TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker was asked what they would say to those who think a shooter is a hero because he killed a health care executive who presided over a system that allegedly kills thousands of Americans by denying them coverage. The speaker responded that one should still try to make an argument and find a way to convince people and change the system that way, as violence is not the answer. The speaker stated that there may be things wrong with the healthcare system. The speaker does not believe there is anything heroic about the shooter's motives.

Liberal math is criticized for making things seem free if paid for with taxes, not credit cards. The speaker questions the logic of this approach, suggesting that printing money could make everything free. They argue that wars, college loans, and benefits for certain groups are seen as free under liberal math. The speaker contrasts this with the perspective of hardworking taxpayers who do not receive the same benefits.

The speaker questions why liberals should be trusted to determine the future of the country. The speaker claims that many liberals have depression, anxiety, and personality disorders, and some are uncertain about their gender. The speaker asserts that most liberals have never worked or were unsuccessful in their jobs. They allegedly spend most of their money on food and hair dye and do not care about their health, glamorizing obesity. The speaker describes protesters as fitting this description and questions why they should be seen as capable of making better choices for the country.

Pro gun advocate Charlie Kirk just got shot in the neck at his debate rally. The speaker laments political violence: “I try to avoid American politics... but I've opened X to a bunch of little bitches crying and whinging about how political violence is never the answer.” They claim, “These people are gunning for politics that are inherently violent to its people, to to marginalize people, to people who need access to health care.” The message: this is “the same across the West”—“This isn't just The US. This is England too.” The speaker adds, “I'm sick of this idea that you can't meet violence with violence. If somebody was smacking you... you're going to hit them back. You have to.” They conclude, “These people do not care if you live or die... They want you to die.” “Why is anyone anyone condemning that fucking kill them all kill them all”

Speaker 0 says, "If you're celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk, you're a bad person. You're going to hell." Speaker 1 adds, "May. Fuck Charlie Kirk," and declares, "The off ramp to the high road is closed," insisting they won't feel guilty about a "bullshit hero" who spread harm. They stress, "This has nothing to do with conservative versus liberal" or with Democrats versus Republicans, and point out the alleged suspect is "an old white guy." They predict media will misframe the event as "an isolated incident by a lone shooter" and that "it's gonna end up being a white guy." They acknowledge sadness with "Abso fucking lutely," but conclude, "However, fuck that guy. God’s timing is always right." "Good day, goofies."

The speaker references Henry Kissinger’s book Kiss the Boys Goodbye, urging viewers to get the book. He claims Kissinger writes that United States military people are “a bunch of dogs,” explaining that they wear dog tags and are treated as animals, so nobody cares if they are killed. He then attacks George Bush’s mother, describing her as “incredibly ugly” and “scary” and quoting a famous TV moment about American soldiers dying in the Middle East: “why should I waste my mind, my beautiful mind on people dying? … I like what the hell do I care? Man, I’m dying.” He portrays Bush’s mother as suggesting Americans do not matter to those in power. The speaker explains the term “GI” as “government issue,” noting that the government provides soldiers’ clothing, shoes, vehicles, underwear, food, and all equipment, implying soldiers are mere government-issued items. He asks why, after war, the United States Corporation does not retrieve and clean up all the junk—oil cans, tires, jeeps, and trash—that were used in war, arguing that since the war is over, everything is “a government issue” and thus disposable. He claims soldiers are left behind, even in places like Cambodia, insinuating they are treated as expendable “GIs” rather than human beings. He then pivots to a broader, conspiratorial claim: for fifty-three years of his life, he has spent seventy-one years observing the world, with fifty-three years in what he calls the world of the occult. He defines occult as a Latin word meaning hidden, asserting that everything of importance has been hidden and that those at the top know things ordinary people do not. He contends that the speaker has made it his business to discover these hidden truths and that the most astonishing finding is how little people know about the world they live in. Addressing younger viewers, he urges them to wake up, get a life, and start figuring out who owns them, criticizing public discourses about ownership of one’s body on the New York Stock Exchange. The overall message blends anti-war sentiment, distrust of political elites, and a claim of hidden knowledge guarded by a powerful, occult-leaning elite.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about expressing "joy" over a CEO's death and posting an image of another CEO. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of condoning assassination. Speaker 1 denies celebrating the death itself, but expresses joy that the "brutality of our healthcare system was finally being acknowledged." Speaker 1 claims 70,000 Americans die yearly due to lack of health insurance, calling the healthcare system "murderous" and "violent." Speaker 1 says they were describing the mentality of supporters, not their own beliefs. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to condemn those who praise assassination. Speaker 1 refuses to condemn those who praise the CEO, stating they don't "believe in things like souls." Speaker 1 says they specialize in extremism and want to understand ideologies, even those of violent extremists. Speaker 1 condemns the violence of the healthcare system. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 condemns people that call for assassination. Speaker 1 wants Speaker 0 to acknowledge that half of bankruptcies are due to healthcare costs. Speaker 0 states anyone who wants to assassinate any innocent person is wrong. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to condemn those who want to be involved in assassination.

The speaker asserts that “the left wakes up tomorrow and realizes that somebody that agrees with them assassinated the equivalent of Martin Luther King junior” and that “they are celebrating right now.” He credits “Charlie Kirk started a movement, and he led that movement. And that movement changed the election. Without Charlie Kirk, president Trump does not win in 2024.” “The people whose minds he changed... they know it. And you just woke them up.” He calls it “the equivalent of assassinating Martin Luther King, and you'll never be able to live this down.” He warns of “the ones that are celebrating, the ones that are cheering, the ones that are excited and happy.” He asks, “who you are as a person that can allow you to watch somebody get assassinated... knowing his wife and his children were standing there watching, and you're cheering it.” “Because of words that he spoke, ideas that he had, which, by the way, are pretty standard ideas for all of millennia,” and that “you killed him.” “You just created a Martin Luther King, and you created 10,000,000 new Charlie Kirks at the same time.”

Transcript portrays a speaker accusing leftists of celebrating Charlie Kirk's death and circulating provocative statements about guns and violence. It includes the lines: 'Leftists celebrating Charlie Kirk's death.' 'Watch this.' 'Bye, Charlie Kirk.' 'Like you said, people getting shot and killed for the second amendment is so worth it. I never thought we'd agree on anything.' 'Bye.' 'I just wanna be part of yourself.' 'By the sword, die by the sword.' 'He did say that gun deaths were an acceptable side effect of gun rights.' 'Congratulations to Charlie Kirk for becoming the new poster child for gun awareness and violence.'

Your gut reaction to seeing someone take a bullet in the neck and their face explode, and their young children run up to them because they were afraid of the noise, if your reaction was to grin and celebrate, you must be defeated. You must be destroyed. You must be identified. You must be isolated, and you must be eradicated from our society. Not Democrats, not leftists, not liberals, those people that would celebrate in that moment. That is pure evil, pure malice. There is no charity in a person's person's heart. Heart. I don't care who it is who sees anybody get their neck exploded and celebrate like that. That's the kind of evil we're dealing with. That's the kind of evil that has taken over our society. It has become too common. People have let it fester.

I'm saying, if someone can show me where my money's going and that it's not being used right, they're not my enemy. They're trying to help me out. This isn't about race; it's about them against all of us. They'll lock you up if you don't pay your taxes, basically forcing you to give them your money so they can spend it how they want. Why aren't people living? You'll kill someone over $3. We need to do better. You're not my enemy, whether you're a Democrat or a liberal. Forget race and even immigrants. We're talking about the money they force us to spend.

The speaker discusses a recent vote in the US House of Representatives to defund the National Endowment for Democracy, arguing that this measure is not neutral or benevolent, but a leftist enterprise. The speaker states that leftists are free to contribute to it, but insists that hardworking Americans should not be forced by the government to contribute to causes they find repugnant, including the NED. Despite this stance, the speaker notes that 81 Republican members of the House voted with all the Democrats to keep the funding stream going, funding the enterprise with federal money. The speaker contends that there should be legitimate disagreement within the Republican Party, but asserts that this issue should not be one of them. When campaigning as a Republican, the speaker says, voters expect basic precepts, including that the US government is too big and expensive because it does too many things it was never intended to do. The speaker argues that Republicans should agree that funds should not be taken from hardworking Americans and given to left-leaning enterprises that undercut everything the party stands for or purports to stand for. If viewers share the speaker’s frustration, they are urged to find out how their representative voted and raise the issue with them. The speaker anticipates that some Republicans will blame the outcome on the Senate filibuster, though they claim the Senate filibuster rule should not affect the House. The speaker argues that such blaming is severely exaggerated and emphasizes the importance of ending the zombie filibuster, calling for a speaking filibuster instead of silent or asleep filibustering. With the procedural concerns addressed, the speaker says the party should move on to implementing policies for which Republicans were elected, including reducing federal wasteful spending, ending funding for the National Endowment for Democracy, and passing the SAFE Act. The speaker describes the SAFE Act as something that “like, 80% of all Americans agree with,” which is to take steps to stop noncitizens from voting in elections. The speaker reiterates the admonition to stay true to the Republican Party and not align with another party, ending with a caution: “Don’t get on the other one. And, good heavens, don’t get on a donkey.”

Speaker claims, "Brother Charlie got murdered, assassinated a few days ago, but the truth is he was assassinated a few years ago." They argue that electing people who demonize their political opponents leads to violence, adding, "So you might have pulled the trigger yourself." The speaker asks, "Who demonize political opponents? Who call political opponents enemies, Hitler, a threat to democracy, who say because we disagree, if you see someone, walk up to them and if they're eating in a restaurant, tell them they're not welcome, get in their face." They warn, "When you start saying stuff like that, calling your political opponents Nazis, fascists, stuff like that. Well, sooner or later, a kook is gonna hear that. A crazy person is going to hear that, and they're going to act on it."

The speaker decries the "this little Darvo game game that you're playing, when it comes to this whole free speech thing," insisting that "That shit only works with people who you've already fucking fooled." They criticize Jimmy Kimmel and other late-night hosts, and claim critics push a "fascist narrative again because it's all you have." They say, "You've forced the friend enemy distinctions onto us" and accuse supporters of celebrating violence: "You've rolled around in this man's blood and people smell it." They declare, "God sees you" and, "God sees everything that that's happened and and ultimately he gonna have that last say, fuck you people." They warn of operating with "the privilege of the state" and "impunity," insist "not both sides" anymore, note, "You got a 31 year old man killed who would got him assassinated," "a husband and father" lost, and conclude, "Y'all gonna suffer for this."

The program marks the one-year anniversary of Donald Trump’s second election to the presidency, noting that he won a majority of the popular vote and built a coalition broader than any Republican coalition since 1984. The host argues that, in this moment, Republicans face a civil war over what comes after Trump: revert to the pre-Trump GOP or continue evolving into what Trump has steered it toward. The core debate centers on what MAGA means and whether America-first should guide policy, especially in foreign affairs and domestic priorities. America first, according to the host, means the US government should act foremost on behalf of American citizens, considering how policies affect those who pay for and are represented by the government. This message—America first—was described as not only popular but the most popular political message in generations, and it is credited with drawing broad support from Black voters, Latino voters, and other American voters committed to drain-the-swamp, no more pointless wars, and government that represents Americans. On the other side, the host describes a return to the pre-Trump Republican identity: a neoconservative foreign policy paired with libertarian economic policy, a party of Washington think tanks and editorial pages. The host characterizes this old guard as policing its own, seeking silence and expulsion of dissenters, and as being morally compromised by foreign-policy priorities seen as misaligned with American interests. A central claim is that US foreign policy has too often advanced foreign interests—particularly those of Israel—over American interests, citing examples such as the Iraq War; assertions that policy has been immoral, illegitimate, and unsustainable; and the suggestion that dissenting voices are silenced. A focal point of the discussion is Lindsey Graham, portrayed as the living symbol of the old Republican Party. The host describes Graham as affable in person but as representing a policy direction at odds with the Trump era. Graham’s record is summarized as revealing deficits in fiscal responsibility (deficit growth from $5 trillion to $38 trillion over his tenure), a willingness to push for foreign wars, and a pattern of defending or promoting foreign policy agendas that critics say have harmed the United States. The program emphasizes Graham’s role in endorsing and promoting aggressive rhetoric and actions, including his appearances with Zelenskyy, his references to “killing the right people,” and his remarks at a Republican Jewish Coalition event in Las Vegas where he claimed that “we are killing all the right people” and “we’re cutting your taxes.” The host argues these statements reflect a dangerous and violent mindset and a departure from traditional conservative restraint. Clip analyses highlight Graham’s emphasis on Israel and his belief that God commanded particular foreign-policy policies, with assertions such as “God commanded it” and remarks about God’s will guiding policy. The program points to Graham’s frequent travel to Israel (the guest claims Graham said it was his “fifth visit since October 7”) and his portrayal as a staunch defender of Israel, even while critics say this undermines American sovereignty or prioritizes foreign interests. Graham’s statements about “the blood libel,” his defense of Israel, and his call for violence against perceived political enemies are presented as evidence of his misalignment with the values the host associates with America-first conservatism. The discussion frames a broader shift in the Republican Party as a power struggle between the old establishment and a MAGA movement seeking to realign or redefine the party’s priorities. The anonymous or explicit allegation is that Graham has long acted as an agent for deep-state or foreign interests, having supported or aligned with policies that critics say weaken American sovereignty or accountability to American voters. The guest asserts that Graham’s reelection would signal a non-responsive political system and a failure to reflect voters’ concerns, particularly in South Carolina. Against Graham, the program introduces Paul Dans, a candidate running in the Republican primary in June, who frames his campaign as an “outsider” effort to replace what he calls the “establishment” with a movement anchored in God, family, and country. Dans describes himself as an “original MAGA” and as a long-time participant in Trump-era policy development, including serving as the architect of Project 2025, which Dans says helped Trump’s administration by organizing a coalition and providing a platform for policy and personnel ready to implement reforms. Dans emphasizes his immigrant family background, working-class roots, and personal hardships as the driving force behind his commitment to restoring the country. He presents his campaign as an effort to bring accountability to government—particularly with respect to investigations, the Russia hoax, the 2020 election, and COVID-19 handling—and to end endless wars and recalibrate fiscal policy. Dans argues that Graham’s reelection would reflect a political system that does not respond to voters, noting that Graham’s stance has often opposed Trump, including his early opposition to Trump’s nomination and his later criticisms. Dans recounts his own experiences in Georgia during the 2020 election, his engagement with MAGA activists, and the perception that the RNC and campaign leadership sought to “cut bait” on Trump during the Georgia recount. Dans frames his campaign as a test of whether the MAGA movement can sustain itself post-Trump and whether the Republican Party can be realigned toward a policy program centered on American interests, less foreign entanglement, and domestic renewal. The interview also includes rhetoric about the broader political environment: a culture war over identity and censorship, debates about free speech, and concerns about social media platforms shaping political discourse. The host condemns what he sees as censorship and calls for an openness to political discussion, while arguing that the new generation—especially younger voters—are attracted to a program that promises affordable life, rebirth of the American dream, and a return to traditional American values. The show closes with a plug for voting and a call to back the Paul Dans campaign, including a request to visit PaulDans.com, invest in the campaign, and spread the message via social media. It also introduces content about a “new nine-eleven commission” and urges listeners to visit newcommissionnow.com to join a petition, arguing that the original nine-eleven Commission was flawed and that a new commission is needed to force accountability and reveal foreknowledge and other aspects of the events of September 11. Overall, the transcript captures a confrontation within the GOP over the party’s future trajectory post-Trump, the moral and strategic implications of foreign-policy advocacy, and a campaign narrative centered on America-first priorities, faith, family, and a critique of the entrenched political establishment.

Speaker 1: "Just because the other side... jokes about the bad things that happened to them, I don't think that makes it okay for us to turn around and do the same." Speaker 0: "No. We need to stop... the left just haven't cucked out enough." Speaker 0: "Trump is fucking insane because he has support from 90% of the conservatives in the Republican party who are entirely un American." Speaker 1: "One person is dead... a swing state voter." Speaker 1: "We don't know what the motivation of the shooter was." Speaker 1: "Just because there is fire burning doesn't give us leave to throw more wood on it." Speaker 0: "Donald Trump wanted absolute criminal immunity." Speaker 0: "Democracy only works when everybody participates." Speaker 1: "I reject this framing entirely."

Speaker 0 introduces humor about President Trump, saying, “I give president Trump quite a hard time, but sometimes that dude is just funny as hell. Check this out.” Speaker 1 asks, “And mister president, if you are declaring war against these cartels and congress is likely to approve of that process, why not just ask for a declaration of war?” Speaker 2 responds, “Well, I don't think we're gonna necessarily ask for a declaration of war. I think we're just gonna kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. Okay? We're gonna kill them. You know? They're gonna be, like, dead. Okay? Mister president. Yeah. Mister president.” Speaker 0 reiterates, “I don't think we need a declaration of war. We're just gonna we're just gonna kill people that are bringing drugs into our country, and they're gonna they're gonna be dead. Okay. Yeah. Like it was just no big deal, man. We're just we're just killing people without trial, without a jury, without being convicted of a crime. You know? We're just we're just gonna kill them. Okay? Dude's funny as hell.”

"You know, I told myself I wasn't gonna make this video, but I'm gonna make it." "When Joe Biden was falling upstairs and falling downstairs and falling off of his bike and crapping his pants in public in front of the pope, no less." "And then when he was diagnosed with cancer, I don't remember seeing a single conservative Republican wishing him to be unalived." "But yet you fucking liberals try to assassinate our president when he was running for office again, not once, not twice, but three times." "And in the last twenty minutes, I have seen nothing but hate and spew vomit come out of liberals' mouths all over social media, elated and happy that Charlie was assassinated simply because of his beliefs." "Sick of this shit."

Speaker declares a political shift: "I was an old school democrat. I will never vote a fucking democrat ever." "I was a purple party independent. You lost me. I'm all red now." He condemns those who "celebrate and rejoice in the murder and assassination of someone who just was giving a different point of view than what you're used to in the fucking colleges these days" and says "You are and will always be part of the problem if you're rejoicing in that." He notes "He was a family man. He just came and was respectful to everybody and was assassinated for it." The speaker concludes, "It's fucking pathetic, and so as what the Democratic Party has become."

Transcript excerpt: 'Charlie Kirk got shot and he's dead.' The speaker follows: 'Finally, finally, somebody with a gun, which is almost everybody in The Fucking States, grew up hair and fucking went and shot somebody on the right side.' The passage ends with: 'Thank you. Can we keep this up, plea' The remarks express celebration of violence against a political figure and request to continue such acts. The tone centers on the shooting of a public figure and uses profanity to emphasize approval and a desire for further incidents. These lines appear to celebrate the act and call for more such acts.

These people that are now selling t shirts with Charlie Kirk and a bullet wound in his neck, they cannot be negotiated with. You cannot debate with them. You cannot persuade them to vote Republican. You cannot appeal to them. You will never convince them that you're a good person, that you just want the best for everybody. You will never get them to stop hating you. 'These craven losers'—they have to be defeated. You must be destroyed. You must be identified, you must be isolated, and you must be eradicated from our society. Not Democrats, not leftists, not liberals, those people that would celebrate in that moment. That is pure evil, pure malice. There is no charity in a person's heart. We are on the verge of full on political violence and civil war. When they show up to your front door, when they take shots

The speaker was asked what they would say to those who think a shooter is a hero because he killed a healthcare executive who he believed was presiding over a system that kills thousands of Americans by denying them coverage. The speaker responded that they don't know what to say, but that one should try to make an argument and convince people to change the system that way, as violence is not the answer. The speaker stated that they don't think there is anything heroic about the shooter's motives.

You know what's interesting about assassination? Well, not only does it change those popularity polls in a big fucking hurry, but it's also interesting to notice who it is we assassinate. Do ever notice who it is? Stop to think of who it is we kill. It's always people who've told us to live together in harmony and try to love one another. Jesus, Gandhi, Lincoln, John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, Malcolm x, John Lennon. They all said, try to live together peacefully. Bam. Right in the fucking head. Apparently, we're not ready for that. Yeah. That's difficult behavior for us.

I hope when this is all over, you remember who fired first. You've tried to kill the president twice, and now you've assassinated man for talking. You don't really wanna do this. K? 400,000,000 plus firearms in this country, and they don't belong to the left, bro. Yeah. If you think it's okay to murder someone because of their opinion, you get what's coming to you. You and yours.

"Charlie Kirk should not have been assassinated." "That's what I said that caused tens of thousands of Democrats to come into my comments and mentions literally hurling homophobic slurs at me." "The ultimate irony is that that's the reason why you justify the assassination of Charlie Kirk was because he was such a bigot and he said all these horrible things, which aren't even real quotes, by the way." "You hate him for things he never even said." "Meanwhile, you guys are actively saying things that are infinitely worse than anything that Charlie Kirk said." "And you guys don't see it." "You don't have that ability to self reflect." "You have no ability to self reflect." "You guys you guys can literally sit there being the nastiest, meanest, most cruel hearted people ever and genuinely believe that you're the good guy because you're doing it to bad people." "Oh, yeah. What is wrong with you?"