quit. We need to instill fear in our opponents and challenge them. We must continue to coordinate, share lessons, and rally the country. This won't be the last time we do this. We need to recruit more soldiers and encourage people to stand up, speak up, and never quit.

We are in a war most people don't even see. It's not just bombs or bullets. It's information, technology, and control over what you believe. Every day, powerful forces shape the news you read and the thoughts you hold. This is fifth generation warfare. And whether you know it or not, you are already on the battlefield. The choice is yours. Remain unaware or recognize the fight and take a stand.

Speaker 0 opens by stating the people involved have “been at war with us for forty six years,” framing the ongoing conflict as a long-standing confrontation. Speaker 1 responds with a broader critique, asserting that Scott Jennings is “more than happy to defend a war with a country that starts with the letters IRA,” and accusing the administration of failing, which would lead to “trillions and trillions of dollars more in debt.” They note their own relative youth during earlier administrations that defended prior endless wars, and they argue that the current war is “not going your way,” asking if eight weeks is “endless” to Speaker 1. Speaker 0 tries to remind the audience that the conversation is about the pace and direction of the war, stating the plan as “gonna be four to six weeks,” while Speaker 1 questions whether Speaker 0 “had the attention span of a net?” and recalls a previous TV debate “four to six weeks ago” where Speaker 0 claimed “we were weeks away from it.” Speaker 1 uses this to cast doubt on Speaker 0’s credibility, suggesting a failure to defend the war’s progress and calling out what he sees as a “political concession.” He asks Speaker 0 to name “one political concession” the administration has made, implying a demand for concrete examples of compromise or capitulation. Speaker 2 intervenes to restore order, saying, “Hey. Woah. Honestly. I’m not gonna have this guy’s gonna on my face,” and asks everyone to calm down, emphasizing that they are in a debate where points can be responded to. Speaker 1 presses the question, again asking for a named concession, while Speaker 0 reframes the issue, asserting a “very simple goal”: to “keep terrorists and a terrorist regime from having a nuclear weapon that can threaten The United States, our allies in Europe, anybody else.” This statement is presented as the core objective that should guide assessment of the war’s conduct and any concessions, though Speaker 1 challenges the framing by pressing for concrete evidence of political concessions. Speaker 2 concludes by signaling a transition: “Alright. We’re gonna leave it there, guys. Next for us, the president suggests ABC.” The exchange thus juxtaposes a debate over war strategy, duration, and concessions with a stated overarching objective of preventing nuclear threats from terrorist regimes, before moving on to a new topic framed as what the president is proposing to ABC.

The speaker emphasizes that the US will need to send their sons and daughters to war just like they currently do. They stress that this is a natural consequence and that people will die, which they find to be a terrible thing.

The speaker contends that the war is a conflict that should never have begun and attributes its initiation to the 2020 US presidential election being rigged. They assert that the war would not have started if that election had not been rigged. They declare that it was a rigged election and assert that “Everybody now knows that. They found out.” The speaker further states that “People will soon be prosecuted for what they did.” They describe the situation as breaking news, though they add that it should be breaking news as well. The speaker reiterates that “Those are rigged elections.”

We know we will win. We have confidence in the victory of good over evil. Fight the real enemy.

Speaker 0 asserts that it is time to come together, emphasizing that, now that we have figured out who we, the people, are, we must protect our people and wake our people.