TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

“While I didn't agree with his ideas, shooting someone that we disagree with, even if they're vociferous and loud and out there, is so colossally wrong headed.” “you won't find me shedding any tears.” “We cannot think or talk that way.” “That is not okay.” I lost my brother through gun violence. “There's no winning. We'll never win this way. There's no idea that if we cheer on our opponents being hurt or harmed in any way, that we win as a society. And we all lose.” This is a tragedy that not only the person who is killed experiences, but the entire family and community around that person. “Where do we go when violence is the only solution? … the final solution.” “People are walking around with weapons of war. This is a weapon of war.” “I don't know what killed him.” “But more often than not, we're seeing people killed with weapons of war … It was a sniper rifle.” “That's what these weapons are for.” “If that's why he was murdered. I'm assuming that's what it was. We don't know.”

They want us dead. That's what they want.

Some leaders feel a physical threat, including at least two assassination attempts against Trump, possibly by Iran. However, if Iran had tried to assassinate Trump, the U.S. would be at war with them. The American president was murdered, and we're still not allowed to know who did it and why. You can't have a president or senator who truly does his best to uphold the core idea of a democratic republic because he's worried about getting killed. If this were happening in Liberia you'd be like it's not a real government because whenever the president strays outside the pre prescribed boundaries, he gets murdered or worries about getting murdered. Foreign policy is the only issue they care about. They only care about the projection of force using American service personnel to fight faraway wars that have no material benefit.

One month ago today, I witnessed my friend of ten years, someone who I considered a brother, a loving husband, a devoted father, a generational leader, get assassinated on a livestream by a left wing radical. Approximately one year ago, I witnessed the president of The United States get shot in the head by a left wing radical who also took the life of a transporter in front of his daughters and wife. Two months ago, Christian children kneeling and praying in a church Were slaughtered. By a left wing extremist. If it's happening every single week, is it that extreme, or has the Democrat party mainstreamed violence as a political tool? Violence has been mainstreamed by the Democrat Party. It is not extremist. Is any Democrat courageous enough to disavow violence? The Trump administration making America safe again. God bless them.

"Candace ain't lying, guys. I know it for a fact." "We all know that these narratives they're spinning out that they're putting out don't make any sense. They don't make any sense at all." "We don't know who killed him, why it was done, or how it was done." "None of us really know." "If you're actually believing what these people are telling us, you're cooked." "No. No. No. Look closer. It's it's yellow. What are you talking about?" "How do we best honor Charlie's death and legacy than figuring out who the hell killed him and why and how?" "There is absolutely something going on in that organization." "There was something going on prior to his assassination." "There's absolutely something going on right now, and they do not want us to know." "We fight to figure out what the hell it is they don't want us to know."

Speaker 0: Hey, yo. Stop scrolling for one second for me. Give me just one second. Look, we were not there to figure out who killed Kennedy. We were not there to figure out who killed King, but we did figure out one thing. That this dude right here look. This guy right here running, you see him running? That is the guy that took out Kurt. That's the guy. That's him right there. Speaker 1: If speech is violence, then some are bound to conclude that violence is justified to stop speech. And we're not gonna let that be justified.

Hey, yo. Stop scrolling for one second for me. Give me just one second. Look, we were not there to figure out who killed Kennedy. We were not there to figure out who killed King, but we did figure out one thing. That this dude right here look. This guy right here running, you see him running? That is the guy that took out Kurt. That's the guy. That's him right there. If speech is violence, then some are bound to conclude that violence is justified to stop speech, and we're not gonna let that be justified.

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.”

The first participant asks the second to identify who did each major event. For MLK Jr., the second participant says, “That was a CI operation because they considered him a dangerous communist. And but the FBI was bugging the, in churches where he was giving some of his speeches in churches. They were bugging the podiums and following him around. He was a top target, for elimination.” For JFK, the second participant states, “I think that was a CI hit. They they may have employed some mafia connections to carry it out because that was their mafia assassination program.” Concerning LBJ, the first participant notes, “LBJ was very involved in all that in Dallas. So,” and the second participant adds, “he an evil man.” The first participant affirms, “He was an evil man.” Turning to Pearl Harbor, the second participant claims, “They knew the attack was coming was coming. They knew where it was gonna happen in Pearl Harbor and when. And they they told no one, and they let it happen on purpose. That that's from the commander of the Pacific Fleet. I would say that's a pretty pretty credible witness.” He continues, “So, yeah, that that was a false admitted that. They admitted they had the and they heard it was gonna happen. And, you how know, else were you gonna get Americans to be on the side of this war that had nothing to do with us?” This leads to the discussion of 9/11. The second participant says, “My opinion. As a criminal investigator, as a former CI officer, nine eleven was not the act of a bunch of poorly flight trained terrorists that executed an unbelievably meticulous, piloting of those aircraft, even even pilots. There's there's pilots for nine eleven truth now, and they say, we could not have done that. Not possible.” He adds, “And then we go to the passport issue, and we go to the Tower 7, which was a controlled demolition.” The second participant further asserts, “You talk to any structural engineer, and and and I I have. And the fact I think George w Bush blacked out. I think it was 40 pages of the 09/11 report dealing with Saudi Arabia. So what wait a minute. This report was supposed to be for the American people on what happened, and you blacked all these pages out? What in the world?” He continues, “I do not think that it was a bunch of un poorly trained or untrained terrorists that did it. I think there was another source behind it. I think it was intentional, and I'm going just from a a criminal invest investigative perspective just looking at the evidence, what evidence we have, that that was an intentional act, And it would fall right into the MO that you and I are talking about.” He concludes that the event was “Horrible” and emphasizes that “the shadow government deep state or especially the CIA. It does not matter. Their pawns on their chessboard, they don't care that three thousand people were horribly killed that day, but it achieved the aim of gutting the US constitution, bringing in the horrific Patriot Act Mhmm. Giving the CIA unthinkable authority for secret prison prisons and torture beyond waterboarding and and secret renditions and all of that, the FBI, the ability to to, spy on Americans came out of the Patriot Act. So it was the perfect national security state, energizer that the Patriot Act was, and 70 of the congressmen and senators that read the Patriot Act didn't even read it. They just signed off on it without even reading the bill.”

Who killed Charlie Kirk? At the young age of 31 years old, he had already founded and ran the largest conservative youth organization in the country. I do not believe we have anything near the real story about the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk last week. The narrative presented by the FBI and other government agencies is wildly contradictory with an ever changing plot line that makes little sense. Some individuals close to Kirk have reported that his foreign policy position was shifting away from the standard neoconservative militarism in favor of a more noninterventionist approach. Was Charlie Kirk murdered directly or indirectly by powerful forces who could not tolerate such a shift in views and such an influential leader? We don't know. But no army or assassin can stop an idea whose time has come. Rest in peace.

This message is directed to everyone on the deep state target list. The speaker believes that if any political presidential candidate, like RFK or Trump, is assassinated, America will respond in kind. They claim to have created a list of those involved. The speaker hopes this won't happen, but if it does, they believe option 2 behind Trump would be better for them. They even suggest that killing Trump would be the best case scenario for them, as it would lead to a quick and effective cleansing, resulting in game over for the deep state.

Speaker 0: He delivered a speech at Riverside Church on 04/04/1967, a year to the date before he was assassinated. And that was a powerful anti war speech that he delivered. Speaker 1: What would you say was the significance of that particular speech? Speaker 0: The real significance was that it put him, his footprints heavily into the anti war movement for the first time. And he termed The United States the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. And so he was rising as a severe principal critic of the government in that speech. Another negative significance is that he was attacked from all sides. He was called a traitor by mainstream media. Millions of dollars were withdrawn from his organization, Southern Christian Leadership Conference. So he lost a great deal by taking that position. All of that is significant. Speaker 1: What do think was the primary motivation behind the killing? Speaker 0: I think assassinations, political assassinations are a last resort, as a rule. But I think in terms of The United States from what I've observed and throughout its history, and there have been assassinations other than those in the sixties, remember, I think it's a last resort. I think if they can, if a person is troublesome to them and potentially can develop a following, I think they have to stop him. Now they can do that by rendering him unemployable, by having him set up in some kind of a scandal or sexual activity that destroys his credit or her credibility. They can buy him off by giving him a job or position. There are a variety of techniques by blacking them out in terms of the media. And so if they can't control any other way, and the person is that critical in terms of potentially mobilizing people, that's when political assassinations take place. Assassination is the last resort. Martin King was assassinated not only because he was bringing enormous thought to the whole Vietnam War effort opposing it and the corporate militarists of the society, the weapons providers, energy providers, all of that were going to lose huge fortunes of money if that war ended. So it was not only that but it was the fact that he was going to bring half a million people to Washington in the Poor People's March. And the military believed that they would see their mission as a failure because they would go to the congress, try to get them to change the the priorities for public funding from from the military, take some money from the military, and bring it into social services programs, and they wouldn't be successful. And that would that would radicalize the group to such a point where they might have a revolution on the streets of Washington with masses they couldn't control. They didn't have the troops. Westmoreland wanted 200,000 more in Vietnam. They didn't have those. They certainly didn't have the troops to put down that kind of revolution on the streets. So they had to kill King, make sure he didn't bring that kind of dynamic into Washington.

It's not just blackmail or bribery that makes people obey, but also the threat of violence. Every US president has been threatened with violence implicitly because of the murder of John F. Kennedy. Presidents understand the outlines of what happened, but no one has released all the files. The message is clear: if you get too far outside the boundaries, you could wind up like JFK. The forces that murdered the sitting president in 1963 probably placed those boundaries.

"Fuck you. That's not very Christian." "So a guy just got murdered, and you're gonna stand out here and protest a vigil for him?" "It's not a protest." "I'm informing Catholics on his Doesn't matter." "Somebody just got murdered." "Do you not understand time and place?" "That logic just escapes you." "We've got nothing better to do than come out here and do something like that." "You deserve the spit on the ground you just got." "Fuck you."

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 communists have to change how they talk. They have to. The elite communists continue to use the most apocalyptic rhetoric. You're giving them orders. These people hear these words and they take them as orders. They hear orders, marching orders. And it's not going to change. Democrats are more inclined to political violence anyway because they're godless scum. It is their religion, and historically evil religions have killed people who are of the opposite religion. Democrat rhetoric combined with a mentally ill base, combined with the fact that Democrats believe political violence is justified. They do. 55% of Democrats come out and say it would be justified if Donald Trump gets killed. Add in some antidepressants. Add in some tranny ideology which shatters your mind.

John Wilkes Booth, why use one bullet with a fully loaded shotgun? Lee Harvey Oswald wouldn't do that. Almost the best day ever. The person who attacked Trump at his rally was exercising their rights. Can we blame them?

There's no way they would run the same playbook twice. On 04/04/1968, Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. stepped onto the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee at 06:01 PM. Authorities say a single 30-odd-six rifle shot struck him in the jaw and neck, one shot, one kill. The police also find a bundle near the crime scene containing a Remington Model 760 rifle, binoculars, and personal items tied to one James Earl Ray, an escaped convict from Missouri. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover quickly pronounced Ray to be a lone, racist, hate-filled assassin and there were no co-conspirators, no second shooter, and no larger plot. Didn't something like that happen just recently? Years later, the FBI and also the House Select Committee on Assassinations both admitted they could never conclusively match the fatal bullet to Ray's rifle. So in other words, the single most important piece of forensic proof tying Ray to the murder does not actually exist. And then there were the contradicting eyewitnesses. This is from the Washington Post: some witnesses, including then New York Times reporter Earl Caldwell, said that they saw a man moving in the thick bushes behind Jim's grill, which is near the crime scene, but in a location not where Ray was said to be. Then they say, for reasons unknown, Memphis Public Works employees cut down the bushes and destroyed a possible crime scene the very next morning. As always, when you follow the evidence or lack thereof, things just stop adding up.

"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."

"It's gonna come out." "There would have to and I wouldn't put it past you. You'd have to get rid of all of us." "You'd have to ethnically cleanse 7,000,000,000 people to forget the Charlie Kirk story." "It's no one's forgetting it." "Not the ballistics guys on YouTube that we're all listening to, but no one's no one's gonna let this one go because and by the way, that's your fault." "In 1963, when JFK was shot, people didn't watch it on TikTok." "People mostly read about it, and then the feds lied about it." "You traumatized all of us." "You assassinated Charlie Kirk in front of the entire world." "This is the Internet generation." "K? We're running this." "We're not calming down. We're pretty upset, and we're gonna stay upset."

I'm not saying I would try to assassinate a presidential candidate, but if I did, I wouldn't miss. The person who tried to shoot Trump was killed on the spot. I think this moment will be remembered as when we were doomed. Despite the attempt, I respect the effort to make a change. But how did it go wrong?

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."

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.

I think we should get the homicide out of the White House and get a fresh start, because we don't want any more murderers. Clinton murdered a guy. That's going a little too far. This is not the place to make those accusations, and you're supposed to be funny. I thought it was a matter of record. You will not be invited back if you don't shut up. Let's talk football. Where did you ever hear that? Maybe George or Bill Clinton would be your hero. His career is over after this. Anyway, who cares? We're on the millionaire today. People always told me Hollywood was incredibly liberal and biased, and I thought it was untrue about it.

Secrecy is repugnant in a free society. The assassination of President Kennedy occurred at 1 PM CST. We must overcome societal divisions – racial, economic, etc. – and work together. The assassinations of both Kennedy brothers are acknowledged. The dangers of excessive concealment outweigh the justifications for it. We must not let the need for security be used to expand censorship. The CIA’s purpose was creating constant wars for the military-industrial complex. Many Americans distrust the Warren Commission report. We must protect our freedoms; they are coming after us. No official should use my words as an excuse to censor, stifle dissent, or withhold facts. Some media push personal agendas, threatening our democracy. We seek a true peace, not one enforced by American weapons; we all share this planet and our children’s future.