TruthArchive.ai - Related Post Feed
@iluminatibot - illuminatibot
CNN admits "vast majority" of US money to Ukraine is going to American companies. War is a racket. American companies = defense contractors = military industrial complex
Video Transcript AI Summary
The majority of the money from this gain is going to American companies and jobs. American companies like Lockheed Martin, which produces tanks and supports Ukraine's counter offensive, are benefiting from this increase in demand. As a result, Lockheed Martin plans to increase its workforce in Camden, Arkansas by 20%. This demonstrates that the money is going to America.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's worthwhile with all of this gaining, you know, some steam and public perception to be clear on some facts. 1st and foremost, the vast majority of this money is going to American companies and jobs, right? Because those are the people who are making the Abrams tanks, the and all and everything else. When you take Lockheed Martin, which makes behind bars and has been core to Ukraine's counter offensive, the company announced it's going to increase its workforce in Camden, Arkansas by 20% just because of this new demand. That is going to America.
@libsoftiktok - Libs of TikTok
Absolutely revolting headline from CNN. The spin The reality https://t.co/DiLd4mja4X
@Liz_Wheeler - Liz Wheeler
Here’s a story the MSM doesn’t want you to hear… https://t.co/0OiYpZwS2H
Video Transcript AI Summary
The FDA retracted statements calling Ivermectin a horse or cow drug ineffective against COVID. A medical emergency kit with Ivermectin and other medications is recommended for future supply chain issues. Use promo code "liz" for $30 off at twc.health/liz.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Here's a story the mainstream media doesn't want you to be talking about. Remember when the FDA told us that ivermectin was just a horse medicine, a cow medicine? They actually posted on social media and said, you're not a horse. You're not a cow. Seriously, y'all stop it.
And told us that Ivermectin was not effective against COVID even though studies showed that it was. Well, today, the FDA has been forced to retract those statements. They've actually been forced to delete those posts because they're false. See this? This medical emergency kit from the wellness company has Ivermectin in it.
Yes. The dreaded horse drug, the cow drug that is effective against COVID. I have this medical emergency kit, not only because it contains Ivermectin, but because it contains prescription medications that help treat over 30 other diseases and illnesses and infections. And who knows when either the FDA or the deep state or our supply chain is going to cause one of these medications to be in low supply. I highly recommend that you prepare for when I mean, we know this is gonna happen again, right?
The FDA, this this is their playbook. Be prepared. Get your medical emergency kit. If you use my promo code, liz, l I z, you get $30 off. Just go to twc dot health/liz, and use my promo code liz.
@BGatesIsaPyscho - Concerned Citizen
Legacy Media won’t show you this which is why you get your News from X https://t.co/3QuwHXrpfb
@RealAlexJones - Alex Jones
RFK JR. Devastates Military Industrial Complex By Explaining True Reasons Behind Russia / Ukraine War https://t.co/wLDVeOuKtE
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
The legacy media lied to you https://t.co/TuylN2IqYi
Video Transcript AI Summary
Are there states where women face prosecution for having an abortion? No. Do any states criminalize miscarriage or the care related to it? No. Are there states that criminalize removing an ectopic pregnancy or prohibit life-saving care for mothers? No. Women do not need to be actively dying for doctors to provide necessary care. There is concerning rhetoric that may deter women from seeking healthcare. Recently, Vice President Harris claimed women are being arrested for miscarriages. However, there is no evidence of any woman being arrested for this or for receiving healthcare related to it. Misleading examples can scare women away from necessary treatment.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: On this. Are there any states where women face prosecution for having an
Speaker 1: abortion? No.
Speaker 0: Are there any states that criminalize miscarriage? No. Or they care for any, for a miscarriage? No. Are there any states that criminalize removing an ectopic pregnancy?
No. Are there any states that prohibit life saving care for the mother? No. Are there any states where women have to be actively dying for for a doctor to be able to act for her care? No.
There's been a lot of rhetoric in this that I'm concerned pushes people away from getting access to health care. Vice president Harris in a speech recently said that women were being arrested in facing prosecution for experiencing miscarriages. Miss Sackler, do you know of a single instance where a woman has been arrested for having a miscarriage or getting health care for that?
Speaker 1: No. Treatment for miscarriage is allowed under the law, and there have been instances where, I think that one example of that that's been pointed to is misleading because the woman I think she was in Ohio. The charges against her were not abortion related, and so it it's misleading to use as an example.
Speaker 0: It's not only misleading, but it scares women away from getting access to health care, And it leads women to not go get health care treatment when they desperately need it.
@ByronYork - Byron York
CNN reports that X, under Elon Musk, is far more ideologically balanced than it was as Twitter. It looks like America! Making money, too. https://t.co/13LTXRoYn6
Video Transcript AI Summary
Elon Musk bought Twitter, now X, to reshape it in his own image. The platform's user demographics have shifted significantly; in 2022, 65% of news users were Democrats, while now it's nearly even, with 48% Democrats and 47% Republicans. This new balance better reflects the overall electorate. Additionally, Musk's net worth has skyrocketed from $252 billion to $314 billion in just two months, making him the richest person in history. While X may not be as popular, it aligns more closely with Musk's political views, and he is now considerably wealthier.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So the reason one of the big reasons he bought Twitter slash x is because he wanted to make it his own platform, remake it in his own image. And I think this really gets at it. Look at this, the party ID among those who regularly use x slash Twitter for news. Back in 2022, 65% of those who regularly used Twitter slash x for news were Democrats, just 31% were Republicans. Look at where we are today.
Just a completely different picture. Now, it's basically split between Democrats at 48%, Republicans at 47%. And what I should note, Mr. Berman, is this now, this new overall makeup, matches the overall electorate far better. And more than that, more than that, John, look at where Mr.
Musk's net worth is today versus where it was just 2 months ago. He is the richest man in the world by far. 2 months ago, look at this, his net worth was 252,000,000,000. Look at where we are today, 314,000,000,000. He is by far the richest man ever to be on this planet.
So yes, he's not as popular. Yes. Twitterx perhaps is not as popular, but it's a much different platform, one that more represents Elon Musk's, let's say, political instincts, and he is now a far wealthier man.
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
Amazing. Legacy media lies.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Reuters, the news agency that brings Americans so much of their news coverage about war, has a Palantir-like side business that receives $145 million in Pentagon contracts. At what point do we call Reuters a military contractor? https://t.co/Ro4s2k7yKL
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
The Biden Admin paid Reuters over $300 million in government contracts. 11 different Biden government agencies targeted Elon's businesses. All 11 agencies paid millions to Reuters. Reuters then won the Pulitzer Prize for "their work on Elon Musk and misconduct at his businesses" https://t.co/3IGGtuHv7L
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
Awesome
@amuse - @amuse
DEFENSE: Secretary Pete Hegseth has EVICTED the New York Times, NPR, NBC, and Politico from their Pentagon offices to make room for One America News Network, the New York Post, Breitbart News Network, and HuffPost. https://t.co/hmDoBvHzJh
@SystemUpdate_ - System Update
“There is no USAID project on God’s green earth that is honest.” Former State Dept. official @mikebenzcyber exposes how the U.S. uses USAID to topple foreign governments and covertly influence other countries: https://t.co/AaAd80G5j3
Video Transcript AI Summary
Donald Trump has empowered Elon Musk to address perceived waste in government agencies like USAID, which operates independently of elected officials. This agency is often seen as a facade, with its projects serving dual purposes that align with U.S. foreign policy interests. Historical scandals involving USAID include controversial actions in Afghanistan and Cuba, raising concerns about its operations. The CIA's past misuse of public health initiatives for intelligence work casts doubt on USAID's integrity. The potential exposure of classified information at USAID poses risks to U.S. national security and could damage diplomatic relations, leading other nations to favor adversaries like Russia and China. The lack of transparency about USAID's activities could result in significant international repercussions, undermining U.S. credibility and economic interests abroad.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Whether you like it or not, Donald Trump has deputized Elon Musk to have this agency that's designed to eliminate waste as the White House sees it. Wasteful spending, unnecessary spending. And so when the people that are part of this effort that Donald Trump has created after he won the election went to USAID, and it's happened in other agencies too, you see almost this physical resistance, like, how dare you come into our realm? You have you don't run us. You're just the elected part of the government.
Where this agency that exists, independent of you, where does this mentality come from that they have this right to pursue their own agenda independent of any elected officials or elected parts of the government?
Speaker 1: Well, there the the entire agency exists as a carefully constructed lie. And just like, James Clapper and, you know, John Brennan and Leon Panetta. These are these are the holders of the great American, you know, the closet of skeletons of state secrets. And, you don't just hand that over to a random taxicab driver because 51% of the population elected him because he population elected him because he does funny TikTok dances. What I think what I'm trying to say here is, is if you remember the recalcitrance around sharing, sharing intelligence with president Trump, both, in his 2016 presidential run.
And then again, in the, in the lead up to the 2024 election, I think what's happening at USAID is, is essentially an echo of that, which is that USAID is supposed to be untouchable. I mean, virtually, there's no USAID project on God's green earth that is honest. If we are irrigating the rivers, you know, the, or irrigating the agricultural fields in a country, it's because we're trying to control the, you know, the the territory there. If we are working on the rip the water supply, it's because we're trying to control the rivers. If we're we're working on famine relief, it's because we're trying to control the food supply and make inroads into the indigenous populations there.
If we are helping them write their constitution and go through democratic legal performance so that we can control their their laws. Every single thing USA does is dual purpose. It's dual purpose by charter. They're only allowed to do the the things that advance US foreign policy interest. And we just put a little bow on top of it, and we say, in the process, we're making the world a better place.
There because it's, you know, it's going to these humanitarian groups who are administering this thing, which in the process will help US far foreign interests. But the fact is is, you know, the worst scandals in in, American statecraft in the 19 sixties seventies and maybe early eighties were were the CIA. In recent years, the worst, the worst scandals in American statecraft have been USAID, from, from funding the Wuhan lab to, to growing heroin in Afghanistan and irrigating the poppy fields to setting up a fake Twitter in, in Cuba with, an explicit USA document saying that the plan is to have algorithms favoring sports news and hurricane updates. And then once we have enough people switch to get them to hate their government and topple their their government and take to the streets in smart riots, to them even using public health HIV prevention clinics as, as, undercover for, for for USAID workers doing intelligence work to get people to overthrow their governments. And this gets me to another point that I feel remiss if I didn't say it because I've been thinking about it so long and haven't really had a venue to just kind of open open say it.
But we do this.
Speaker 0: Open and say everything that you want because this is the venue for it.
Speaker 1: You recall, you recall how in 2011, the CIA was busted running a fake this this this this this this this this this this this
Speaker 0: this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this
Speaker 1: this this this this this this this this this this
Speaker 0: this this this this this this this
Speaker 1: this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this
Speaker 0: this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this Vaccine activists were angry because they had worked so hard to build confidence in vaccines, and it turned out that it was a whole fake plan and designed to get the United States to get data on Pakistanis.
Speaker 1: Yes. Right. Had nothing to do with David Petraeus' counterinsurgency manual calling to collect 85% of the country's biometrics. Yep. It was just a.
But the fact is is they were they were caught flat busted in that in that situation, with a fake vaccine drive, fake vaccine clinics, and that was 2011. It took them 16 months to issue a written statement, a nonbinding written statement that they would no longer use vaccination work or public health work or public health facilities to do intelligence work out of. So we have a nonbinding written statement from the CIA that took them 16 months of fighting it to issue, to say that we will no longer use our public health facilities as a front for CIA work. Well, given that USAID is CIA, there is no daylight between those those two those two organizations. That is why you see the likes of AOC and Chuck Schumer saying that if Elon Musk gets access to the highly classified documents at USAID HQ, it will put US National Security at grave risk.
Well, what is a humanitarian NGO humanitarian aid NGO sponsor doing with so many troves of such highly classified state secrets that it will massively endanger all of US national Security if somebody outside of USAID reads it. That's the sort of thing that you typically would reserve for a CIA or NSA, level document. But the fact is is that's USAID for you and but USAID is not under that obligation that this nonbinding we don't know that when CIA, pledged to not use public health facilities for intelligence work, then the baton wasn't just handed off to its identical twin twin cousin, USAID. And I have an open question. When you look at the fact, for example, that HIV clinics in Cuba and the Western Hemisphere were being used by US as cover for color revolution work, formal cover.
In fact, in their, you know, own documents, they said that the HIV program would be the perfect excuse because, Cuban counterintelligence would never think to look there. Well, how many other public health facilities operated by USAID are doing the same thing in Africa, in South America, in Eastern Europe, in Central Asia? And so I guess what I'm getting at here is turning over that level of scandal, it's one it's bad enough if Americans know it, but it becomes an international incident. I mean, one of the things that I ran into at state, Glenn, which you might find interesting is, you know, when we were trying to convince foreign countries to move off of Huawei, what they would turn because it's, you know, it's back channeled by the CCP and Chinese intelligence, we would get hit by the with a counterargument. Well, you want us to use American, you know, IT architecture, but Snowden we read the Snowden files.
Speaker 0: Yeah. That was that was part of the big story that we published was that they were, you know, backdooring that same technology. At the same time, they were telling people not to use, the Chinese, companies because they were backdooring it. We were backdooring it. In fact, we were intercepting the the devices that people around the world ordered, opening devices the FBI was, and putting in the technology that would allow us to backdoor that equipment.
And of course, that created skepticism while we were trying to convince them not to use, OI and other Chinese companies.
Speaker 1: Right. Right. So, you know, the the point that I'm that I'm driving at here is these things the Snowden story is very easy to look at as an American, and and the concern that I think folks in in the blob, folks in the National Security Complex and the international relations complex have is, you know, it's if only Americans learned how bad USAID was and what it was really doing, for example, if that story I just mentioned in Bangladesh, if Americans had full access to everything that that USAID, and its and its spindle groups were doing in all these other, countries, that's one conversation. That's bad enough, but may be tolerable. But the problem is is when other countries learn about this, it becomes a diplomatic incident.
It be it becomes something that that harms our standing with partnered nations and with it it it makes neutrals wanna turn to Russia and China instead of the United States because we look like the bad guy. It harms our standing at the UN. It allows foreign countries who may be hostile or neutral to us to hold up these scandals in front of the UN and, and and move international favor against the US, which then can have, trickle down effects on our national security, our our economic, engagements in various countries with, it can sever trust in in countries that we're trying to court, and that then harms the economic interests of all the different private sector companies who draft behind the battering ram of American statecraft.
@RealAlexJones - Alex Jones
BREAKING! USAID Was Secretly Funding The BBC To Run Anti-Trump/Musk Reporting Similar To The $300 Million Given By The Biden Administration To Reuters To Target Musk! MUST-WATCH https://t.co/GCUQKk5zmj
@robsmithonline - Rob Smith
MAJOR SCANDAL: “Objective news outlet” @politico Was COMPLETELY FUNDED BY USAID - Now Unable To Pay Staff! SHOCKING! (H/t @bennyjohnson) https://t.co/oSE2o78a5X
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
Wow
@RealDonKeith - Don Keith
😳Hold up. 6,000 journalists and 700 newsrooms received USAID money‽😳 No wonder the MSM is an echo chamber. https://t.co/JbWtOGkO9a
Video Transcript AI Summary
Thousands of journalists and hundreds of newsrooms received USAID funding. We're committed to serving our communities across the Treasure Valley, El Paso, Las Cruces, Eastern Iowa, and Mid-Michigan. The spread of false news on social media is alarming and a serious threat to our democracy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: 6,000 journalists and 700 newsrooms received USAID money. It's a wonder all of them pair at the same news. Roll it.
Speaker 1: Our greatest responsibility is to serve our Treasure Valley communities. The El Paso, Las Cruces communities. Eastern Iowa communities, Mid
Speaker 0: Michigan community. False news has become all too common on social media. More alarming extremely dangerous to our democracy.
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
Reuters was paid millions of dollars by the US government for “large scale social deception”. That is literally what it says on the purchase order! They’re a total scam. Just wow.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸 DOD PAID REUTERS $9M FOR "SOCIAL ENGINEERING" PROGRAM DOGE investigations reveal mysterious Defense Department payments to Reuters for "large scale social deception" project between 2018-2022. While DARPA claims it was for cyber defense, questions swirl about why a news agency received millions for "social engineering." The revelation comes as other media outlets face scrutiny over federal funding. Source: USASpendingGov, @stillgray
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
The legacy media were all being paid off by USAID
@WallStreetMav - Wall Street Mav
I just reviewed news on the word "USAID". It is all stories about how horrible it is that Trump and Elon shut it down. There are ZERO stories about the crazy items that USAID was spending money on. They are trying to create a fake narrative to that USAID was an awesome agency and Trump is horrible for stopping the flow of money.
@Girlpatriot1974 - Girl patriot
It was just discovered that the Biden Administration had been paying the press for the last 4 years. Political received $26 MILLION! 🤬 You can't make this up! SMH https://t.co/xjPCnH669U
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Biden administration reportedly paid POLITICO $26 million over four years, including $8 million last year. The government claims this was for subscriptions to Politico Pro, which offers exclusive reporting about the federal government. Subscriptions cost between $10,000 to $75,000 a year.
Politico Pro is allegedly not for government employees but for lobbyists seeking contact information for regulators. The speaker questions why government officials would need to pay for inside information about their own departments. The speaker claims the payments were a bailout and a payoff.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And we just found out the Biden administration was paying the press. During the last four years, POLITICO received $26,000,000 from the federal government. $8,000,000 just last year. The Biden administration was paying a DC insider publication that happened to never report anything bad about the Biden administration. But what did they pay for besides good press?
The government says it was for subscriptions to Politico Pro. Well, what's Politico Pro? Supposed to give you inside scoops or exclusive reporting about the federal government. It's been around since 2010, but all of a sudden in 2021, the Biden administration starts buying hundreds of Politico Pro subscriptions, and a subscription runs anywhere from 10,000 to $75,000 a year. Those are like top tier country club dues.
For $75,000, this exclusive reporting must be pretty good. Right? Now, no one ever read in Politico Pro that Biden was brain dead. Now if I'm gonna pay $75 for journalism, I wanna know whose Coke was in the White House. Politico Pro isn't even for people in government.
It's for lobbyists. You pay $75 a year for the name and email address of a regulator at the FDA. So you can email them, wine them and dine them at Cafe Milano, and then grease the regs for Pfizer or Kraft or whoever your client is. You find that when the farm bill's about to pass, so you can send your lobbyists into the backroom and write the bill. It's not for people in the government.
What do people at the Department of Energy need to pay $75 for to find out what's going on in the Department of Energy? Mayorkas needs to know what's going on with the border bill. All he has to do is call Chuck Schumer. The phone call's free. This doesn't make any sense.
The whole thing is a racket. This was a bailout. Biden's government didn't need this. It's a payoff product.
@HarrisonHSmith - Harrison H. Smith ✞
Ted Cruz on Tucker Carlson reveals a very disturbing reality about how our foreign policy operates. https://t.co/GoPYTJBpEY
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about the population and ethnic mix of Iran, which Speaker 1 is unable to answer. Speaker 1 defends his lack of knowledge, stating he doesn't memorize population tables. They then argue about whether Iran is trying to murder Donald Trump and whether the U.S. is supporting Israel's military actions. Speaker 0 claims the U.S. government denied acting on Israel's behalf.
The discussion shifts to whether it is acceptable for Israel to spy on the U.S., including the president. Speaker 1 says allies spy on each other and that it's in America's interest to be closely allied with Israel, despite the spying. Speaker 0 asks why Speaker 1, as an American lawmaker, doesn't object to the spying. Speaker 2 criticizes Speaker 1's stance, calling it insane and not conservative to defend being spied on.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: How many people live in Iran, by the way?
Speaker 1: I I don't know the population.
Speaker 0: At all?
Speaker 1: No. I don't know the population.
Speaker 0: You don't know the population of the country you seek to topple?
Speaker 1: How many people live in Iran?
Speaker 0: 92,000,000. Okay.
Speaker 1: Yeah. How could you not know that? I don't sit around memorizing population tables.
Speaker 0: Well, it's kind of relevant because you're calling for the overthrow of the government.
Speaker 1: Why is it relevant whether it's million or 80,000,000 or 100,000,000? Why is that I didn't say I don't know anything about
Speaker 0: the
Speaker 1: country I didn't say I don't know anything about
Speaker 0: the Okay. What's the ethnic mix of Iran?
Speaker 1: They are Persians and predominantly Shia. No.
Speaker 0: It's not even you don't know anything about Iran.
Speaker 1: So Okay. I am not the the Tucker Carlson expert on Iran
Speaker 0: who says a senator who's calling to keep
Speaker 1: over the
Speaker 0: influence of government. You're the one who knows anything about the country.
Speaker 1: No. You don't know anything about the country. You're the one who claims they're not trying to murder Donald Trump.
Speaker 0: No. I'm saying that.
Speaker 1: Who can't figure out if there's a good idea to kill General Soleimani and you said it was bad.
Speaker 0: Believe they're trying to murder Trump?
Speaker 1: Yes, I do.
Speaker 0: Because you're not calling for military strikes against them in retaliation. Okay.
Speaker 1: We're carrying out military strikes today. You said Israel was. Right. With our help. I said we.
Israel is leading them but we're supporting them.
Speaker 0: Well, you're breaking news here because the US government last night denied, the National Security Council spokesman Alex Pfeiffer denied on behalf of Trump that we were acting on Israel's behalf in any offensive capacity.
Speaker 1: We're not bombing them. Israel's bombing them. You just said we were. We are supporting Israel as big. You're a
Speaker 0: senator. If you're saying the United States government is that we're at the run right now, people are listening. Hey.
Speaker 2: It's not even really a gotcha moment. He should be able to answer that question. I mean, that is that is insane. I I really wish Tucker didn't tell him the number. I really wish Tucker had just made him guess.
Because I have the feeling Ted Cruz wouldn't have known where to even start. I mean, I doubt he knows at all, which again, this isn't a small thing. That's like a like a primary stat you're gonna wanna know when you're going to fight somebody. Right? This is like getting into the boxing ring and going, who's my opponent?
What's his weight and height? Like, you're gonna wanna know that before you step into the ring with somebody. Just the basic fundamental stats about who it is you're facing off against. Ted Cruz doesn't know. He's not interested.
He doesn't care. Let's go to clip 16 now.
Speaker 0: Does Mossad share all of his intelligence with us?
Speaker 1: Oh, probably not, but they share a lot. We don't share all of our intelligence with them, but we share a lot. It's a close alliance.
Speaker 0: Do they spy domestically in The United States?
Speaker 1: Oh, they probably do, and we do as well. And friends and allies spy on each other, and I assume all of our allies spy on us.
Speaker 0: And that's okay with you?
Speaker 1: You know what? One of the things about being a conservative is that you're not naive and utopian. You don't think humans are all Part of the reason socialism doesn't work is the the the mantra from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs doesn't work. As a conservative, I assume people act in their rational self interest.
Speaker 0: So it's conservative to pay people to spy on you?
Speaker 1: It's conservative to recognize that human beings act to their own self interest, and every one of our friends spies on us. And I'm not
Speaker 0: Do you like it? That's my question. I'm not asking whether they have motive to do it. Of course, do. I understand that.
And I And by the way I'm not mad at them. And you're an American lawmaker, so I just wanna wanna know hold on. I wanna know your attitude. You said that your guiding principle, in fact the only principle, the only criterion
Speaker 1: I said guiding. The overwhelming. I wouldn't say only.
Speaker 0: Is is it in America's interest? Is it in America's interest for Israel to spy on us, including on the president?
Speaker 1: It is in America's interest to be closely allied with Israel because we get huge benefits for it. And you wanna wanna see the clear
Speaker 0: But but I just wanna stop on the spying for a second. That it it takes place, as you know, including on the president of The United States and several precedents. And I just wanna know if that's okay, and why is it okay? Wouldn't an American lawmaker say to a client state, you're not allowed to spy on us? I'm sorry.
I know why you want to. I'm not mad at you, but you're not allowed to. Sure. And I don't care for it. Don't wanna be spied on by you.
Is that it's kinda weird not to say that, but you don't seem able to say that.
Speaker 2: It's not conservative to defend yourself, actually. Totally insane. Wait, this is the Is this the cope from old Ted Cruz? Alright. We'll we'll read the cope from Ted Cruz, and we'll get into just a just a small smattering of just a few of the examples of Israel spying on Americans, including the American president on the other side.
Stay with us.
@jacklanger - Yaakov Langer
Whistleblower reveals how journalists were working WITH Hamas. The world is waking up! https://t.co/YyS5BFjnPf
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2008, an AP staffer says he was the first to erase information from a story due to threats from Hamas. The detail removed stated that Hamas fighters dressed as civilians were being counted as civilians in the death toll. The staffer says he suggested an editor's note about complying with Hamas censorship but was overruled.
Since then, the AP and other organizations allegedly collaborate with Hamas censorship in Gaza, focusing on civilian casualties while obscuring militant deaths and Hamas's military strategy. Casualty numbers are reportedly provided by the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry, shaping the narrative.
The speaker claims the press has become an amplifier for Hamas's ideology. All reporters in Gaza are Palestinian, and they allegedly either identify with, are intimidated by, or belong to Hamas. The speaker suggests this dynamic results in biased reporting that portrays Israel negatively.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The AP. As far as I know, I was the first staffer to erase information from the story because we were threatened by Hamas, which happened at the very end of of 02/2008. We had a great reporter in Gaza, a Palestinian, who had always been really an excellent reporter. We had a detail in a story. The detail was a crucial one.
It was that Hamas fighters were dressed as civilians and were being counted as civilians in the death toll. An important thing to know, that went out in an AP story. The reporter called me a few hours later. It was clear that someone had spoken to him, and he told me I was on the desk in Jerusalem, so I was kind of writing the story from the main bureau in Jerusalem. And he said, Matti, you have to take that detail out of the story.
And it was clear that someone had threatened him. I took the detail out of the story. I suggested to to our editors that we note in an editor's note that we were now complying with Hamas censorship. I was overruled. And from that point in time, the AP, like all of its sister organizations, collaborates with Hamas censorship in Gaza.
What does that mean? You see a lot of dead civilians and you won't see dead militants. You won't have a clear idea of what the Hamas military strategy is. And and this is the kicker. The center of the coverage will be a number, a casualty number that is provided to the press by something called the Gaza Health Ministry, which is Hamas.
And we've been doing that since 02/2008, and it's a way of basically settling the story before you get into any other information. Because when you put you know, when you say 50,000 fifty fifty Palestinians were killed and one Israeli on a given day, You know, it doesn't matter what else you say. The numbers kind of tell their own story, and then it's a way of kind of settling the story with something that sounds like a concrete statistic, and the statistic is being, you know, given to us by one of the combatant sides. But because the reporters sympathize with that side, they're happy to they're happy to play along. So since 2,008, certainly since 2014 when we had another serious war in Gaza, the press has not been covering in Gaza.
The press has been essentially an amplifier for one of the most poisonous ideologies on earth. Hamas has figured out how to make the press amplify its messaging rather than covering Hamas. There are no Western reporters in Gaza. All of the reporters in Gaza are Palestinians, and those people fall into three categories. Some of them identify with Hamas.
Some of them are intimidated by Hamas and won't cross Hamas, which makes a lot of sense. I wouldn't wanna cross Hamas either. And the third category is people who actually belong to Hamas. That's where the information from Gaza is coming from. And if you're credulous, then, of course, you're gonna get a story that makes Israel look
@GuntherEagleman - Gunther Eagleman™
CNN is giving the chinese military parade more positive press than they gave to President Trump's parade. That says everything. No wonder nobody gives a sht about what these crooks say anymore. Disgusting. https://t.co/iZWHHUEC9c
Video Transcript AI Summary
Live pictures show a massive parade underway in Beijing as Xi Jinping shows off his country's arsenal and military might to the world, with more than two dozen foreign leaders in attendance from Russia, North Korea, and Iran. In a speech, Xi warned that the world needs to choose, 'between peace and war.' They are commemorating the eightieth anniversary of the surrender of Japan. Xi 'has just done a review of the troops in his presidential limousine' and is 'walking up a red carpet towards the Tiananmen Gate' with Putin to his right and Kim Jong Un to his left. The SCO gathering followed diplomacy; 'The North Korean leader was not in that. He's not a member of that group, but Vladimir Putin was there,' and the message targeted 'the US' with 'bullying' and a 'cold war mentality,' as leaders urged a multipolar world order.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We're watching live pictures tonight. Right now, a massive parade underway in Beijing as the Chinese president Xi Jinping is showing off his country's arsenal and military might to the world and to the move more than two dozen foreign leaders who were there in person attending this military parade that includes those from Russia, North Korea, and Iran. In a speech just a few moments ago, president Xi warned that the world needs to choose, as he put it, quote, between peace and war. Owning straight to CNN's Ivan Watson who is live on the ground in Beijing. And, obviously, Ivan, we're watching this play out and just seeing, you know, how extensive this military parade is so far.
What's clear to you from the message that China is trying to send tonight?
Speaker 1: This is a message of strength. This is a message of, victory. After all, they are commemorating the eightieth anniversary of the surrender of Japan. China was a a major battleground in World War two for eight long years, to the tune of perhaps around 20,000,000 Chinese casualties during the Japanese military's invasion and occupation of of parts of China. And this is a demonstration to, China and the world, that, China is strong.
It can protect itself, and that Xi Jinping is the ruler of this country. He has just done a review of the troops in his presidential limousine, and now we're being treated to scenes of uniformed soldiers with helmets, you know, jogging alongside tanks and other military vehicles and jumping into them. We're seeing, drones on display, and they will be part of the the parade that is at hand here. You know, Caitlin, I think on the one hand, this is a demonstration of Chinese military muscle and discipline. It's a scorching hot day here in Beijing, and the the troops are out in full uniforms and helmets, jogging, marching in unison.
But by the same token, there is a demonstration of China's friends outside of China. And I think one of the enduring images that will emerge from this is of Xi Jinping walking up a red carpet towards the Tiananmen Gate from where he and other world leaders have been reviewing this parade and walking alongside Russian president Vladimir Putin to his right, North Korean leader Kim Jong un to his left. Those two very important guests, the VIPs, and demonstrating how important they are to Xi Jinping himself by placing them front and center during, what is effectively a a Chinese celebration here.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It has so much just to be able to see these images. I mean, they're it's a pretty striking show of force just to see them all standing side by side watching this play out.
Speaker 1: It is. And and it comes after days of diplomacy. You know, just this weekend, China was hosting this regional security grouping called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the North Korean leader was not in that. He's not a member of that group, but Vladimir Putin was there, as was the prime minister of India, and leaders of of, dozens of other countries. And the message there was much more pointed and directed at The US and calling out bullying in the words of the Chinese leader Xi Jinping, a cold war mentality.
These are all code words that he and the Russian president Vladimir Putin used to criticize international relations that they would argue have too long been dominated by The US effectively since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that these two leaders have chafed at, and they have been calling for what they claim would be a more equitable world order, a multipolar world order. So, there is a lot of symbolism that we are seeing over the course of the last several days from diplomacy now to military might. Caitlin.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Ivan Watson will continue to check back in with you, keep us updated with what you're seeing on the ground in Beijing.
@factpostnews - FactPost
Trump: We're actually making money off the Russia Ukraine war because NATO is buying our equipment https://t.co/nj81h5GcJl
Video Transcript AI Summary
We're not, spending any money on the war. The war is, being funded by NATO. NATO is buying our equipment. In fact, we're I don't wanna make money on that war. I don't wanna but we are actually making money on that war because they're buying our equipment, as you know.
But we
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We're not, spending any money on the war. The war is, being funded by NATO. NATO is buying our equipment. In fact, we're I don't wanna make money on that war. I don't wanna but we are actually making money on that war because they're buying our equipment, as you know.
But we
@NewRulesGeo - NewRulesGeopolitics
Russia destroys US air defenses in Ukraine a week after they are installed -- US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Suprisingly candid adminssion that proves what we knew all along. Western air defenses are just not that good despite coming with a hefty price tag. https://t.co/hGz2xLOK8I
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 says that Russia's strategy is to collapse morale within Ukraine and the will to fight. We've been in discussions with them about defensive weapons to be able to protect their grid, and ongoing technical conversations about the specific equipment they need, but ultimately, if that equipment is ultimately destroyed a week later after it's installed, that remains a problem, and that's been the history the last two or three years.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And that's clearly part of Russia's strategy is to, try to collapse morale within Ukraine and the will to fight. So, you know, we've we've, that's why we've been in discussions with them about defensive weapons to be able to protect their grid. And, I know we've been in ongoing technical conversations about the specific equipment they need, but ultimately, if that equipment is ultimately destroyed a week later after it's installed, that remains a problem, and that's been the history the last two or three years.