TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims that on January 6th, there was violence against the constitution, Congress, and the U.S. Capitol. They allege that they begged the President of the United States to send in the National Guard, but he refused. The speaker further claims that the president would not send in the National Guard when law enforcement people were being harmed, some of whom later died. They assert this inaction occurred during an insurrection that the president incited, which caused damage to those assigned to protect the capital and the constitution and to accept the results of the electoral college.

The speaker expresses offense at claims that someone sent the National Guard, stating that this person never offered the National Guard despite bipartisan requests, including from Mitch McConnell. The speaker alleges the person's secretary of the army and secretary of defense delayed, and the National Guard was not sent until hours later, resulting in injuries and deaths. The speaker accuses the person of lying on TV, claiming a detachment from the truth and specifically refuting the claim of sending the National Guard, urging the press to challenge this assertion. The speaker also states that they do not have control of security, which is handled differently, referencing the power of the White House.

The speaker states that the majority of protests have been violent, not peaceful. They cite nearly 400 arrests of illegal aliens alone since the protests began in June. The speaker claims that hundreds of people have assaulted law enforcement officers. They assert that the Democrat governor and mayor of Los Angeles have failed their citizens. According to the speaker, most Americans and Californians do not want to see law enforcement officers being assaulted. They thank the president for taking action to protect federal law enforcement agents, federal buildings, and the federal mission of deporting illegal criminals. The speaker says this mission will continue.

The discussion centers on accusations about government actions and the handling of whistleblowers. Speaker 0 argues that the FBI is examining the situation “to chill speech” and to silence Democratic members of Congress and other elected leaders who speak out against Trump. According to Speaker 0, the motive is to stop them from speaking out. Speaker 1 pushes back by asking for clarification, wondering what exactly should be stopped. The question arises: “Stop what?” and “you’re saying that you believe that inherent in the video is that Donald Trump has given illegal orders.” Speaker 0 responds that he will speak about Congress’s role in whistleblower protections, noting that there have been whistleblowers in the Biden administration as well as in past administrations. He emphasizes that Congress has a responsibility to ensure that whistleblowers inside the federal government and the military have protections, wherever they are located in government. Speaker 1 suggests that the message might be read as Democrats encouraging the military to defy the commander in chief over current orders that cannot be named, but Speaker 0 contests this reading, implying a misinterpretation of the message. In trying to clarify, Speaker 0 states: “Here's what I believe. I believe that regardless of the president, no one in our military should actually follow through with unconstitutional orders.” He asserts this as his belief, though he concedes uncertainty about other specifics: “I’m saying regardless. I don’t know. Regardless of justice. I’m not. I’m not understanding.” Throughout, the exchange centers on the tension between protecting whistleblowers and the implications of political messaging about the president and military obedience. Speaker 0 maintains that Congress must safeguard whistleblower protections across federal government and military contexts, citing the Biden administration as an example and noting similar protections have occurred in other administrations. Speaker 1 probes the interpretation of the video and the intent behind messages that might appear to call for disobeying orders or challenging the president, while Speaker 0 reiterates a belief in the obligation to refuse unconstitutional orders, independent of which president is in office.

There is a campaign to erase our history, defame our heroes, and indoctrinate our children. Angry mobs are tearing down statues, defacing memorials, and causing violent crime. Some people don't understand why they are doing this, but others do. They believe Americans are weak, but we are strong and proud. Far-left fascism is spreading in our schools, newsrooms, and corporate boardrooms, demanding absolute allegiance. If you don't comply, you will be punished. To protect our monuments, arrest rioters, and prosecute offenders, federal law enforcement will be deployed.

The speaker thanks Congressman Gomez and associates themselves with previous remarks. They state the president said he can't send in the National Guard without the governor's agreement, but also questioned if he has to obey the Constitution. They urge everyone to read Article 10, which states the National Guard cannot be called up by the president without the governor's consent, which is the basis of California's lawsuit. The speaker claims people are being deported for obeying the law by reporting in regularly while awaiting resolution of their immigration status. They believe this is a distraction. They caution that anarchists exploit large gatherings. The speaker notes that after the January 6th violence, the president refused to send in the National Guard despite requests, and now, in a "contra constitutional way," he has sent the National Guard into California. They find his actions inconsistent and a violation of the Constitution.

The LAPD police chief described the level of violence in Los Angeles as disgusting, prompting a discussion about National Guard involvement. Speaker 1 was surprised at the police chief's description, stating there has been no violence where protesters hit, shot, or threatened anyone. She believes the police chief doesn't know what to do because Los Angeles is a sanctuary city and the police lack authority. She claims the president is purposely initiating this, and that he didn't contact the governor or mayor before potentially sending in the National Guard. She predicts the president will create martial law, alleging he started this by targeting migrants. Speaker 0 noted some violence has occurred, including assaults on police officers and damage to vehicles. Speaker 1 acknowledged that a few people may not conform, but people shouldn't be goaded into confrontation or violence because that's what the president wants so he can send in the military and create martial law. She hasn't heard of anyone being shot, killed, or beaten.

Senator Alyssa Slotkin, Senator Mark Kelly, Representative Chris DeLuzio, Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander, Representative Chrissy Houlihan, and Congressman Jason Crow spoke directly to members of the military and the intelligence community. They emphasized that those who take risks daily to keep Americans safe are under enormous stress and pressure, and that Americans’ trust in the military is at risk. They asserted that the current administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. They reminded listeners that those who swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution must recognize that threats to the Constitution are not only abroad but also at home. They underscored that laws are clear: you can refuse illegal orders, you must refuse illegal orders, and no one has to carry out orders that violate the law or the constitution. They acknowledged the difficulty of public service but emphasized that vigilance is critical whether one is serving in the CIA, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, or another branch. The speakers stated that the nation’s guardians—whether in the CIA, the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force—have the duty to stand up for the laws and for the Constitution and for who Americans are. They affirmed that they will back the service members and intelligence professionals, reinforcing that now more than ever the American people need them to stand up for our laws and for the Constitution. They urged not to give up, to stay true to their oaths, and to remember: don’t give up, don’t give up the ship.

The speaker argues that "The Black Lives Matter organization show up in Washington DC to protest the National Guard being in Washington DC who is currently helping police in Washington DC get crime under control and this crime being black people unalive and other black people. Majority of it that is." They claim "they believe that it is targeting black communities, threatening civil liberties even though the goal is to lower crime." The speaker repeats "Stupid is as stupid does. But are they really stupid? No. They're not stupid." They note "They're getting low on funds, and they need you to, you know, give a little bit." They warn that "If it happens again in Washington DC, then they'll blame Trump for it instead of blaming the black lives they claim to matter who actually burnt up the city." They add that "Since the National Guard has been deployed, there have been no homicides, people can safely walk down the street with ice around their neck and nice watches. Walking"

American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines: for two hundred fifty years, American soldiers have sworn an oath, not to a man, but to the constitution of The United States. The cause is liberty. The mission is democracy. You were not the weapon of a wannabe strongman. You were the shield of a free people. No unlawful order can erase that. Following such an order is not loyalty. It's a crime. Your oath. Remember your duty. Paid for by the Save America movement.

The speaker asserts the right to peaceful protest, cautioning against actions that could be exploited by the administration. They claim the chaos in Los Angeles is provoked by the administration's actions, such as raiding workplaces, separating families, and deploying armored vehicles, which they say cause fear and panic. The speaker believes deploying federalized troops is a dangerous escalation driven by a hidden agenda unrelated to public safety, evidenced by the lack of a clear plan or policy. They emphasize solidarity with all Los Angeles residents, regardless of their birthplace. While affirming the right to protest, the speaker condemns violence, chaos, and vandalism, stating such actions will not be tolerated. They urge Angelenos to express their anger and outrage peacefully, referencing workplace raids that occurred on Friday.

The speaker discusses the redress of grievance process, which they claim was destroyed in 1906 when the organized militia disbanded. They mention an incident in Michigan where individuals with guns broke into the state house. The speaker argues that these individuals have the right to do so and that they are rising up to get their grievances addressed. They criticize the media for calling them protesters instead of acknowledging their rights. The speaker also accuses the governor of breaking the law and illegally depriving them and others of their rights. They clarify that they are not protesting but petitioning for a redress of grievances.

There are two types of forces: domestic soil and the National Guard. The president deploys the National Guard in DC, but governors deploy them in other states unless the president invokes the Insurrectionary Act. The speaker suggests a campaign urging Democratic governors to commit to deploying the National Guard only to protect people from white supremacists and rogue police, not against the people. The speaker, who has been anti-military, believes this is preferable to civilians facing armed conflict. Drawing on a past success in the 80s where a governor refused to send the National Guard to Central America, the speaker suggests engaging with National Guard members, who are often working-class, and believes they may be less entrenched than the police. The goal is to consider how the National Guard might be deployed on behalf of the people instead of against them.

The discussion centers on a legal review underway at the Department of the Navy regarding Senator Kelly’s conduct and the related public commentary by press secretary Kingsley Wilson, which labeled the senator’s actions traitorous and seditious. The speakers emphasize that any assessment must go beyond the video itself and consider the totality of the circumstances and the legal framework. Speaker 1 argues that the video misstates the law. Under the UCMJ, orders are presumed lawful, and service members have an obligation to disobey only manifestly unlawful orders. The phrase “we’re just saying what the UCMJ says” is problematic because it does not define what constitutes a manifestly unlawful order. The speaker notes that the video’s rhetoric includes claims that National Guard deployments and Venezuela strikes are unlawful, which creates a debate about legality but does not automatically render such orders unlawful. Using the National Guard example, if a soldier is ordered to deploy to Chicago, some politicians may deem it unlawful while others do not. The order is presumed lawful under the ACMJ (likely a reference to a military acronym), and the soldier is obligated to follow it. If the soldier refuses, they face court martial. However, if the soldier is out on patrol and the platoon commander orders, for example, to shoot a protester in the head, that would be a manifestly unlawful order, universally recognized as unlawful. The concern is that the video lowers the standard for disobeying orders by leaving interpretation open and then supplying a normative frame via additional rhetoric. Speaker 1 says the review will consider the totality of the circumstances and the feasibility of options, including the implications of recalling a sitting senator to active duty. There are significant separation-of-powers issues: under the Constitution, one cannot hold office in two branches simultaneously, so if a sitting senator were recalled to active duty, they would have to resign from Congress or from the military. In that scenario, military precedence would prevail, forcing a resignation from Congress or the Senate. The Navy’s leadership, including General Bly (the Judge Advocate General of the Navy), is anticipated to be deeply involved in evaluating these factors. Speaker 0 notes a potential immunity angle, suggesting that if the same conduct occurred to someone without protection but under recall and military justice, the analysis might differ. Speaker 1 adds that pursuing this route in district court could yield an order declaring members of Congress immune from certain prosecutions or actions. Overall, the discussion highlights the legal tests for unlawful orders, the potential implications of recalling a senator, separation-of-powers considerations, and possible immunity issues that could arise in litigation.

President Trump supports peaceful protest and the right of Americans to make their voices heard. He does not support violence or assaulting law enforcement officers. The speaker claims the president has made his position clear, unlike the Democrats, who have allowed unrest and violence to continue, requiring the president to intervene. When asked if President Trump would allow peaceful protests on Saturday for the militant parade, the speaker affirmed the president supports peaceful protests, calling the question stupid.

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.”

The secretary was asked to justify using the military for civilian law enforcement in Los Angeles. The secretary stated every American deserves to live in a safe community, and ICE agents need to be able to do their job of deporting illegal criminals. He said President Trump believes in law and order and has the authority to mobilize the National Guard or active duty troops to protect federal agents. When asked which authority justifies the use, the secretary stated it sounds like all three, citing millions of illegals waving flags from foreign countries and assaulting officers. He said the governor of California has failed to protect his people, along with the mayor of Los Angeles, so President Trump will protect the agents. When told orders for these purposes should be issued through governors, the secretary stated President Trump has all the authorities necessary.

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.

We are addressing members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks daily to keep Americans safe. Senator Alyssa Slotkin, Senator Mark Kelly, Representative Chris DeLuzio, Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander, Representative Chrissy Houlihan, Congressman Jason Crow, and others speak directly to you, acknowledging the immense stress and pressure you face. They state that Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk, as this administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. They remind you that you swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. The threats to our constitution aren’t just abroad but also at home. Our laws are clear: you can refuse illegal orders, you must refuse illegal orders, and no one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution. They recognize it is hard and a difficult time to be a public servant, but emphasize that whether you’re serving in the CIA, the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force, your vigilance is critical. They assure you that they have your back. Now, more than ever, the American people need you to stand up for our laws, our constitution, and who we are as Americans. Don’t give up. Don’t give up. Don’t give up. Don’t give up the ship.

The speaker addresses the situation in Los Angeles, California, stating that thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of marines have been deployed to protect federal law enforcement from attacks by a vicious and violent mob. Without this action, the speaker claims, Los Angeles would be burning. The speaker asserts that generations of army heroes did not sacrifice their blood on distant shores only to see the country destroyed by invasion and world lawlessness at home, as is happening in California. As commander in chief, the speaker vows to prevent this from happening.

Speaker 0 asserts that under former secretary Mayorkas, described as a dual citizen with Israel and a Jew, the DHS imported over 80,000 refugees after the Afghan withdrawal, and claims this number does not include “millions of migrants from elsewhere.” The speaker states that Mayorkas’ impeachment was dropped due to anti Semitic conspiracy theories known as the “Klerge plan,” and contrasts this with reference to a “literally a 177 page UN document titled Replacement Migration.” The speaker contends that “Immigration is the tool of the Zionist occupied government in order to justify the full establishment and implementation of a permanent authoritarian surveillance police state,” and claims they are utilizing the Patriot Act and Palantir “as a weapon against the American people.” The speaker alleges that ICE “receives their training, policies, procedures, protocols directly from the IDF,” and that “ICE has hundreds, if not thousands, of IDF foreign military members operating within the agency.” They further claim that “these United States Of America are not only occupied,” and describe “a foreign paramilitary domestic terrorist organization operating under the guise of a federal agency on our streets, by definition.” The speaker proclaims that the country is in the “beginning phases of Bolshevik Revolution two point o,” and invokes the phrase “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” They reference their own oath: “I swore a note to support and defend the constitution of The United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” The passage ends with the speaker asking, “Did you?”

He claims that those who commit treason are condemned to hell for eternity. The speaker accuses the American government of waging war against its citizens and states, blaming left-wing mobs for causing chaos in cities. They criticize the misuse of taxpayer money, leading to economic problems and hindering the American dream. The speaker also expresses concern about illegal immigrants entering the country and warns of potential danger if the military is sent to fight in Ukraine. They identify themselves as Justin Moan, the commander of Moans Militia, and issue an order to all militia and patriots across the United States.

The speaker reminds viewers of the US Constitution's requirement to protect borders. If the government fails, citizens can defend themselves. Neglecting borders aids foreign invasion, considered treason. The speaker questions why US military members aren't upholding the Constitution, as they have the right to do so. Translation: The speaker emphasizes the importance of protecting borders according to the US Constitution. Citizens can defend themselves if the government fails to do so, which is considered treason. The speaker questions why members of the US military are not fulfilling their duty to uphold the Constitution, as they have the right to do so.

My fellow Americans, I'm speaking to you today about the critical role our military may soon play. I urge you to consider this message and discuss it widely. My sign says it all: once the military removes Trump, we must honor them. No veteran left behind, and the best benefits for all. If you have loved ones in the military, please, implore them to do what must be done. They serve the Constitution, not a king. They must remember their oath. If they act, we will build statues in their honor, name our children after them, and provide them with the best veterans' support this nation has ever offered. Who's with me?

The National Guard and Marines are being stationed at federal buildings across the country where riots are taking place, not deployed against US citizens. They remain on federal property to provide security for those buildings. If people do not storm the federal building or attack the National Guard, they will not be attacked. As an investigative journalist who covers protests, the speaker says they stood two inches from the National Guard, who did nothing. The National Guard is not allowed to operate in a law enforcement capacity because the cities will not allow it.