reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker states that MAGA supporters are angered by their video and are trying to "hunt" them down. They say that MAGA supporters are commenting the location of their job on all of their videos, but the speaker no longer works there. The speaker says they were let go from their restaurant job because of the video. The speaker says they didn't even serve the MAGA table at the restaurant and didn't speak to them. The speaker asks why MAGA supporters are so angry that someone told them a certain cuisine isn't for them, that they would try to "dock" someone and make them and their coworkers feel unsafe because the speaker said that since they vote against Latinos, they shouldn't be able to enjoy Mexican food. The speaker asks MAGA supporters to leave their former job alone and to leave their coworkers and managers alone.

Speaker 0 describes having friends in the US embassy in Belize and knowing what was coming. He says he arranged with the head of security to enter the embassy, but the head of security told him, “we have it from the highest authority. We are not to allow you entry into the US embassy. Understand me.” He asserts, “Who was the highest authority in the state department? Hillary Clinton.” He emphasizes that he is an American citizen with “a fucking American passport,” stating, “I'm sorry. I'm not wanted in America. I've got no crimes in America. Is it not reason to say, I don't think I'm gonna vote for you?” Speaker 1 notes, “And yet you're here now.” Speaker 0 explains that for a month and a half he was on the run. He claims the government wanted to collect him because, after they raided his property in 2012 in the jungle, they shot his dog, abused him, and destroyed “a half million dollars worth of my property over a bogus charge.” He says he was pissed off and then “donated too many secretaries within the government laptop computers, really nice ones that were preloaded with viral spyware.” He contends that within a week, “the entire government computer system was in under my control. I was watching, monitoring, listening.” He continues that he was looking for information that they had set him up for that raid, and he didn’t find that. Instead, he discovered that “the minister of national defense was the largest drug trafficker in all of Central America, and the minister of immigration, the largest human trafficker.” Speaker 1 responds, “We don't wanna get killed by them either, so we're probably not—” and Speaker 0 agrees, “You're not gonna,” adding, “That's fine.”

Speaker asks, "if you hate this country so freaking much that you are willing to burn the American flag, why in the Sam Hale are you still here?" They say burning "the symbol that gives you the freedom to even do that is mind blowing." They pose a hypothetical: if you leave the US, assimilate in another country, and become a citizen, would you burn that country's flag if its leadership ticked you off? They add, "in most other countries, you don't have their constitution to shield you from stuff like this," and you would be "facing way, way harsher penalties," "even more than the one that Trump signed into law today about the one year jail time." They warn that burning this flag is opposite of preaching about how bad the country is, and urge the person to "scurry on somewhere else" to beg for same freedoms they're burning.

A restaurant worker recounts serving a table of MAGA supporters at the Mexican restaurant where they work. The worker questions why the customers would choose to eat food from a culture whose people they are trying to expel from the country. The worker suggests they should instead eat unseasoned chicken and green bean casserole.

The speaker encounters someone from Haiti and questions why they are going to America. The speaker expresses frustration with people disrespecting the country and suggests that those who only want free benefits should not come. The speaker criticizes the lack of vetting and implies that the person from Haiti is seeking free stuff. The video ends with the person from Haiti asking not to be killed as they enter America.

Speaker 0 describes the situation as not a lone incident but an intentional design to start an internal component of what he calls a color revolution, one among many to expect. Speaker 1 asks for clarification on what is meant by a color revolution, who is driving it against the United States, and who is in charge. Speaker 0 replies that a hard look back to 2016 under Obama is necessary and believes Obama is still in the mix, with John Brennan as the operational commander on the battlefield in the United States. He says there are indicators from Brennan’s statements and actions, and that Obama is part of the command structure. He mentions an international component he calls the axis of resistance, consisting of communists emanating from the CCP’s control and communists inside the United States, arguing that there are communists in Congress who voted in 1992 not to vote against socialism. He adds Islamists, narco cartels, and terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, FARC, and the Cartel del Sol as part of this axis, with people at the “pincer” of it organizing and controlling the activities. He asserts the color revolutions in Ukraine as an example and claims the war there is a “total loser war” that must end. He says Trump must tell his team to ensure executive orders are implemented at all levels and emphasizes the phrase, “lawyers advise, leaders decide,” urging President Trump to gather all relevant agencies (CIA, DNI, Sec War, Sec State, Sec Commerce, and especially the Secretary of Homeland Security) and make a decision. He states that the color revolution is a long-term effort that accelerated after Trump’s 2016 victory, with ongoing actions described as economic warfare, cyber warfare, and political interference. He cites the New Virginia Majority, a communist movement inside the United States aiming to place communists in local government and school boards, and mentions contrived cultural shifts including Islamification in various parts of the country, including Florida, Dearborn, and Houston. He asserts Islam is not compatible with Christianity and Sharia law is not compatible with constitutional law. Speaker 1 agrees there were people who served their country; she supports removing those who served but opposes letting any of them into the United States, emphasizing a different culture. Speaker 2 agrees. Speaker 1 notes the large Muslim population spread across many regions, suggesting others could have taken Afghan refugees, but questions the appropriateness of bringing them in. Speaker 2 states it is not surprising that a CIA-trained individual who previously appeared untroubled could appear in Washington, D.C. to shoot at troops, and explains a broader pattern: old-school descendants became part of a strike force, loyal at one time but funded and equipped by the U.S., who were later abandoned during the Obama–Biden period. He describes withdrawal from bases and overnight equipment removal, followed by a lack of transition to self-sufficiency, leading to brought-in desperate fighters who may be paid to kill National Guard members. He asserts these events demonstrate a deep state pattern involving Biden, Obama, and Brennan.

If you dislike America, leave. We don't want you here. If you don't want to be here, go home. Some people are chanting in Arabic about the country they've chosen, but it's not satisfactory for them. We don't need them here.

The speaker states that MAGA supporters are angered by their video and are trying to "hunt" them down. They claim MAGA supporters are commenting the location of their job on all of their videos, but the speaker no longer works there. According to the speaker, they were let go from their restaurant job because of the video. The speaker says they didn't even serve the MAGA table at the restaurant and didn't speak to them. They are asking MAGA supporters to leave their former job, coworkers, and managers alone. The speaker is upset that MAGA supporters are allegedly trying to target them at their job because they said that since they vote against Latinos, they shouldn't be able to enjoy Mexican food.

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.

Trump's new executive order targets individuals on student visas or green cards who protest in the U.S. It’s perplexing that people come to the U.S. for opportunities, yet still wave their home country's flags and protest. If you want to protest, do it in your own country, not here. The U.S. provides food, shelter, and a better life, so focus on that. Concerns about foreign issues should not overshadow the benefits received in the U.S. Prioritize your life and family in this country.

The speaker reports they have been officially banned from entering the United Kingdom. They state the UK government, under Keirstarmer, deems their presence “not conducive to the public good,” and they express confusion over why being conducive to the public good is a requirement to enter a country. They compare this to thousands of illegal immigrants entering through the Channel daily, noting that “Nobody's asking them to be conducive to the public good,” yet they cannot go to the UK. The speaker mentions they did not apply for an EITA (likely a visa/permit) and had recently returned in September to join the Tommy Robinson rally where they spoke, intending to participate again in May, which now seems impossible. They describe the timing as suspicious, pointing out that three days earlier they posted about Kierst Armour calling out his hypocrisy for wanting to ban X because of women’s safety while allegedly allowing migrant gang rapes to happen. They imply this is connected to the ban as an act to ban free speech. They describe the situation as dystopian and emphasize the severe limitation of their freedom, noting that “as it says in email, I cannot appeal.” They stress they are not convicted of any crime, not under suspicion of any crime, and that the decision was made by Kirstarmer that someone like them is “not welcome in The UK.” The overall claim is that the ban is an abrupt, non-appealable restriction on their entry into the country, framed within accusations of political manipulation and hypocrisy by the UK government and Kier Starmer.

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.

If you dislike America, leave. We don't want you here. If you don't want to be here, go home. Some people are chanting in Arabic about this country they've chosen, but it's not satisfactory for them. We don't need them here.

The speaker describes undertaking a “stopover” which they characterize as an excursion in Iran, explaining that they had to “knock the hell out of them” because, in their view, the United States’ safety—and by extension the world’s safety—depended on it. They assert that this action was necessary to keep the country safe and to protect global security, framing it as an essential contribution that benefited the world. The narrator asserts that the world has not reciprocated this effort. They claim to have done a “great favor for the world,” and contrast that with a lack of reciprocity from others. A key part of their message centers on NATO, saying that the United States has given “billions and billions of dollars, trillions over the years.” In that context, they say they asked NATO for assistance, specifically for support with the streets, but contended that NATO did not want to get involved. The speaker implies that NATO’s reluctance to assist will have serious consequences, stating that this lack of involvement will “cost them dearly.” The remarks suggest a belief that the failure of others to participate or contribute will have notable negative repercussions for those parties in the future. The address closes with expressions of appreciation, with the speaker thanking everyone: “Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.” The overall message emphasizes a narrative of decisive action taken by the United States, a claim of asymmetrical reciprocity from international partners, and an expectation of consequences for those partners who chose not to assist.

The speaker, currently in Iraq, discusses the executive order and the locals' reaction to it. He shares a conversation he had with Iraqis who expressed their displeasure and stated that Americans would not be welcome in their country. They mentioned that locals would harm and potentially kill Americans if given the chance. The speaker questions why Americans would allow these individuals into their own country if they pose a threat. He urges people to consider the perspective and feelings of these cultures and countries. The speaker concludes by emphasizing the importance of understanding the situation on the ground in banned countries.

If you dislike America, leave. We don't want you here. If you don't want to be here, go home. Some people are chanting in Arabic about this country they've chosen, but it's not satisfactory for them. We don't need them here.

To the people of Iran, help is on the way. In a brief exchange, Speaker 1 questions whether a hat reading “Make Iran Great Again” was on Air Force One with President Trump over the weekend, asking, “Did you really have this hat on Air Force One with president Trump this weekend? The one that says am I reading that right? Does that say make Iran great again? Did you give that to the president?” Speaker 0 confirms, “I did.” He adds that Trump “is not Barack Obama. He’s not turning his back on the people of Iran who are demanding that their oppression end.” He then directs a warning toward the Ayatollah and “his thugs,” stating, “if you keep killing your people in defiance of president Trump, you’re gonna wake up dead.” The message concludes with the assertion that the regime “is on verge of falling.”

Speaker 0: I mean, Hezbollah, you know, bombed the embassy in, in Beirut and, including many Americans. So, I just feel that's quite inappropriate. Speaker 1: You are an Islamophobe. And although you live here, I want you to know as mayor, you are not welcome here. And the day you move out of the city will be the day that I launch a parade celebrating the fact that you moved out of the city because you are not somebody who believe in coexistence.

- Trump has been presenting optimistic updates about negotiations with Iran, despite Iran denying them, and there is a belief that Monday morning actions are an attempt to manipulate markets, keep oil prices low, and keep the stock market high. - If a weekend land invasion of Iran occurs, many military experts suspect US troops would have to land or parachute in, which would change gold demand and pricing dynamics. - Speaker 1 explains that a true war outcome would require ground troops to take control of territory, not just air strikes or bombs. He notes Trump promised no troops on the ground, but argues that regime change would be impossible without occupying the country, leading to higher American casualties and families affected. - He warns that sending troops would mean they would have to stay in Iran, creating a prolonged conflict akin to Iraq or Afghanistan, with no clear exit strategy and ongoing political and strategic problems. - He suggests that Trump could alternatively declare victory and withdraw, claiming the destruction of Iran’s military capabilities (no navy, no air force, no nuclear program) as a complete victory and greatest military achievement. - The discussion then notes that the Strait of Hormuz was open before the war, implying strategic stakes and continued vulnerability. - Speaker 0 points out that Iran has pledged not to allow US occupation and would fight back, describing Iran as a country of 90 million with rugged terrain and highly motivated, religiously committed people who could be willing to die for their country. - They acknowledge the assumption that Iranians are uniformly supportive of a US liberation, labeling that notion as crazy. - They conclude that there could be even greater anti-American sentiment in Iran now than a month ago, recognizing that the population’s reaction to war may be hostile despite US actions.

If you don't like America, leave. We don't want you here. If you don't want to be here, go home. People chanting in Arabic about the country they chose, but it's not good enough for them. We don't need you here.

An Iranian man states that the Islamic regime in Iran shut down the internet for over twelve hours. He says this is not the action of America or Israel, but of the Iranian government. He expresses worry for political prisoners and regular citizens, fearing the regime might seek revenge on its own people due to losing the war to Israel. He says Iranians hate the government and have been trying to overthrow it for 46 years. He clarifies that Israel is bombing IRGC and Islamic regime bases, not the Iranian people, and that Iranians support these actions. He claims the Iranian regime are evil people, and the people in Iran hate the regime. He accuses others of supporting the regime and wanting to put nuclear weapons in their hands.

A man at the gym was approached by an older man who told him that his shirt would offend immigrants. The man laughed and said that he is an immigrant from Iran who supports the president. The older man said that he was wrong. The man said that he also supports law and order. The older man then claimed that many in the military disagree with the president. The man responded that he is a veteran and that the military obeys the commander in chief. He clarified that he was not talking about immigrants, but illegal immigrants, as he waited his turn in a refugee camp. He stated that his family raised the American and Texas flags when they arrived. He told those who disagree to leave the country.

The speaker states they were asked how they could smuggle a terrorist into the United States or return one to the United States. The speaker finds the question preposterous. They claim they don't know how they could smuggle someone into the U.S. and assert they lack the power to return anyone to the United States. The speaker states they are not going to do it.

The speaker argues that intervention and bombing in the Middle East have led to attacks on the US. They question the construction of a large embassy and permanent bases in Iraq, comparing it to how the US would react if China did the same. They suggest that the US should consider how its actions would be perceived if done by another country. The speaker believes that the US's presence in the Middle East makes it an easier target for attacks. Another speaker disagrees, finding the statement extraordinary and denying that the US invited the 9/11 attacks. The first speaker mentions blowback from past actions and warns against ignoring the potential consequences of US actions abroad.