TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

One speaker recounts that he did not like Bibi Netanyahu, describing Netanyahu as a destructive force and saying he was appalled by what was happening in Gaza, and that Netanyahu was using the United States to prosecute wars for the benefit of his country, which he called shameful and embarrassing and bad for the United States, a view he resented. He also notes that he didn’t hate Netanyahu. After that speech, there was a sharp backlash against Charlie Kirk and, to a lesser extent, the speaker, with Kirk having about $100 million in donors and being heavily dependent on them because his project was nonprofit. They went after him and tormented him, while a small, very intense group offended by the speech tormented Charlie Kirk until the day he died.

Speaker 0 criticizes the hypocrisy of the speech and accuses President Joe Biden of warmongering by allocating $100 billion in funding for Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine. Speaker 1 tries to calm the situation and encourages a conversation after the event. Speaker 0 insists that the American people's voices need to be heard and claims that the president does not represent them. Speaker 1 disagrees and states that Speaker 0's opinion is not the only one. Speaker 2 joins the conversation and supports Speaker 0's view. Speaker 1 argues that Speaker 0's actions disrupt others' opportunities and claims it is not free speech. The discussion becomes heated, with Speaker 0 mentioning historical events and Speaker 1 dismissing their relevance. The conversation ends abruptly.

Speaker 0 says Charlie bridged foreign policy gaps due to "genuine affection for Israel," and he privately expressed that he "love Israel." He argued, "we should not have another forever war, regime change war against Iran," and that view made him approachable because "this person doesn't hate me. It doesn't need to get existential. It's not about disliking me or some weird bigotry." He urged continuing in "the spirit that he operated in, which is one of love for other people, including people we disagree with." Speaker 1 notes Charlie was "a hardliner on immigration" who "wanted us to control our borders as much as possible" and who "wanted us to ramp up the deportations." He recalls Charlie asking, "why aren't the deportations higher? Why aren't you doing more?" He adds, "I'm a free citizen. I love you guys. I supported you guys, and I'm going to use my platform to try to accomplish as much good as I possibly can." He concludes, "I think that made him such an effective operator."

I'm trying to end the destruction of your country, but it’s disrespectful to come to the Oval Office and attack the administration that's trying to help. You're enforcing conscription because of manpower problems; you should be thanking the president for trying to bring this conflict to an end. I've seen the propaganda tours you put on. Is it disrespectful to try to prevent the destruction of your country? During war, everyone has problems, even us. But you're in a bad position. You don't have the cards right now, but with us, you start having cards. You're gambling with the lives of millions and risking World War Three. You are gambling with World War Three. Have you even said thank you? You campaigned against us in Pennsylvania. Offer some appreciation for the U.S. and the president trying to save your country.

With respect, I think it's disrespectful to come into the Oval Office and attack the administration that's trying to prevent the destruction of your country. You're forcing conscripts to the front lines because of manpower problems. You should be thanking the President for trying to bring an end to this conflict. During war, everyone has problems. But don't tell us what we're going to feel. You're in no position to dictate that. You will feel our influence. You're gambling with the lives of millions and with World War III. What you're doing is very disrespectful to this country. Have you said thank you even once? You went to Pennsylvania and campaigned for the opposition in October. Offer some appreciation for the United States and the president who's trying to save your country.

In the discussion, Speaker 1 argues that Iran’s objective is simply to survive; their strategy is to continue lobbing missiles, launching drones, and striking back as the U.S. approaches within Iran’s vicinity. He contends Iran has maintained command and control, dispersed forces, and possesses a large and enduring supply of missiles and drones, so the minimal victory for Iran is to endure the conflict. When asked what the U.S. should do to win, Speaker 1 criticizes bombastic rhetoric about U.S. superiority and questions the efficacy of regime change through bombing. He suggests that killing the supreme leader backfires by galvanizing the population and Shiites worldwide, noting Iran’s developed succession mechanisms that compensate for leadership losses. He argues that attempts to destroy Iran or disintegrate its society are misguided and that, if the U.S. pushes toward such aims, it may trigger greater confrontation with China and Russia. He also implies mixed signals from U.S. leadership, contrasting expectations under Biden with actual actions, and contemplates a similar pattern under Trump. Speaker 2 adds that President Trump could claim success by neutralizing key figures like the Ayatollah, but suggests that Israel’s preferences are driving U.S. policy, implying limited autonomy for America. He notes the risk of being drawn back into conflict and emphasizes uncertainty about public perception as the war continues. He remarks on the presence of pro-war voices and social media pushback, interpreting it as a sign that the audience may be “over the target.” Speaker 0 seeks a military assessment of the current state: the Iranian capacity, the Israeli position, and American casualty figures. Speaker 1 assesses Israel as internally distressed: internal unrest, exhausted armed forces, and a large exodus of citizens; he predicts Israel faces an ominous future and foresees Israel possibly deteriorating before Iran. He describes Israel’s use of mercenaries and acknowledges substantial damage on both sides, with Netanyahu’s visibility limited. In the broader Persian Gulf, Speaker 1 states that deterrence has failed among regional powers such as the Emirates and Saudi Arabia. The United States is perceived as hampered by a long logistical footprint; uncertainty about missile stocks and intercepts persists, but Speaker 1 asserts that Iran can sustain war for a long time and that bombing alone will not compel Iranian capitulation. He foresees intensified U.S. troop and firepower deployment, including three carrier battle groups over the next two weeks, to replace the current forces. Overall, the conversation centers on Iran’s resilience, the limited likelihood that bombing will force regime change, the risk of broader great-power involvement, and growing weariness and strategic complications for all sides, with Iran poised to endure and possibly prevail in the long term.

The speaker states that the promise was to put America first, and believes there are still voices in the administration, such as J.D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, and RFK Junior, who could prevail. However, they were not persuasive in this case, but somebody was. The speaker claims that APAC, the Israeli lobby in congress, is very persuasive. The speaker observes that their colleagues' social media feeds all look the same, tweeting the same message about supporting Israel.

With all due respect, I find it disrespectful that you come to the Oval Office and try to argue in front of the American media. You're forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for trying to bring an end to this conflict. During war, everyone has problems. You might not feel it now, but you will in the future. Don't tell us what we're going to feel. You're in no position to dictate that. You're in a bad position and don't have the cards right now. You're gambling with the lives of millions and risking World War Three. What you're doing is very disrespectful. Have you said thank you? You campaigned for the opposition. Offer some appreciation for the United States and the president who's trying to save your country.

The conversation centers on accusations about Venezuela’s leadership and the international response to Middle East conflict. Speaker 0 asserts that “the woman” who is supposedly taking over Venezuela is pro Israeli and pro Likud, noting she signed a cooperation deal in 2020 with Netanyahu’s Likud party and fully supports Netanyahu’s war on Gaza, asking, “This is why we're seeing the bombing of them right now?” Speaker 1 counters by outlining a pattern of what they view as permissive international inaction. They assert that “The UN has allowed the bombing and destruction of Beirut and Lebanon. They've allowed the bombing and destruction of Syria. Every day, they permit the bombing of Yemen's Arab people.” They then ask what major Western capitals—Berlin, Paris, London, Washington—will say as they “keep encouraging the Hitler of the twenty first century now against the noble peaceful people of Iran.” They declare, “The Bolivarian humanist peaceful people of Venezuela say no to war,” urging that the madness must be stopped. Speaker 1 then addresses Israelis and Jews directly, framing themselves as a Christian and Sephardic heir who tells them to “stop Netanyahu's madness.” They state that only “the people of Israel can stop this madness.” They question where warmongering will lead and warn about the consequences of racism, intolerance, hatred, and violence. They ask whether missiles and bombs will subdue the will of the world’s peoples and call for an end to aggression against Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Yemenis, and the noble people of Iran. The speaker emphasizes that “The ball is in the court of Israel's Jewish people” and urges an end to this “immoral war, this criminal war.” The exchange conveys a sense of urgency and moral appeal, framed as a call for stopping perceived aggression and imperial complicity, while highlighting the interconnections between Venezuelan solidarity with peaceful movements and opposition to ongoing bombardments in the region. We shall see.

Netanyahu wants to fight Iran to remain in office indefinitely. The speaker hopes Trump, or anyone, will defuse the situation. The U.S. needs to convince Middle Eastern allies of its support, but undeclared wars victimizing civilians are not a good solution. The speaker believes Iran must be stopped from obtaining nuclear weapons, something they tried to do with some success. However, the speaker is against the constant killing of civilians who cannot defend themselves and "just want a chance to live."

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss Charlie's approach. They note his genuine affection for Israel, and his private belief: "I love I don't think we should have another forever war, regime change war against Iran," which helped him bridge foreign-policy gaps because "this person doesn't hate me" and "it's not about disliking me or some weird bigotry." They caution against outsiders claiming to represent his cause. Charlie is described as a hardliner on immigration—"why aren't the deportations higher?"—yet he remained a constructive voice, saying, "I'm a free citizen. I love you guys," and using pressure to push for good outcomes rather than divisiveness. He worried about turning Iran strikes into a "regime change war," supported Israel, and, while backing strikes on a nuclear facility, insisted "no more" and "this can't become a bigger thing." He "never bent. He never became better" and kept integrity to the very end.

Speaker 0 opens with a morning political vignette: “Trump's in the Nesset, kissing rings made of stone,” framing a sense of urgency and ceremonial symbolism in the current moment. Speaker 1 continues with a personal and relational angle, referencing Miriam, “that gal with the gold,” and asking who she loves more, with Miriam’s response described as evasive, “dodged like a spy in the Tel Aviv night because her heart's in the desert, not the red, white, and right.” Speaker 2 pushes the geopolitical thread further: “A 100 milliliter embassies on the move, Jerusalem's ours now,” signaling rapid diplomatic shifts and the claim of Jerusalem as a focal point of policy. Speaker 1 adds a note about loyalty and consequence: “Born in hay for not Houston loyalty takes its toll,” suggesting costs tied to allegiance. Speaker 2 weighs in on political calculation: “Trump jokes he's conflicted but we all know the score 60,000,000,000 in the bank Buys a veto at the door, pardon for Nathaniel. Oh, hell, why not annex the lot? While vets sleep on sidewalks and kids dodge the rock.” The lines juxtapose financial influence with veto power, potential pardons, and stark social consequences faced by veterans and children, implying a cynical view of policy driven by money and power. Speaker 4 enters with an accusatory frame about influence and leadership: “Patriot backed the man with the golden hair crown.” This mirrors a loyalty narrative around a powerful figure associated with wealth or status. Speaker 5 continues the critique, claiming deceptive outcomes: “Thought he drained the swamp, but he's sinking right down.” He points to Adelson as a “puppet master” who corrupts messaging from political slogans like “great again” into “great for the trip,” and links foreign funding to shaping narratives, from social media suppression to organized protests. Speaker 6 broadens the frame beyond simple red versus blue politics: “Wake up, y'all. It ain't red versus blue. It stars for the stripes or the star David Cruz.” The speaker posits a mixed or cross-cutting allegiance that transcends traditional partisan lines, leading to an exhortation about loyalty: “So here's to Donnie the deal. Make us supreme. Chasing peace in the sand while we chase the dream.” Speaker 6 closes with a forthright shift in allegiance: “Next time he embers my loyalty, says tell America's Israel first. Yeah. That's the tune he's humming. God bless the donors because the rest of us, we're just funding.” The closing lines emphasize a perceived prioritization of Israel in policy, underscored by gratitude toward donors and a sense that others are funding the enterprise.

Speaker 0 expresses utmost respect for the president, noting he has given many people hope to beat the bad guys and to do it with head held high and integrity intact. He shares that the president is from Queens, New York, like him, and that the president has shown that even in the worst times you can come back from it. The speaker says the president has been through publicly having to constantly be lied on, and that it’s not funny. He emphasizes that unless you are in that person’s shoes you’ll never understand what it feels like, as the person is a human being with a family who has to read those lies. He states that this administration is full of people with heart and soul, and they make him proud. The vice president is praised as well; the speaker loves both of them. They are described as powerful, smart, and strong, with an uncanny ability to relate to people. They haven’t lost touch with the world and remain connected to what’s happening with younger and older people, with the richer and the not-so-rich. They have the ability to stay real and make us feel proud to be American.

Speaker 0 argues that most Americans oppose the war, citing polling and the president’s failure to make a case for it. The speaker asserts that people don’t feel threatened by Iran and don’t fear an Iranian ballistic missile landing in the United States. The speaker lists a set of American concerns: 72% can’t afford health insurance, 58% can’t afford car insurance, 67% live paycheck to paycheck, 31% can’t afford back taxes, and 50% carry massive credit card debt. They state they campaigned with the president and were among the few Republicans supporting Donald Trump when others opposed him in a primary, emphasizing a “America first” stance focused on American problems rather than foreign countries or foreign peoples. The speaker expresses concern for the Iranian people and hopes for a government that treats women fairly, but asserts that “we have seen over 100 little girls killed at a school from a bomb,” and claims that “America and Israel attacked Iran,” implying this is not good for Iranian women. They criticize the president’s claim that the Iranian people will topple their regime, saying the Iranian people won’t topple their regime while being bombed by the United States and Israel in an unprovoked attack, which the speaker claims is true. They reference Pete Hegseth’s comment that the U.S. did not start the war, but the speaker counters that America and Israel definitely started it and states, “you can’t lie that away to the American people.” The speaker declares being irate and furious about the situation, noting the national debt approaching $40 trillion and questioning the war’s cost. They argue that American troops have been killed and murdered for foreign countries, and that four Americans have died for Israel and the Iranian people, not for Americans. The speaker laments the loss of American military members and acknowledges the families who may be grieving. They mention Trump’s past statements that he doesn’t think he will go to heaven, and question what that implies about his decision-making, given that the president has said he may place troops on the ground and that what began as “a few day war” could extend to four weeks or more. The speaker recalls prior commitments by JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard to end foreign wars and regime change, but notes that “we’re a year in” and yet “we’re in another fucking war” with Americans killed. The speech ends with a call for America to “rip the Band Aid off” and to have a serious conversation about who is making these decisions and for whom.

With all due respect, it's disrespectful to come to the Oval Office and attack the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of my country. You're forcing conscripts to the front lines because of manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for trying to bring an end to this conflict. During war, everyone has problems. Even you, but you have a nice ocean. You're in a bad position now and you don't have the cards. With us, you start having cards. You're gambling with the lives of millions of people and with World War Three. What you're doing is disrespectful to this country. I've said thank you many times, even today. I ask that you offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who's trying to save your country.

The speaker expresses reluctance to discuss Gaza due to the intense emotions surrounding the issue, contrasting it with the perceived lack of emotionality in Sweden and the UK. The speaker feels pressured, fearing the U.S. is nearing war due to a political leader in a faraway country. The speaker recounts receiving a threatening message and voices frustration with a minority defining the terms of the conversation, particularly regarding Iranian enrichment and Israel. The speaker accuses some individuals of lying and claims that Trump's peace process was terrible. The speaker defends Steve Witkoff, refuting claims that he is working for Qatar, and emphasizes Witkoff's pure motives in supporting Donald Trump and the United States. The speaker was compelled to speak out against accusations of anti-Semitism against Witkoff, deeming them untrue and intolerable.

Speaker 0 raises a question about accountability for Israel and mentions Jeffrey Epstein’s dealings with Mossad. Speaker 1 asks, without specifics, whether there are forces that tried to influence him to stop what he’s doing now. Speaker 0 responds that they wouldn’t vote for foreign aid and foreign war funding, and they were upset because he said no. He states: “I’m not voting to fund the Ukraine war ever,” and “Israel’s doing just fine. We don’t need to give them a penny, not a single penny, nor do we need to give it to any other country, but they get mad at me for that.”

Netanyahu wants to fight Iran to remain in office indefinitely. The speaker hopes Trump, or anyone, will defuse the situation. The U.S. needs to convince Middle Eastern allies of its support, but undeclared wars victimizing civilians are not a good solution. The speaker believes Iran must be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons, something they previously attempted to do successfully. However, this does not require constant killing of civilians who cannot defend themselves and simply want to live.

Speaker recounts meeting with Charlie: it wasn’t about 'this is what you should say,' but 'talking through the issues' as Charlie asked questions and began forming positions. He would 'approach this issue this way' and decide his stance on topics like 'USA to Israel,' which speaker opposed, wanting it drawn down; Netanyahu has said he wants it drawn down. Charlie would articulate his position more quickly than the speaker. They discussed why is Israel actually an American America's interest to support Israel and explored approaches to justify it, not just those favored by Israelis or the Israeli government, but ways to help Charlie feel comfortable with a position. Charlie is a 'listener' who believes in the 'open marketplace of ideas'—his existential core—and he platformed Tucker Carlson; silencing any opinion was 'anathema' to him because of truth seeking. 'For all of us, our best traits we often have to a fault.'

I want to remind you, especially younger writers, that you don't have to conform or be afraid to criticize your government and society. It's popular to criticize Republicans and Trump, but we should also remember that both Republicans and Democrats have contributed to the 13 wars we've started in the past 30 years, costing trillions of dollars and countless lives. This system, which some call the military-industrial complex, perpetuates war and chaos in the world. We've intervened in over 100 countries, causing regime changes and economic turmoil. This system is leading to the destruction of our planet and our own extinction. Despite the challenges, if you believe in what you're saying and stay true to your values, you can make a difference. Stay true to yourself, listen to your inner voice, and never give up on peace, decency, and the truth.

I don't think we should have another forever war, regime change war against Iran. Don't do that. That turns everybody off. You don't help your own cause by doing that, and it's also literally untrue. The spirit that he operated in, which is one of love for other people, including people we disagree with, and don't make it, you know, as small bore as that. Charlie was a hardliner on immigration. He wanted us to control our borders as much as possible. He wanted us to ramp up the deportations. Why aren't the deportations higher? Why aren't you doing more? I'm a free citizen. I love you guys. I supported you guys, and I'm going to use my platform to try to accomplish as much good as I possibly can. I think that made him such an effective operator. And I would talk to Charlie.

The speaker discusses the complexity of changing people's opinions, using the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an example. Despite presenting evidence and investigations, individuals remain steadfast in their beliefs. The speaker mentions the events at Alali hospital, where evidence is emerging to determine responsibility, but it fails to sway people's opinions. The speaker, who works as a journalist and fact-checker, finds it challenging to make an impact through their work. Speaker 1 adds that it is too late for the truth to matter, as people have already chosen their side and the truth that aligns with their beliefs.

With all due respect, I find it disrespectful for you to come here and litigate this in front of the American media. You're forcing conscripts to the front lines because of manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for trying to de-escalate this conflict. During war, everyone faces issues, even you, though you may not feel it now, you will in the future. Don't tell us what we're going to feel, you're in no position to dictate that. We're going to feel very good and very strong. From the beginning of the war, you have not been in a good position. You don't have the cards right now. You're gambling with the lives of millions of people, with World War Three, and it is very disrespectful. Have you said thank you even once? You campaigned for the opposition. Offer some appreciation for the United States and the president who is trying to save your country.

Good faith is the measure: 'If you were good faith, you're on his team.' They warn against appropriating his memory for parochial ends. He bridged foreign policy gaps with genuine affection for Israel: 'I love Israel. I don't think we should have another forever war, regime change war against Iran.' Charlie was a hardliner on immigration, wanting to 'control our borders' and asking, 'why aren't the deportations higher?' He believed 'Pressure is a friend. Pressure is somebody who cares deeply about the issue.' He warned that Iran strikes could become a regime change war: 'This can't become a bigger thing. This can't become a broader thing.' He could support Israel and 'did eventually support the strikes on the nuclear facility while simultaneously saying no more.' Donors to Turning Point were 'very tough on him... under enormous pressure.' 'He never bent. He never became better.' His integrity 'to the very end.'

Charlie Kirk's perspective on Israel was not starting to shift. It had shifted entirely. Israel knew that. Turning Point USA knew that because Charlie was explicit. He wrote of his deep love for Israel. About forty eight hours before Charlie Kirk died, Charlie informed people at Turning Point, as well as Jewish donors and a rabbi that he had no choice but to abandon the pro Israel cause outright. Charlie was done. He said it explicitly that he refused to be bullied anymore by the Jewish donors. Did he express that? Did he also express that he wanted to bring me, Candace Owens, back because he was standing up for himself? And then did he, just forty eight hours later, conveniently catch a bullet to the throat before our on stage reunion could happen?