reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker asserts that the United States does not function as a true democracy. Regardless of public opinion or party control, they claim the government will carry out the wishes of the Israeli government, stating that Israel “controls our government.” They describe a system of legalized bribery where foreign interests can bribe American politicians, with Israelis being more organized and operating multiple organizations in the United States to lobby on Israel’s behalf. The speaker identifies APEC as the most notable lobbying group involved in this activity and asserts that blackmail also exists, suggesting that there are politicians and people in power who are being blackmailed. These points, they say, reveal that the current political system is undemocratic and that the story highlights this reality more than anything, pulling the wool over people’s eyes. The overall message is that U.S. policy toward Israel is driven by influence and coercion rather than the will of American voters.

Israel's power over the United States is explained in four parts: bribery, blackmail, media control, and the origin of Zionism. The speaker claims that US foreign aid to Israel is split, with part going to defense industries and the rest benefiting wealthy individuals who then lobby Congress through organizations like AIPAC. Blackmail is used to control those who may oppose their agenda. The speaker also accuses Zionist Jews of owning media and using it to spread lies. They argue that ending aid to Israel and breaking their media control will weaken their power. The speaker criticizes Israel's actions in Gaza and accuses them of terrorism.

An unnamed congressman claims Israel receives $15 billion annually from American taxpayers and exerts a "stranglehold" on the U.S. government, controlling Congress and influencing wars. This claim is labeled a "conspiracy" by others. Speakers express unwavering support for Israel, citing shared values and strategic interests. Some highlight bipartisan support and the U.S. commitment to Israel's security, including military aid. Some speakers allege Israeli interference in U.S. elections and domestic policy, with one claiming Israeli intervention "vastly overwhelms" Russian interference. They discuss alleged espionage, including the USS Liberty incident, spying on the White House, and the Jonathan Pollard case. The Promise software scandal is mentioned, alleging Israeli intelligence used it to spy on other nations. Jeffrey Epstein is described as a Mossad operative who blackmailed American leaders. Speakers claim Israel benefits from U.S. military actions in the Middle East, furthering a "Greater Israel" agenda. They allege Israeli agents had advanced knowledge of 9/11. One speaker claims the NSA considers Israel a top espionage threat.

Israel's power over the U.S. stems from bribery, blackmail, media influence, and historical origins. Bribery involves U.S. aid to Israel being funneled back to U.S. defense industries and wealthy individuals, creating a donor class that lobbies Congress through groups like APAC. This system ensures continued financial support for Israel, with 97% of APAC-backed candidates winning elections. U.S. aid to Israel is described as subsidizing its own subversion. The origin of this aid is attributed to Cold War strategy, but Israel allegedly spied on the U.S., sharing intelligence with the Soviet Union in exchange for Jewish immigration. Blackmail is the second level, with wealthy Jewish individuals allegedly financing operations like the Jeffrey Epstein pedophile ring. This ring, managed by Maxwell and Epstein, involved billionaires with ties to Israeli officials. Blackmail can force individuals to institute bribes.

The speaker asserts the U.S. could collapse Israeli society by withholding weapons and support, even enacting regime change. However, they claim the U.S. government is too infiltrated to allow this, suggesting any president attempting to restrain Israel would be targeted, potentially assassinated. They allege Jewish billionaires and Israeli intelligence, along with their allies, have deeply penetrated American society and would harm Americans, including orchestrating terrorist attacks or false flags, if the U.S. opposed Israel. The speaker claims Israel's motto is "rise and kill them first," and that they would turn on America without hesitation, viewing Americans as they view Palestinians or Nazis. They question the loyalty of figures like Gad Saad and Ben Shapiro, suggesting they would prioritize Israel over America, even to the point of violence.

Speaker 1 believes the Jewish lobby in the United States is too powerful, even for the interests of Israel, because they pressure too many people. They have many means at their disposal to pressure people. The President of the United States pays attention to the lobby because they are strong and control many things, including newspapers, media, banks, and finances. Speaker 1 believes the Jewish community in the United States is powerful enough to make the media reflect their view of foreign policy.

Speaker 0 argues that Israel, through its lobby, has manifested so much power over the United States Congress that the country is embroiled in wars they believe they should not be in. He states that whenever Israel is mentioned, someone claims you’re an anti-Semite, and he contends that policies in the Middle East have been one-sided and subjective, leading to many enemies and the importing of terrorists as a consequence. He asserts: “Israel through their lobby has manifested total power of the congress of the United,” and expresses a concern that taxpayers and the citizens of the United States should control their government, not a foreign entity. Speaker 1 challenges these assertions, saying: “You did. That’s not what you said. You said they’re controlling our foreign policy. They’re controlling our domestic policy.” He presses back, stating: “That quote, they are influencing and the sole control of influencing of our domestic policy is an absurdity. It sounds like you are a kook.” He explicitly disputes the idea that Israel controls the Congress and domestic policy. Speaker 0 clarifies, “I believe they control the senate and the house foreign affairs committee.” Speaker 1 repeats that claim as insane, prompting Speaker 0 to insist: “I’m not suggesting it. I served in congress for seven…,” implying a longer service and experience to support his concerns, though the sentence is cut off. The exchange centers on claims of disproportionate Israeli influence in U.S. federal policy, the objectivity of Middle East policy, and the contention that foreign lobbies, particularly related to Israel, have undue power over congressional decision-making, contrasted with direct rebuttals labeling such claims as irrational or insane.

The transcript presents a viewpoint asserting that a foreign government, Israel, operates a powerful influence in the United States through a political lobby called the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (APAC). The speakers claim that through this influence in Congress, Israel demands and secures nearly $5,000,000,000 each year. They assert that elected officials refrain from criticizing Israel because they fear being accused of antisemitism, which they describe as the “kiss of death” for any politician. The speakers contend that the president also understands what Israel wants, and that to act otherwise would be political suicide. They argue that the mass media—described as founded and controlled primarily by Jews—shapes the information that the American Heartland consumes, promoting the message that criticizing Israel equates to antisemitism. Additionally, the speakers warn people to “be safe,” keep their heads down, or risk becoming targets, referencing a “Zionist shooting gallery.” They imply that this political dynamic compels officials and the president to align with Israel’s preferences, effectively limiting serious criticism, calls to end aid to Israel, or protests against what they attribute to “Zionist control of Congress.” The second speaker reinforces the claim by stating that the president and elected officials are “slaves to political correctness when it comes to Jews and Israel,” and that they cannot seriously criticize Israel, particularly as the source of Middle East strike and terrorism. They assert an inability to propose ending aid to Israel or to protest Zionist influence over Congress. In summary, the transcript communicates a perspective that there is a powerful, covertly manipulating influence attributed to Israel and its lobby within American politics. It emphasizes monetary leverage (nearly $5 billion in annual aid), reputational risk for critics (antisemitism accusations as the “kiss of death”), control over political discourse through media, and punitive consequences for those who dissent. The speakers frame this dynamic as pervasive, unchallengeable, and dangerous to open political debate about U.S. policy toward Israel.

The speaker expresses concern about the control that Israel has over the US government, both in terms of foreign and domestic policy. They mention that members of Congress often consider Israel's opinion when making important decisions. They also claim that Israel influences the media, commerce, and both houses of Congress. The speaker believes that this control will ultimately harm Israel. They emphasize that criticizing Israel does not make someone anti-Semitic. The speaker further criticizes the current state of America, where talk show hosts, despite their differing ideologies, all align on the issue of Israel due to its influence over the government, media, and finances.

The Jewish lobby in the United States has significant influence, sometimes even counterproductive to Israel's interests. They exert pressure on various individuals and institutions, which may ultimately harm Israel. The president pays attention to this lobby due to its strength and control over numerous sectors, including media and finance.

The speakers present a view that the United States has been dominated by Israel for a long time, with money as the controlling force. One speaker asserts that Israel has “led us around by the nose, with money,” noting that they have "more money" from murdering Americans on the high seas than they ever had in their life, and claims that the U.S. government remains ineffective because its hands are tied. The speaker asserts that Congress will not allow action because they want to avoid embarrassment, and claims that politicians are not merely influenced by APAC, but are “part of cold blooded murder for hiding this,” implying that all of them are guilty. AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, is identified by another speaker as part of the Israel lobby, described as a powerful force in U.S. politics. The lobby is said to ensure strong support for Israel through lobbying, campaign contributions, and media influence, shaping U.S. foreign policy and often suppressing criticism of Israel. This influence is suggested as a possible explanation for why sensitive issues, such as the attack on the USS Liberty, may not receive the scrutiny they deserve in Washington. The argument is that Israel’s security is inextricably tied to the United States and that the U.S. will “never ever ever abandon Israel” due to self-interest. The speakers stress the deep connection between American and Israeli security interests, implying that this bond dictates U.S. policy and responses. There is an emphasis on attaining the truth about “what two countries can do to one,” asserting that the United States cannot have “two masters.” The speaker recalls that this situation began in 1967, and has persisted since then. The call to action is a plea for the audience to listen and help, emphasizing a sense of urgency and accountability to the country. Overall, the transcript frames the U.S.-Israel relationship as one of enduring financial and political influence that determines U.S. policy, with a particular focus on the role of the Israel lobby (notably AIPAC), the suppression of criticism, and a demand for transparency about historical events such as the USS Liberty attack.

Israel is a democracy and an ally. One speaker believes Israel has a powerful stranglehold on the American government, controlling members of the House and Senate. They claim Israel has the U.S. involved in wars of little or no interest, bankrupting the nation and resulting in American children returning in body bags. The speaker asserts that Israel controls much of U.S. foreign and domestic policy, influencing the media and commerce, and that they "own the congress." They allege Wolfowitz, as under secretary of defense, manipulated President Bush to go back into Iraq and pushed to move into Iran. When asked if they are an anti-Semite, the speaker denies it, stating that this is what they will say. They claim the U.S. has a one-sided foreign policy in the Mideast, alienating Arabs who then export violence to America. They state Israel gets approximately $15 billion a year from American taxpayers, which is $30,000 for every man, woman, and child.

Speaker argues the United States is Israel's last large ally besides the UK, with a large cost and limited perspective due to lies from the political class and media. They blame U.S. elected leaders for decades of misrepresentation. Citing Nikki Haley's 2023 Republican primary debate, the quote: "Last thing we need to do is to tell Israel what to do. The only thing we should be doing is supporting them and eliminating Hamas. It is not that Israel needs America. America needs Israel." The speaker contends this is inverted: "Israel could not survive without The United States." American backing funds Israeli wars and social services; "every dollar that goes to the Israeli military from The United States is a dollar that the nation of Israel can spend on its own people." Haley wasn't asked to explain, and questioning geopolitics is feared as antisemitic, leading to "a state of perpetual intimidation" and "We have not had an honest conversation about this ever."

Israel is the largest recipient of American aid and military support because the House of Rothschild takes money from the United States and gives it to Israel, which is also of the House of Rothschild. The House of Rothschild controls the countries of the European Union, which is why Israel is not questioned about its nuclear capabilities and gets away with mass murder repeatedly. When the same force controls all these different agencies, they will be coordinated. That's why Israel gets away with what it gets away with. If people think that's antisemitic, they're wrong; antisemitic means anti-Arab.

Speaker 0: "Israel operates the most powerful lobby in congress" (APAC), and "through control of congress, Israel demands and gets nearly $5,000,000,000 annually." It claims "No elected official dares criticize Israel" for fear "the Jewish lobby will accuse him of antisemitism, the kiss of death for any politician," and that "the president also knows what Israel wants, Israel gets." It states "The mass media founded and controlled primarily by Jews manipulates the spigot of information out of which Heartland America drinks" and that "if you criticize Israel, you are antisemitic." "Keep your head down, or you are fair game for being knocked off by the Zionist shooting gallery." Speaker 1: "our president and elected officials are slaves to political correctness when it comes to Jews and Israel." They "cannot seriously criticize Israel," cannot end aid to Israel, and "cannot even protest Zionist control of congress."

Rula and Mario discuss the broader and regional dimensions of the Israel-Palestine-Lebanon conflict, focusing on the perception of Israel’s actions, Iran’s role, and the future of Lebanon and the wider Middle East. - Rula frames the war as centered on the greater Israel project, describing the military occupation, domination, and violence in Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian territories as the core issue. She argues Israel is an occupying power under international law and questions the rationale of asking Palestinians and Lebanese to disarm while occupation persists. - Mario challenges the view that Israel as a single, unified actor always seeks expansion, noting that in Lebanon, Hezbollah’s presence arises from past Israeli actions and that some Israelis want coexistence with Lebanon. He contends there are variations within Israeli society, with some advocating for annexation or permanent conflict, while others prefer coexistence or diplomacy, though he acknowledges a radicalized current in Israeli politics. - The conversation moves to Iran’s role and regional dynamics. Mario argues the conflict has become regional and global, with Iran signaling willingness to act ruthlessly to mirror US and Israeli actions, and with other powers (Gulf states, China, Russia, the US) shaping the war’s scope. He asserts Israel’s strategic goals diverge from American goals, claiming the war serves the Greater Israel project and that Netanyahu has long pursued this vision, aided by a perceived, multi-decade alignment with American power and money from pro-Israel donors. - Rula emphasizes the internal Israeli political and social landscape, citing the Gatekeepers documentary as evidence that Israeli leadership has used Hamas and other actors as strategic tools, and she argues that the state’s actions are guided by a broader ideology (which she attributes to a form of Jewish supremacism) rather than conventional security concerns. She contends that Israel’s security narrative relies on perpetual conflict, and she asserts the United States has become financially and politically subservient to pro-Israel interests through campaign financing and lobbying. - The dialogue addresses US and international responses. Mario notes the US and Western support for Israel, while acknowledging criticisms of American influence. Rula counters by pointing out that US actions, such as sanctioning international courts to shield Netanyahu from war crimes prosecution, reflect a deep, structural alignment with Israeli policy. They discuss how this alignment influences regional dynamics, including the US response to challenges from Iran, Syria, and Hamas. - On Lebanon specifically, they debate whether Israel intends to annex parts of Lebanon or seek coexistence with Lebanese authorities and Hezbollah. Rula argues that Israel historically aimed to push toward annexation or subjugation of Lebanon, driven by a broader Greater Israel agenda, while Mario suggests Israel may prefer coexisting arrangements similar to Egypt and Jordan, though she counters that such coexistence would still come with coercive power dynamics and that Israeli policy has repeatedly demonstrated willingness to decimate Lebanon’s infrastructure and Hezbollah targets when framed as security operations. - The discussion covers ceasefires and ceasefire violations. They note that Hezbollah reportedly agreed to disarm and withdraw from certain areas, but ceasefire breaches occurred on both sides, including Hezbollah rocket fire and Israeli strikes. They debate who has honored or violated agreements, with Rula asserting that Israel breached ceasefires multiple times and Mario emphasizing parallel violations by Hezbollah. - They touch on the humanitarian and civilian toll, highlighting Lebanese displacement, destruction in Lebanon similar to Gaza, and the long-term risk of further fragmentation in the Middle East. Mario and Rula acknowledge Lebanon’s multi-sectarian society and express a lament for its potential loss of stability and coexistence. - Towards the end, they reflect on Israeli societal attitudes, referencing nationalist and supremacist sentiments inside Israel, including debates over Palestinian and Arab citizens, and they discuss the relative popularity of hardline policies among Israelis, contrasted with poll data that vary by source about two-state solutions or diplomatic options. - The exchange closes with mutual appreciation for the dialogue, a hint of residual mistrust in negotiated outcomes, and a light aside about a potential inquiry to an Israeli spokesperson about unpaid propaganda work, signaling ongoing attempts to scrutinize public messaging. Key points reiterated: - The war seen as part of a broader Greater Israel project, with occupation central to the conflict. - Iran and regional powers are pivotal in expanding the war beyond the Middle East. - Israeli internal politics, donor influence, and demographic shifts shape policy and willingness to pursue or resist further conflict. - Hezbollah and Lebanon are central but contested elements in debates about annexation versus coexistence. - Ceasefire dynamics reflect mutual distrust and ongoing violence on both sides. - There is a strong emphasis on the need to address underlying crises and the danger of perpetuating permanent warfare, with appeals to listen to diverse Israeli voices and to consider the humanitarian consequences for Lebanon and Palestinians.

Speaker 0 believes the Jewish lobby in the United States is too powerful, even for Israel's interests, because they pressure too many people. This pressure, exerted through various means, ultimately doesn't help Israel. The president of the United States pays attention to this lobby because they are strong and control many things. When asked to elaborate on what they control, Speaker 0 lists newspapers, media, banks, and finances. Speaker 1 expresses surprise and asks if Speaker 0 really believes the Jewish community in the United States is that powerful.

Speaker 1 responds to Speaker 0’s question by describing a recurring tactic: when Europeans criticize Israel, the Holocaust is invoked; when people in the United States criticize Israel, they are labeled antisemitic. He calls this a trick that is "we always use it," and notes that the organization behind this dynamic is strong and has a lot of money. He asserts that there are very deep ties between Israel and the American Jewish establishment within the United States, and that those ties are strong. He acknowledges that they have power, and he attributes this to their talent as well as their wealth and media influence. He describes them as possessing "power, money, and media, and other things," and characterizes their attitude as: "Israel, my country, right or wrong." He claims they identify with fiction, suggesting they are not ready to hear criticism. According to Speaker 1, it is very easy to blame people who criticize certain acts of the Israeli government as antisemitic and to bring up the Holocaust and the suffering of the Jewish people. He contends that this dynamic is used to justify everything that is done to the Palestinians. In his view, criticism of Israeli policy by Europeans or Americans is reframed as antisemitism, and the Holocaust is leveraged to shield Israeli actions, thereby silencing dissent and rationalizing actions against Palestinians.

The discussion centers on US support for Israel, with Speaker 0 stating that the US provides Israel with $3 billion annually in military aid, which benefits US national security through intelligence sharing, particularly from Mossad. Speaker 1 questions the cost of military actions to protect Israel and whether Israel spies on the US, including the president. Speaker 0 acknowledges that allies spy on each other and defends the alliance with Israel as beneficial for the US. The conversation shifts to AIPAC, with Speaker 1 questioning whether it lobbies on behalf of the Israeli government and why it isn't registered as a foreign lobby. Speaker 0 denies this, stating that AIPAC is an American lobby that promotes a strong US-Israeli relationship. Speaker 1 suggests AIPAC's goals are shaped by the Israeli government, while Speaker 0 denies coordination and accuses Speaker 1 of being obsessed with Israel. Speaker 1 denies being anti-Semitic and defends their right to question foreign influence on US politics.

The transcript presents a fringe, highly charged discussion about perceived Israeli influence in the United States, Trump’s shift from “America first” to “Israel first,” and related political dynamics. The speakers repeatedly claim that Israel controls the U.S. government and American foreign policy, with several variations such as “Israel's controlling our government,” “Israel controls us,” and “The government of Israel controls The United States.” They assert that Israel has run American foreign policy for thirty years and that the United States government is taking edicts from Israel, describing it as an “Israel first administration.” As the discussion progresses, the speakers describe discomfort with America’s relationship with Israeli leaders, calling the Israeli government a “satanic regime” and suggesting it seeks to cause pain. They contrast Trump’s campaign promises of “America first” with his alleged current actions, arguing that he has escalated a war on behalf of Israel and turned on earlier allies who did not toe the Israel-first line. They claim Trump has allied with politicians and influencers who are unpopular with his former base, and that he endorses a “massive war on behalf of Israel that he promised he would never start.” They point to specific figures affected by these changes, including those who supported or criticized Trump and Israel. The discussion names individuals and entities linked to the shift, including Charlie Kirk. They claim Kirk was influential against the Iran war and withdrew support for Israel prior to his death; Erica Kirk allegedly took over TPUSA to continue Charlie Kirk’s legacy but allegedly did so in a way that opposes Kirk’s earlier stance, endorsing Massey’s Israel-funded opponent and labeling Massey a “rhino.” They argue donors pressured Kirk to change his stance, leading TPUSA to distance itself from Kirk’s legacy and to align with an Israel-funding candidate backed by Trump. The speakers claim broad consequences for Trump’s base: those who call for justice with the Epstein files, those suspicious of Israel, and those who question Erica Kirk are said to have been blackballed or marginalized. Conversely, supporters of the new Trump are described as urging to move on from Epstein, unconditionally supporting Israel, and reacting strongly to any critique of Erica Kirk. A recurring theme is a critique of Zionism as a political ideology; the speakers distinguish between “Israel” and “Zionism” and argue Zionism controls both the U.S. and Israel. They challenge religious claims that Israel is “God’s chosen people,” offering a Christian critique of that idea and asserting separations of church and state in the U.S. The discussion includes references to alleged silencing mechanisms, narrative control, and tribalism as a “SIOP” framework, describing three characteristics: silencing opposing ideas, a strong narrative, and tribalism. They illustrate these with examples such as censorship of anti-Israel sentiment or questions about Israel, accusations about a fixed narrative like “Israel is our greatest ally,” and the exclusion of dissenting voices. The speakers conclude by asserting that while Israel does not control the U.S., Zionism appears to influence both countries, and that the root issue is the influence of Zionism rather than a single country’s leadership. They urge viewers to speak up while suggesting the changes reflect a broader, troubling shift in political power, ending with a night-time sign-off and personal recovery product plugs being referenced but later deemphasized.

The speaker believes that the Jewish lobby in the United States is too powerful and sometimes disrupts Israel's interests. They claim that the lobby controls various aspects such as newspapers, media, banks, and finances. The interviewer questions the speaker's belief, asking if they truly think the Jewish community has such influence over the media and policy. The speaker confirms their belief.

The speaker asserts that a lodge called Bunybirith (also rendered as Beniobareth) is a Jewish supremacist organization involved in key manipulations in American history, including creating a false North–South vs. left–right dialectic and influencing the Civil War. They claim that Ulysses S. Grant notoriously expelled Jews from his military districts in Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky, challenging the idea that Grant was simply another white supremacist or antisemitic figure, and implying instead a broader Jewish influence at play. They allege that Bunybirith later became the ADL after the ritualistic murder of a Catholic girl named Mary Fagan, asserting that this connection could not be denied and asserting that discussions of it persist despite denials from public figures like Dennis Prager. The speaker references the Epstein files as a vehicle to discuss how “they” speak about “us” behind closed doors, and claims that the language used by Epstein mirrors racist attitudes described by Sigmund Freud, framing this as evidence of a broader religious philosophy and racist perspective in which non-Jews, or “goyim,” are described as cattle meant to be herded and ruled over. The speaker contends that this treatment toward them is part of a broader pattern tied to refusing to work for “Zionist psychopaths,” describing it as an act that would be like an animal beating someone at chess. They mention Candice’s decision to leave, noting that her life subsequently became subject to continued publishing assaults and name-calling, with accusations of antisemitic conspiracy until new emails emerged. A central claim involves Jeffrey Epstein, who the speaker says worked on behalf of the Rothschilds and, in an email, wrote that the Rothschilds credit themselves with having created which nation-state—Israel. The speaker connects this to a claim that the same nation-state is currently facing revelations of ritual abuse, with numerous women alleging abuse in a forest by rabbis, and notes that Epstein described the Rothschilds as his bosses, reinforcing the asserted link between Epstein, the Rothschilds, and Israel. Throughout, the speaker ties these points together to portray a pervasive, centuries-long pattern of hidden Jewish influence and control across U.S. history, financial power, media, and global geopolitics, culminating in a provocative synthesis that frames the Rothschilds and associated networks as central to what they describe as conspiratorial manipulation and systemic abuse of non-Jewish groups.

Tempers flared at the National Press Club in Washington DC after Alison Weir, president of the Council for the National Interest Foundation (CNIF), was involved in an incident where an advocate knocked a camera from her hands during a pro-Israeli conference that followed a CNIF press conference on what they call unjustifiable USA to Israel. The two events occurred in the same room, illustrating heightened tensions over America's relationship with Israel. CNIF asserts that Americans should know how much of their tax dollars go to Israel, claiming $3,000,000,000,000 in aid, including a massive amount of direct money and many hidden costs. The group alleges that Israel receives substantial aid and special treatment because the US Congress is controlled by APAC, America’s pro-Israel lobby. Executive director Philip Giraldi states that Israel spends a lot of money on US elections. Speaker 1 notes that there are many Israeli PACs, and they give a lot of money very selectively to congressmen they want to support. CNIF contends that many members of Congress fear retaliation in their reelection campaigns if they do not align with Israel. Speaker 1 adds that if a congressman crosses the Israel lobby by voting against aid for Israel or against legislation Israel favors, the next campaign cycle often features a well-funded opposing candidate. Philip Giraldi, a former CIA counterterrorism expert, questions why America provides aid to Israel, arguing that Israel conducts more espionage for profit against the US than any other US-friendly country. He claims that they steal military technology and information useful for telecommunications. Retired lieutenant colonel Karen Kotowski, who works at the Pentagon, contends that Israel receives preferential treatment and that “We do not question what the Israelis want.” Kotowski suggests that America is increasingly paying attention to US foreign policy in the Middle East, influenced in part by tough economic times. More Americans want to know where their hard-earned tax dollars are going and why. Rhonda Pence, reporting for Press TV in Washington, closes the segment, highlighting the juxtaposition of the CNIF event with the pro-Israel conference and the ensuing tensions over US aid and policy toward Israel.

Hello, I'm Ted Pike, and this is my wife, Alain. Israel operates a powerful lobby in Congress, known as AIPAC, which secures nearly $5 billion annually. Elected officials avoid criticizing Israel due to fears of being labeled antisemitic, which can end their political careers. The President is also aware that to oppose Israel is political suicide. The media, largely controlled by Jewish interests, promotes the narrative that any criticism of Israel equates to antisemitism. Consequently, our leaders are constrained by political correctness, unable to address Israel's role in Middle Eastern conflict or suggest ending aid to the country.

In this video, I will prove to you that Israel is ruling the American government. Since World War II, The United States has given over $260,000,000,000 in aid to Israel, more than to any other country in the entire world. The US sends $3,800,000,000 to Israel every year—about $10,000,000 every single day—for fighter jets, bombs, tanks, and missile defense systems like the Iron Dome. In 2016, The US signed the largest military aid deal in American history, a $38,000,000,000 package over ten years, locked in, guaranteed, no matter who sits in the White House. Much of this money must be spent on American defense companies. Iron Dome has received over $2,600,000,000 in US funding since 2011. APAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, is described as 'the most powerful foreign policy lobby in Washington.' In the twenty twenty two midterms alone, pro Israel groups poured over 30,000,000 into campaign donations. APAC's Super PAC, the United Democracy Project, spent millions to defeat critics like Donna Edwards and Andy Levin. The question remains: Who's ruling who?