TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

"Remember the whisper that changed the world? Bush heard war. Trump heard peace, and the world celebrating." "He gave Israel a ring and said, your families are coming home." "Next week, the last remaining hostages will return to Israel and be reunited with their families." "Monday. Donald Trump spent all night in the Oval Office putting the finishing touches on the Israeli Palestinian peace deal." "Nobel Peace Prize Day, And Trump hasn't been thinking about it at all." "Israel says stop the count." "With the hostages freed and when the fighting stops, fingers crossed, an alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia can finally gel, and the Abraham Accords can spread." "Trump stopped eight wars since January." "Maybe we should let him run for a third term."

The speaker compliments the president on his shirt and mentions that Trump won. They ask the president what he plans to do to stop the war in Ukraine once he becomes the 47th president. The president responds by saying that he would start by calling two people: Putin and Zelensky. He would arrange a meeting and guarantee that he could work out a deal. The president mentions that he knows exactly what he would say to each person and that a deal would be made within 24 hours.

The speaker believes Vladimir Putin wants peace. Despite raining missiles, Putin's dream was to take over the whole country, but the speaker believes that because of them, Putin won't achieve this. The speaker states they don't trust many people, including the interviewer, accusing them of dishonesty and asking "fake questions." The speaker believes Putin respects them, and that is why Putin won't take over all of Ukraine, even though that was his original intention. The speaker concludes that the war should never have happened.

As of February 2024, Speaker 0 asks if the person in question has the freedom to directly communicate with the speaker or their government to resolve the ongoing issues. Speaker 1 responds that the person considers themselves the head of state and won the elections. They believe that the coup d'etat in 2014 is the main source of power. Despite flaws in the government, the person is recognized as the president by the United States, Europe, and most of the world. Speaker 1 mentions negotiations with Ukraine in Istanbul, where the person was aware and even signed a preliminary document. However, they claim that former British Prime Minister Johnson dissuaded them from signing, leading to a sense of ridicule and sadness.

Speaker 0 is asked if he accepted bribes and if he would comment on the arrest of the former president.

Speaker 0 states that socialism, Islam, and Palestine are the three holy grail taboos in American politics. Speaker 1 responds enthusiastically. Speaker 0 asks why Palestine is a part of Speaker 1's politics. Speaker 1 answers that growing up in the third world gives a different understanding of the Palestinian struggle.

Speaker 0 notes that land strikes to stop drug trafficking specifically will start soon, and questions whether Speaker 1 has been promised anything. Speaker 1 responds that he does not know and, even if he did, he wouldn’t say it, adding, “we are not involved, and we will not get involved into another nation's policy, for their own national security.” Speaker 0 then asks whether Speaker 1 would welcome U.S. military action. Speaker 1 says, “I will welcome more and more pressure so that Maduro understands that he has to go, that his time is over.” He emphasizes that this is “not conventional regime change” and that it “cannot be compared to other cases like countries in The Middle East.” He states, “We had an election,” and asserts that “Regime change was already mandated by over 70% of the population,” arguing that the goal is “support to enforce that decision.” Speaker 0 asks how to square military action with receiving a peace prize and whether the moment has become necessary. Speaker 1 answers that what they are fighting for is “precisely freedom in order to have democracy and democracy in order to have peace.” He argues that “to maintain freedom and to achieve freedom, you do need strength,” contrasting this with the idea of a peace that would come from oppression or mere concession. He contends that it is “absolutely absurd” that Maduro’s regime gets support from Russia or from Iran, while democratic countries and democratic leaders are not being asked for support. He rejects the notion of appealing solely to peaceful means without addressing the regime’s international backers. Speaker 1 concludes by saying they do not have arms, but they have “our will. We have the power of organization and the power of love,” and adds, “peace is ultimately an act of love.”

US President Donald Trump is angry about the Nobel Peace Prize snub. In a letter addressed to the Norwegian prime minister, Trump said he no longer has an obligation to pursue peace as he was ignored for the Nobel Peace Prize. Bloomberg accessed the letter, in which he argued that the prize is awarded by a five-member committee elected by the Norwegian parliament, and reiterated his desire to seize Greenland, citing that Denmark cannot protect the land from Russia or China. He alleged that Denmark does not have written documents proving its ownership of Greenland, and added that the world is not secure unless The US has total control of Greenland. The backdrop to this is the Nobel Foundation clarifying that the Nobel Peace Prize cannot be revoked, shared, or transferred once awarded. Earlier, Venezuelan leader Maria Machado presented her Nobel Peace Prize medal to President Trump, crediting him for “his extraordinary leadership in promoting peace through strength.” Trump has publicly expressed a desire to win a Nobel Peace Prize on several occasions, including August 2025 when he called Norway’s foreign minister to discuss his chances and later complained after being passed over for Machado. Dr. Glenn Deissen, Professor of International Relations at the University of Southeastern Norway, joins the discussion. He notes that the Norwegian Nobel Committee, not the Norwegian government, awards the Nobel Peace Prize, making Trump’s letter to the prime minister unusual. He describes the premise as strange: “either you give me the Nobel Peace Prize or I won’t care about peace anymore.” He adds that the eight wars listed by Trump as ended include Gaza, where the US financed and armed the genocide, and an Iranian war ending after a surprise US attack, suggesting stopping that war does not align cleanly with the peace claim. Deissen says Trump’s peace vision centers on peace deriving from overwhelming strength plus ambiguity or unpredictability, the fear of consequences, which he believes motivates countries to compromise. At Davos, the geopolitical narrative is shaping up amid anti-Trump demonstrations and concerns over Venezuela and the Middle East. Deissen explains that the threats to seize Greenland are causing a rift between the United States and Europe, with Europeans unsure how to respond. They would like to push back, but fear that threatening military force could be problematic domestically and may not be permanent if power changes. He suggests Trump would prefer a pen-on-paper deal with Denmark for Greenland. The transatlantic alliance could be driven apart as tariffs and assertive U.S. policy unsettle Europe. The discussion frames Trump’s approach as resembling Nixon’s madman strategy—making adversaries believe he is extreme and unpredictable to force concessions—though it is unclear whether Trump is truly extreme or playing a role. The European stance remains uncertain and divided. Speaker 0 thanks Dr. Deissen for joining, and the segment ends with a note to download the WE ON app and subscribe to the YouTube channel.

Speaker 0 congratulates on that treaty and says, "That's gonna take place today at 03:00 in the Oval Office. We're gonna have a signing with Rwanda and The Congo." Speaker 1 notes that Rwanda and Congo "were going at it for many years and with machetes. It is one of the worst one of the worst wars that anyone's ever seen," and adds, "I just happened to have somebody that was able to get it settled. I mean, just a brilliant person who is very comfortable in that part of the world." He asks, "Are you uncomfortable there?" and replies, "No." He adds, "That's the part of the world that I know. Very comfortable." He says they "were able to get them together and sell it" and that "not only that, we're getting for The United States, a lot of the mineral rights from The Congo as part of it." They are "honored to be here" and "they never thought they'd be coming to the White House," and "they're so honored." "That's at 03:00, I believe."

Thank you for being here. Your recent inauguration attracted global attention. Why do you think that is? We had delegations from 110 countries, which drew media coverage. El Salvador has faced significant challenges, but we prioritized peace to transform our country from the murder capital to the safest in the Western Hemisphere in just three years. Our approach involved strengthening police and military forces, and we acted decisively against gangs. While some may see it as a miracle, it was a strategic response to violence. We also emphasize seeking divine wisdom in our governance. Many leaders are concerned about our success, fearing it may inspire similar changes elsewhere. Despite challenges, we're seeing a return of Salvadorans from abroad, indicating progress. I plan to serve my term as allowed by the constitution. Thank you for your interest.

Leo thanked the speaker for showing a signed quote from Bernie Sanders, in which he called for negotiation. The speaker mentioned that Bernie Sanders had him arrested for holding up the quote.

Speaker 0 claims that someone was put in solitary confinement for more than a hundred days for speaking about what was happening inside his country. He says he knows why this is happening: purely for votes and to keep people in power. Speaker 0 adds that after visiting Europe and making videos about what was happening, he anticipated similar moves in the United States. He recounts a sit-down interview with Tommy Robinson, who explains that the Labour Party in the UK, and the Democrat Party in the US, stay in power because they “tell these Muslims they can go ahead, do whatever they want.” He says a Muslim “should be more conservative than they would be a liberal” because they don’t stand for much of that progressive stuff, and that “they have Sharia law” above everything. According to him, if someone goes to a mosque with a thousand people, the mosque leader is told, “we’re gonna let you guys do whatever you want, just make sure you vote for us.” He asserts that, as a result, the leader of the mosque will lead everyone in the mosque to voting centers to vote for that candidate. He claims this is why in London the mayor is Muslim and many surrounding towns are Muslim, and that they actually have courts practicing Sharia law. He says he anticipated this would happen in America as well, and mentions Mundami as an example. Speaker 0 then notes Mundami advocated for making childcare more affordable when running for office. He questions what is known about childcare now, describing daycare centers as “complete frauds.” He says he anticipated the current development and that people are now starting to see it in America. Speaker 0 explains that after he was pressed to give his opinion, people began loving it, even though he had not intended to speak out. He says he was originally just going to ask people questions, but they turned his journalism into activism, which he says forced his hand. He says he feels compelled to continue. Speaker 1 cautions, advising not to let them force him into something he thinks they don’t want him to do, referencing what he is currently doing. He concludes that they would rather have an activist than a competitor.

The speaker questions where the alleged Nobel Peace Prize winner is when Venezuela is attacked by US imperialism, asking, “Where are these countries that have not spoken?” They state that as workers they demand respect and are marching because they believe in democracy. They recall voting on July 28 for President Nicolás Maduro and note that all sectors of the country recognized the victory. They demand that the US government, imperialism, and all transnationals—whom they claim are behind this—return President Nicolás Maduro to them safe and sound.

Speaker 0 argued that Maduro was not democratically elected and was not cracking down on drug trafficking to the U.S. and other countries, contrasting this with Honduras’ crackdown on drug trafficking supported by agencies like the DEA and Southcom, which earned praise for the Honduran government. The discussion then turned to U.S. policy. Speaker 0 asked whether the interviewee supports what the Trump administration did, or believes there is a line that should not be crossed. They noted that the U.S. military action against Maduro—bombing the country, entering, capturing Maduro, killing members of his government, and taking him to jail—was seen by some as positive, with Maduro described as a criminal who destroyed the country and economy. Speaker 1 responded by focusing on the human impact in Venezuela and other Latin American countries. They stated that a large portion of the population has suffered, with a notable number of people migrating from Venezuela and Honduras. They asserted that elections in Venezuela were stolen by Maduro’s regime, stating that the opposition’s poll results were stored in the cloud and the government did not want to see them because they knew they would lose. They described this as not democracy. They added that, since Hondurans left the country due to trafficking, vessels by sea and illegal flights were bringing jobs to Honduras, but also causing deaths and bloodshed. They argued that if the Trump administration framed Drug Trafficking as terrorism, it was warranted because the drug flow to the United States harmed not only U.S. citizens but also Honduras, which faced the highest death toll in fifteen years due to drugs coming through its borders, largely from Venezuela, and that nothing was done about this by prior administrations. Speaker 0 then asked for the stance on U.S. intervention in general: should intervention be allowed only in certain cases (e.g., Maduro), or should there be no U.S. intervention in Latin America under any president? Speaker 1 shared a Venezuelan friend’s view that there are no options to change Venezuela and that intervention might be necessary if there is no other way to save Venezuela. From a Honduran perspective, they believed Trump’s actions helped not only Honduras but also other Central American and regional countries along the drug-trafficking routes, by reducing corruption, bloodshed, and deaths. They argued that the political machinery Chavez created and used to stall elections in other Latin American countries had previously gone unchecked by the U.S., and that Trump faced Maduro with a confrontation. They concluded that many people in the world do not know what has been happening in Venezuela and its impact on the region. They stated that Trump confronted Maduro, who now has a chance to defend himself in a trial, and emphasized the issue of sovereignty for every country.

A Venezuelan American speaker describes the impact of the regime on their family and millions of others. Their family lost everything—work, savings, investments—wiped out by a narco dictatorship that has held Venezuela in a death grip for over twenty-five years. The Venezuelan exodus is described as the second largest displacement crisis on Earth after Syria, a humanitarian disaster and not just tragedy. The regime has jailed hundreds of political prisoners and thousands have been murdered for speaking out. More than a third of the population has fled, not for opportunity or the American dream, but to survive because staying often means death. The speaker contends Venezuela is not merely a collapsed state but an occupied one, with territory, natural resources, and institutions overrun by hostile foreign powers: Iranian militias, Chinese corporations, Russian intelligence, all exploiting the country with impunity. Venezuela, they argue, is no longer a local crisis but a geopolitical threat endangering the Western Hemisphere, a launchpad for authoritarian expansion in the Americas. Amid this, Maria Corina Machado is highlighted as a leader who dared to push for freedom. In 2024, she supposedly led a peaceful democratic uprising that won the election. Her team allegedly smuggled physical voting receipts out of the country—hard proof of victory the regime attempted to bury. The speaker says her courage has sparked belief among millions of Venezuelans that change is possible. Some people have questioned Machado’s decision to dedicate her Nobel Prize to Donald Trump. The speaker accepts the criticism but argues it was a brilliant strategic move on the global political stage. Machado is portrayed as understanding Trump’s character, his campaign for the prize, and the symbolic, personal value of the recognition to him. The claim is that this gesture might keep Trump’s attention focused on Venezuela at a time when U.S. presence and pressure in the Caribbean is rising. The dedication is described not as flattery or optics, but as a strategic act to protect and preserve a form of power that could shift history, grounded in the belief that the ultimate aim is freedom. The speaker emphasizes that Machado is not asking for a U.S. invasion or war; Venezuela is already invaded and held hostage by a narco state with foreign agents and enemies of democracy—Russians, Iranians, Chinese—operating freely to expand influence across Latin America. Machado is calling for the support of the only military capable of countering that threat, framed as liberation rather than imperialism. The argument is that the fight is for Venezuela’s life, not theory or politics, and that the world should recognize what’s at stake. The fight for Venezuela is a fight for freedom, democracy, and continental stability, and if liberty, human dignity, and peace in the Americas matter, Venezuela’s fight must matter to all.

Speaker 1 describes a decision to follow conscience after twenty years in the military, mostly deployed to the Middle East. He explains that after multiple deployments he realized “we weren't there for the reasons that our government told us” and that there was no vital national interest in the current fight. He made a promise to himself about twenty years ago not to send young Americans off to die on foreign battlefields if he ever had a position of responsibility. When given that opportunity, he decided to resign, stating he did not want to send others to die in wars he believed were not in the nation’s interest. Speaker 0 notes their Catholic faith and mentions recent comments by the Holy Father highlighting concerns for innocent civilians harmed by conflict, including the killing of Father Pierre in Lebanon. The question is asked whether faith community or religious leaders’ support has helped. Speaker 1 responds that the support has been huge and that the resignation gained more traction than he expected. He emphasizes that although the decision was not made lightly, faith helped him hear “God's voice” and guided him to take action, which made the act feel easy and liberating. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 has hope for America. Speaker 1 affirms having a great deal of hope, calling this an exciting moment. He highlights the power of technology to connect like‑minded people and give them a voice, despite potential downsides. He notes the significant presence and enthusiasm of young people in the room, expressing optimism about the next generation. Speaker 1 outlines what he believes must happen moving forward: during the midterm season and as the war progresses, people should be on their knees in prayer, then take action once upright. He argues that leaders must hear the public’s stance against this war and the lack of a vital national security interest, calling for the troops to come home and for efforts toward peace in the region. He asserts a desire to avoid “twenty plus more years of bloodletting” and urges people from all political parties to pressure representatives to oppose continued overseas wars. Speaker 1 clarifies that he is not advocating pacifism; if the country is attacked or there is an imminent threat, actions will be taken. The core message is that the nation must not continue down the current path, and making this stance clear to leaders is essential to preserving hope.

Speaker 0 presented a letter to the president, stating it was sent to the Nobel Prize Committee. The letter nominates the president for the Peace Prize, which Speaker 0 believes is well deserved. The president thanked Speaker 0, expressing that the nomination was very meaningful, especially coming from Speaker 0.

The speaker denies ordering the assassination of Alexei Navalny and argues that their country does not have a habit of assassinating people. They also question whether the arrest and detention of 450 individuals who entered the congress with political demands is a form of persecution for their political opinions.

Speaker 0: Happy memories are the ones where protocol didn't matter, like Cuba watching faster. Speaker 1: He's in power because of his incredible charisma.

Speaker 0: The discussion turns to how long you plan to stay in public life. Speaker 1: I don’t measure it by time, but by missions and tasks. I’m supported by a great majority of the people in the country, and that support comes despite foreign reporting. That is why I keep winning elections. When people say I might be a king, I respond that I’m not a king—I have to get elected, for God’s sake. I have great support at home: my wife is incredible, she’s a lioness; my two boys support me; and the people support me. Speaker 0: What do they support you for? Speaker 1: They want me to complete the quest for peace. They understand that I really liberated Israel’s economy from stagnant semi-socialism to become one of the most remarkable founts of creativity, innovation, and technology in the world. We have unbelievable technology today, and we now have an opportunity. Israel was a country with $17,000 per capita when I took over as foreign minister; I had a brief stint there. Today it’s going to cross $60,000 per capita. It’s still a way to go, but that’s a change that no country experienced because of the free market revolution that I introduced here. Speaker 0: There’s a sense of an upcoming revolution. Speaker 1: I see a much greater revolution coming. It’s here, it’s not coming; it’s already here. All the wondrous technologies we have—some of them are very frightening. I’ve talked to the leaders of AI in the world, and you ask yourself, there are so many blessings in this, but there could be a curse. The task is to challenge it, or to channel it into the blessings that Israel can give itself and the world. I think there’s another revolution coming, and I tend to steer it along with the achievement of a broader peace. These are two enormous tasks that I’d like to take on. And when history is within reach, you don’t step aside; you step forward. And that’s what I’m doing.

Speaker 0 initiates by linking events in Venezuela and Israel to broader regional dynamics, including Iran, and asks the ambassador for his reaction to the military and law enforcement operation in Venezuela. Speaker 1 responds that his first reaction was to praise the lord and thank president Trump. He explains that many people may not connect the issue to the Middle East, but asserts that Hezbollah is very active in Venezuela. He states there has been a twenty-year partnership between Iran and Venezuela under two previous dictators, describing the ties as deep. He claims Hezbollah operates in 12 different countries throughout South America. He emphasizes that this is not just a threat in the Western Hemisphere but also a threat to the Middle East. He argues that the president’s action against Venezuela addresses narco-terrorism and the deaths of Americans from drugs, and he contends that it will “make life for those of us living in The Middle East much better, much safer” by taking Maduro out. He connects this to Hezbollah’s activity, saying Hezbollah is active in Venezuela and targeting Jewish people all over South America, and that those tentacles can reach into the United States. He concludes that this development is good news for America and for the world.

The speaker is asked if they would abuse power as retribution, and they respond by saying they wouldn't, except for day 1 when they want to close the border and drill. They clarify that this isn't retribution, but rather their plan. The speaker is then asked if they would be a dictator, and they deny it, saying they won't be except for day 1 when they will close the border and drill. The interviewer suggests that this sounds like going back to their previous policies as president.

The speaker hoped Trump would be president because the alternative was unpalatable. The speaker states that for six years since leaving Belize, they have never stated why they left. While on the run in Belize, the speaker claims to have learned from friends in the US Embassy that they were not to be allowed entry, allegedly on orders from Hillary Clinton. The speaker says the Belizean government raided their property in 2012, shot their dog, abused them, and destroyed $500,000 worth of property over a bogus charge. Afterward, the speaker says they donated laptops loaded with spyware to government secretaries and gained control of the government computer system. The speaker claims they discovered the Minister of National Defense was the largest drug trafficker in Central America and the Minister of Immigration was the largest human trafficker.

Speaker 0: The people are finally free; the people cry for their freedom. Thanks to the United States for liberating us, and long live freedom. Speaker 1: Hey, the dictator has fallen, finally we are free. Long live a free Venezuela. Thank you, God, thank you. Hey, the dictator fell at last. Granadito, brother, this is real, we are free. Look, look at the people. Long live a free Venezuela. Thanks to God, this is for all who endured; it has been achieved.