reSee.it - Related Video Feed

On elite campuses, there is a significant influence from certain groups that promote controversial ideas. A Berkeley professor argued that it is crucial to view Hamas and Hezbollah as progressive social movements on the left. It is worth noting that this professor, Judith Butler, is a lesbian. The speaker points out the hypocrisy of these movements, as they condemn gendering someone as a human rights abuse but openly call for the murder of Jews. This ideology is deemed disgusting and unacceptable.

The program features host Mark and guest Dr. Alan Szabrowski (PhD, University of Michigan; former director of studies at the U.S. Army War College; a ten-year U.S. Marine Corps veteran). The conversation centers on loyalty, Zionism, and alleged foreign influence in U.S. policy, particularly regarding Israel. - Szabrowski argues that loyalty should be to country, people, and the Constitution, and critiques what he calls “dual loyalty” or political bigamy, particularly among American Jews who, in his view, feel allegiance to Israel over the United States. He states, “this is a form of political bigamy that is every bit as dishonest as marital bigamy.” He emphasizes that “loyalty to America is the only nonnegotiable part of American citizenship.” - Mark foregrounds Szabrowski’s credentials and then proceeds to read from Szabrowski’s article, “The Dark Face of Jewish Nationalism,” dated 03/12/2010. The article’s thesis, as presented in the discussion, is that Zionism combines xenophobia, racism, ultranationalism, and militarism, placing it outside the usual nationalist context. - Szabrowski asserts that Zionism undermines civic loyalty among adherents in other countries, describing dual loyalty to Israel and the U.S. as “every bit as dishonest as marital bigamy.” He discusses figures such as Rahm Emanuel as examples of individuals with Israeli military service and U.S. citizenship who influence U.S. policy, arguing this creates a problem of allegiance. - The discussion contrasts Zionism with other nationalist movements: Szabrowski contends Zionism maintains a list of enemies and treats ordinary nationalist concerns differently, and he notes that “the occupying power and perhaps its allies” are central to Zionist conflicts, with Israel’s perceived enemy list being unusually long. He also claims that Zionism involves wholesale displacement of populations in ways that he contrasts with other historic nationalist movements. - The hosts and Szabrowski discuss the implications for Middle East peace and U.S. policy, arguing that Zionism’s domestic influence can constrain American political decisions. Szabrowski contends that if the American public understood the events, “Israel will flat ass disappear from this Earth” if Americans fully grasp what occurred. He asserts that 9/11 was a Mossad operation and ties it to broader assertions about Israeli influence and U.S. policy. - The conversation turns to 9/11 and U.S. military engagement. Szabrowski claims there is clear evidence that 9/11 was an Israeli operation and says, “It is 100% certain that nine eleven was a Mossad operation.” He contends that the attack has led to enormous American casualties and ongoing wars, arguing that the situation would provoke strong public backlash against Israel if fully understood. - Mark challenges Szabrowski’s views and notes that some in the U.S. military may be unaware of such theories, while Szabrowski reports that colleagues at the Army War College and the Marine Corps Headquarters have reacted with “astonishment” and “rage” upon hearing these claims, admitting they did not know. - Towards the end, Szabrowski posits that if the American people understand their own history, they would act to alter or abolish a government he views as oppressive. He states his lifelong loyalty to the United States, but insists that this loyalty requires honorable government conduct; otherwise, he says, reform is necessary. The program ends with mutual expressions of Semper Fi and respect for service. - Throughout, the dialogue emphasizes that the article being discussed exposes a perceived problem of foreign influence, dual loyalty, and a call for accountability and re-evaluation of U.S. policy toward Israel in light of loyalty to the United States.

Chris Ruffo intensified his attacks on Burnett in a Compact magazine article, calling for censorship of those he labels as antisemitic conspiracy theorists. He argues that critical race theory and concepts like racism originated from Jewish figures and institutions, framing this as a threat to traditional conservatism. Ruffo claims that the rise of Trump has created an intellectual vacuum, allowing fringe ideas to gain traction. He criticizes the Manhattan Institute, funded by pro-Israel donors, for allegedly prioritizing foreign interests over American values. Ruffo insists that discussions around Israel's influence should be censored, labeling dissenters as mentally ill or conspiratorial. He questions the meritocracy narrative, suggesting it benefits certain groups while ignoring collective identities. Ultimately, he portrays the current ideological struggle within conservatism as a battle against perceived threats to a color-blind meritocracy.

Chris Ruffo, a prominent conservative, is now advocating for censorship, contradicting the conservative principle of free speech. His call for censorship follows a scandal involving foreign influence in right-wing think tanks. Ruffo's article in Compact Magazine, funded by George Soros, criticizes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and calls for silencing dissenting opinions. Soros, a significant donor to progressive causes in Israel, supports leftist factions, while Rupert Murdoch backs right-wing elements. Both sides of the political spectrum are funded by wealthy Jewish donors with differing visions for Israel. Ruffo's push for censorship targets those exposing these funding dynamics, framing them as harmful to the conservative movement's future.

Speaker 0: The time game is over. Justice with General Flynn. They criticize the Department of Just Us and recall a past moment when they would have been brought into the DOJ in handcuffs. Speaker 1: Delivers a stream of violent, braggadocious lyrics about weapons, killings, and dominance, including references to shooting, trafficking, and threatening rivals. The content emphasizes keeping enemies in check, physical violence, and material wealth, with repeated lines about not losing sleep over killers, firing weapons, and "run it up" for money and power. Speaker 2: Argues that many people gaining sudden large followings on Twitter or talking about topics like low taxes or transgender pronouns may be pedophiles, suggesting conservative media uses people with criminal pasts as influencers. States that such individuals say things to align with a broader agenda and mentions Israel in the context of a broader critique of conservative priorities. Concludes with a tip to contact Charlie Cook for those seeking a "second act" in public life. Speaker 3: Kyle Clifton discusses an after-party associated with TPUSA’s America Fest in Phoenix on December 19, called the Grand Young Party. The party reportedly featured girls dancing half-naked on stage, girls locked in cages, underage drinking, stripper poles, sex on the dance floor, and mentions “strange ritual Zionist extremism.” He notes promo footage from Florida and Phoenix, blurred faces of attendees, and that age did not matter if the attendee knew the organizer, Joe Bazrawi. Background is provided on Maverick events as the organizers. He reports a security guard tackled an 18-year-old patron, causing injuries; police encouraged filing a report for assault. Parents of other female patrons are considering lawsuits for supplying minors with alcohol. The event was advertised as a TPUSA America Fest after party, hosted by TPUSA ambassador/employee Joe Bazrawi, whose travel and lodging were paid for by TPUSA. He claims TPUSA was aware of and encouraged the party, and that Bazrawi maintains a private dossier on conservatives who oppose his party or beliefs to blacklist them from TPUSA events. Bazrawi allegedly attends other events to photograph attendees for his dossier and share with TPUSA executives. Attendees allegedly included Matt Gaetz, with rumors that James O’Keefe and Madison Cawthorn were present; photos are mentioned. Questions are raised about TPUSA’s responsibility for hosting unsanctioned events with high-profile guests and potential legal consequences or PR damage. The after-party reportedly had about 30–40 attendees leave early; refunds were issued to some in response to public comments, while others did not receive refunds. Some attendees were admitted as late as 1:45 AM; the event ended at 2 AM. Ticketing was disorganized, with staff not knowing who attended. Local Antifa chapters reportedly planned to submit stories to CNN to harm Matt Gaetz’s career. The speaker expresses concern about the conservatism movement’s image and the potential implications for Gaetz and Cawthorn. Speaker 4: The Vault claims to possess extensive material—video, pictures, emails, audio, text messages, phone calls—on everyone and to be willing to drop it all. The speaker has “a lot of crap on Richard Spencer and everybody else” and suggests signing up for Telegram to access this material. Speaker 5–6: Expressions of fear or alarm from the audience, with a call to “Dale” and a plea for help or relief, indicating tension or distress in the room.

National Review, the GOP, and Fox News have lost credibility, especially after Trump’s influence. The challenge now is to regain the trust of Trump voters and redefine the intellectual framework of the right. Claremont, backed by influential figures like Peter Thiel and Paul Singer, is attempting to reshape Trumpism into a colorblind meritocracy that aligns with pro-Israel sentiments. JD Vance is positioned as a potential successor to Trump, promoting ideas that diverge from traditional nationalism. This new direction is funded by various billionaires, leading to censorship of dissenting voices. The overarching issue is the influence of these donors on the conservative movement, steering it away from its original principles towards a more globalist agenda, while suppressing criticism of Israel and promoting a narrative that aligns with their interests.

Chris Brunet claimed Claudine Gay was fired for not supporting Israel. Chris Ruffo, Brunet's former mentor, responded by attacking Brunet's character, calling him troubled and disrespectful, and suggesting mental health issues. Other conservatives and the publication 1776 also attacked Brunet, without addressing his claims of a double standard, think tank funding, or complicity in a foreign influence operation. Brunet raised concerns about pro-Israel bias of Leo Sapor, who was born in Israel and served in its military, and Ilya Shapiro, who works at a Jewish policy think tank. Brunet was labeled antisemitic for this. Jeremy Koffness, who called Brunet an antisemite, was revealed to have said earlier this year that Jews will hysterically call people antisemite when they don't have an argument.

Jasmine Crockett is claimed to be misrepresented by critics. The discussion centers on U.S. support for Israel, with one speaker asserting Israel has a right to defend itself and noting that the United States has equipped Israel with armaments, referencing Crockett’s vote for a national security supplemental in April that underwrote Israel’s war effort. A defending speaker acknowledges voting for the supplemental and emphasizes diplomacy, describing the long-standing U.S.–Israel relationship as enduring beyond any one person and continuing “in perpetuity even after I’m gone.” The critique challenges why the U.S.–Israel relationship should be perpetual and questions Crockett’s positions, citing APAC Tracker’s claim that Crockett does not take money directly from the Israel lobby but that she votes to enable genocide in Palestine and supports censorship bills aiming to criminalize criticism of Israel. In response to digging further, a claim is presented that a receipt shows a sponsorship from the American Israel Education Foundation to Crockett for $24,000 to attend meetings with Israeli election officials and to visit the country’s holy and historical sites, accompanied by questions about why an American congresswoman would meet with Israeli election officials. The American Israel Education Foundation is described as a sister organization of APAC that handles education work, described with the phrase “education or reeducation,” which the speaker suggests may imply a troubling motive. The speaker asserts that Crockett “definitely passed with flying colors” by saying on Israel’s 70th birthday, “let’s continue to dedicate ourselves to peace and prosperity,” and notes that tweets like this are not free. There is a suggestion that if the name were blocked, it would be hard to tell whether this was Jasmine Crockett or Benjamin Netanyahu, implying a point about perceived similarities or influence. The overall thread questions Crockett’s alignment on Israel-related policy, juxtaposing formal statements of bipartisan support for Israel with claims of behind-the-scenes funding and influence.

Paul Singer and Peter Thiel are major donors to the Claremont Institute, which has influenced the Trump administration's national security apparatus. Michael Anton, a key figure in this network, was appointed to the National Security Council with Thiel's support. Thiel co-founded Palantir, a national security firm closely tied to U.S. intelligence agencies, and has expressed concerns about the Christian right's influence. The Claremont Institute's origins trace back to Harry Jaffa, a student of Leo Strauss, who advocated for a pro-Israel agenda. This network raises questions about potential conflicts of interest, particularly regarding U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and the promotion of Israeli interests.

Speaker 0 says, "powerful institutions are at play here, and there's a coordinated effort to spread this parasitic ideology," and asks, "Are you willing to name the group behind us? Because behind all these institutions, there seems to be a Cohen, a Berg, a Stein." He then asks, "What are your thoughts on the Jewish influence about on gender ideology?" Speaker 1 replies, "So you're you're Am I gonna do anything about the Jews is what you're asking me? No." Okay. Do I need to dignify that with a further response, do think?" He adds, "Or And Jewish donors, they have a lot of explaining to do, a lot of decoupling to do, because Jewish donors have been the number one funding mechanism of radical open border neoliberal quasi Marxist policies, cultural institutions, and nonprofits." "This is a beast created by secular Jews."

I'm starting to think that "America First" may not mean what we think it means. America First PR is a conservative PR firm run by Melissa Rain Lively. She seems well-connected, pictured with figures like Tulsi Gabbard and Donald Trump, but she was once a "Jewish woman who escaped QAnon." Now, she's at Mar-a-Lago, and I wonder if it has something to do with Israel relaunching a plan to disguise its propaganda behind foreign agents, a "new Hezbollah, Hezbollah 2.0." She often looks MAGA, but many posts focus on another country, like strengthening ties between the U.S. and Israel. Then there are posts like "Time to get terrorists" with foreign troops. Something seems off with "America First PR." What do you think?

The speakers discuss alleged hidden dynamics within Turning Point and connections to international and ideological forces. Speaker 0 claims that Arizona has long investigated Turning Point, and that conversations within the state finally broke into the public sphere. He says he spoke with Liz Harris, a former Arizona House member, and asserts that Harris told him, “Turning Point's Mossad. Tyler Boyer is Mossad. They're all neocons. They're connected to Mossad.” He says he has the report and a recording of Harris saying this, emphasizing that many people warned him but he wanted to verify for himself. He states that "when Charlie died that was it for me" and that he decided it was time to come out and reveal what he witnessed and participated in, apologizing to the American people. Speaker 1 acknowledges familiarity with Liz Harris and then asks for details about internal communications leaking after Charlie’s death, which allegedly show that he was leaving the Zionist cause and that leadership faced questions about Israel policy. The question is whether Tyler Boyer was explicitly asked about this direction and what his answer was. Speaker 0 describes an incident in Boyer’s office where a female associate asked Boyer, “why are you so against Candace Owens. The Israel cause etcetera.” He says Boyer closed the door, pulled the speaker’s friend in, and told her, “listen, I’m a Zionist. Candace Owens is a black conservative who wants to be relevant in this movement. And she's doing whatever she can at all cause to stay relevant.” He presents this as proof, claiming it is in the text he sent to Stu and that the friend confirmed it in the office encounter. Across the exchange, the core assertions are that Liz Harris labeled Turning Point's leadership as connected to Mossad and neocon interests, specifically naming Tyler Boyer as Mossad; that after Charlie’s death there were internal, leaked communications about Zionist alignment and Israel policy; and that Boyer disclosed a Zionist stance and disparaged Candace Owens during a confrontation in his office, presenting Candace Owens as attempting to stay relevant in the movement.

The program marks the one-year anniversary of Donald Trump’s second election to the presidency, noting that he won a majority of the popular vote and built a coalition broader than any Republican coalition since 1984. The host argues that, in this moment, Republicans face a civil war over what comes after Trump: revert to the pre-Trump GOP or continue evolving into what Trump has steered it toward. The core debate centers on what MAGA means and whether America-first should guide policy, especially in foreign affairs and domestic priorities. America first, according to the host, means the US government should act foremost on behalf of American citizens, considering how policies affect those who pay for and are represented by the government. This message—America first—was described as not only popular but the most popular political message in generations, and it is credited with drawing broad support from Black voters, Latino voters, and other American voters committed to drain-the-swamp, no more pointless wars, and government that represents Americans. On the other side, the host describes a return to the pre-Trump Republican identity: a neoconservative foreign policy paired with libertarian economic policy, a party of Washington think tanks and editorial pages. The host characterizes this old guard as policing its own, seeking silence and expulsion of dissenters, and as being morally compromised by foreign-policy priorities seen as misaligned with American interests. A central claim is that US foreign policy has too often advanced foreign interests—particularly those of Israel—over American interests, citing examples such as the Iraq War; assertions that policy has been immoral, illegitimate, and unsustainable; and the suggestion that dissenting voices are silenced. A focal point of the discussion is Lindsey Graham, portrayed as the living symbol of the old Republican Party. The host describes Graham as affable in person but as representing a policy direction at odds with the Trump era. Graham’s record is summarized as revealing deficits in fiscal responsibility (deficit growth from $5 trillion to $38 trillion over his tenure), a willingness to push for foreign wars, and a pattern of defending or promoting foreign policy agendas that critics say have harmed the United States. The program emphasizes Graham’s role in endorsing and promoting aggressive rhetoric and actions, including his appearances with Zelenskyy, his references to “killing the right people,” and his remarks at a Republican Jewish Coalition event in Las Vegas where he claimed that “we are killing all the right people” and “we’re cutting your taxes.” The host argues these statements reflect a dangerous and violent mindset and a departure from traditional conservative restraint. Clip analyses highlight Graham’s emphasis on Israel and his belief that God commanded particular foreign-policy policies, with assertions such as “God commanded it” and remarks about God’s will guiding policy. The program points to Graham’s frequent travel to Israel (the guest claims Graham said it was his “fifth visit since October 7”) and his portrayal as a staunch defender of Israel, even while critics say this undermines American sovereignty or prioritizes foreign interests. Graham’s statements about “the blood libel,” his defense of Israel, and his call for violence against perceived political enemies are presented as evidence of his misalignment with the values the host associates with America-first conservatism. The discussion frames a broader shift in the Republican Party as a power struggle between the old establishment and a MAGA movement seeking to realign or redefine the party’s priorities. The anonymous or explicit allegation is that Graham has long acted as an agent for deep-state or foreign interests, having supported or aligned with policies that critics say weaken American sovereignty or accountability to American voters. The guest asserts that Graham’s reelection would signal a non-responsive political system and a failure to reflect voters’ concerns, particularly in South Carolina. Against Graham, the program introduces Paul Dans, a candidate running in the Republican primary in June, who frames his campaign as an “outsider” effort to replace what he calls the “establishment” with a movement anchored in God, family, and country. Dans describes himself as an “original MAGA” and as a long-time participant in Trump-era policy development, including serving as the architect of Project 2025, which Dans says helped Trump’s administration by organizing a coalition and providing a platform for policy and personnel ready to implement reforms. Dans emphasizes his immigrant family background, working-class roots, and personal hardships as the driving force behind his commitment to restoring the country. He presents his campaign as an effort to bring accountability to government—particularly with respect to investigations, the Russia hoax, the 2020 election, and COVID-19 handling—and to end endless wars and recalibrate fiscal policy. Dans argues that Graham’s reelection would reflect a political system that does not respond to voters, noting that Graham’s stance has often opposed Trump, including his early opposition to Trump’s nomination and his later criticisms. Dans recounts his own experiences in Georgia during the 2020 election, his engagement with MAGA activists, and the perception that the RNC and campaign leadership sought to “cut bait” on Trump during the Georgia recount. Dans frames his campaign as a test of whether the MAGA movement can sustain itself post-Trump and whether the Republican Party can be realigned toward a policy program centered on American interests, less foreign entanglement, and domestic renewal. The interview also includes rhetoric about the broader political environment: a culture war over identity and censorship, debates about free speech, and concerns about social media platforms shaping political discourse. The host condemns what he sees as censorship and calls for an openness to political discussion, while arguing that the new generation—especially younger voters—are attracted to a program that promises affordable life, rebirth of the American dream, and a return to traditional American values. The show closes with a plug for voting and a call to back the Paul Dans campaign, including a request to visit PaulDans.com, invest in the campaign, and spread the message via social media. It also introduces content about a “new nine-eleven commission” and urges listeners to visit newcommissionnow.com to join a petition, arguing that the original nine-eleven Commission was flawed and that a new commission is needed to force accountability and reveal foreknowledge and other aspects of the events of September 11. Overall, the transcript captures a confrontation within the GOP over the party’s future trajectory post-Trump, the moral and strategic implications of foreign-policy advocacy, and a campaign narrative centered on America-first priorities, faith, family, and a critique of the entrenched political establishment.

I attended a TPUSA faith event expecting politics to be shaped by biblical principles, but the experience did not meet that expectation. The event opened with a speaker who immediately criticized Candace Owens, calling her evil and antisemitic, and stating that what she’s doing is evil. I wanted to leave, but security was intense—armed men were stationed all around the venue, and there was even an armed man on stage with a hand on his gun. The security presence made me uncomfortable. Inside, the speaker talked extensively about Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, portraying them as evil and antisemitic. He argued that Christians should support Israel because Jesus was a Jew and Judaism underpins Christianity, while claiming that what Israel is doing is evil and corrupt. He suggested that refusing to support Israel would be anti-Semitic. I disagree with this framing, and it struck me as not aligning with what I expect from biblical politics. I also noted that the speaker referenced Charlie Kirk (though I recall it as Charlie Cook) and suggested that Kirk would not endorse the positions being discussed, referencing Kirk’s and Owens’ friendship and his past critiques of Israel. Throughout, the speaker’s preaching style resembled name-calling rather than traditional preaching. He labeled the political left as “idiots,” “freaks,” and “losers,” and spent much of the time denigrating liberals rather than offering constructive biblical guidance. This approach felt discordant with Christian teachings I associate with Jesus, who, as the speaker himself stated he loves, “ate with sinners,” including prostitutes. I felt the message was spreading hate rather than embodying the inclusive example I expect from Christian doctrine. A major concern was the impact on young attendees. Teenagers and young Christians appeared to be absorbing the message, treating this figure as a leader and a future guide for their faith, which raised alarms about further division within the Christian community. In summary, the event did not teach the biblical political perspectives I anticipated. The emphasis was on discrediting the left and on framing Israel in terms of Jewish loyalty, rather than engaging with broader Christian concerns. The speaker’s approach—name-calling of political opponents, calls for aggressive stances, and a heavy focus on left-wing critique—left me feeling that the session did not align with constructive faith-based political discussion. The speaker also touched on issues like men in women’s sports, but stated this was not the most important topic for Christians to discuss amid broader national concerns.

A viral sensation, Erin Wexler, is redefining conservative commentary with her bold views. With degrees from Wharton and Penn, she has a background in finance and tech. Wexler's content has drawn attention from figures like Ben Shapiro and is featured in various publications. Her persona heavily emphasizes her Jewish identity, as seen in her writings about Jewish defiance and anti-assimilation. Critics have labeled her as an "Israeli influence operation." Despite her rising popularity, questions arise about her representation in media, particularly regarding her Jewish identity. Wexler has gained a significant following, including notable figures like Joe Rogan and Donald Trump Jr. Her interactions with Trump at Mar-a-Lago further fuel speculation about her influence and connections within conservative circles.

And Jewish donors, they have a lot of explaining to do, a lot of decoupling to do, because Jewish donors have been the number one funding mechanism of radical open border neoliberal quasi Marxist policies, cultural institutions, and nonprofits. This is a beast created by secular Jews.

The speaker argues that the Trump administration represents the best they’ve seen, and that ten years after the Trump movement and Brexit, their side is in power, with hopes for JD Vance and Marco Rubio to hold leadership for many years. They note that shortly after Trump took office, a drumbeat labeled him as dangerous or controlled, and criticize the tendency to treat those in government as if their duties were the same as those in opposition. They reflect on being Jewish within the nationalist movement, describing it as easy and rewarding for years, especially defending against accusations of anti-Semitism by arguing that critics hadn’t engaged with their speakers or understood the context. That ease has diminished recently, as they observe deeper slander of Jews on the right over the past year and a half. The speaker notes a troubling shift among some right-wing figures who used to advocate for a Jewish-Christian alliance to save America, but now, for reasons they don’t fully understand, advocate praising the Muslim Brotherhood, Islam, and the Quran, while portraying Jews as a major problem. The speaker hopes this will pass and urges a rethink of the relationship between Jews and Christians, asking for mutual honor and discussion rather than hostile accusations, which could include medieval-style accusations against Jews. They reiterate that the coalition was built by Donald Trump and is broad enough to win future elections, but warn that driving coalition members away or dishonoring them risks harming JD Vance’s prospects, Rubio’s prospects, and America’s prospects. Ultimately, the speaker states that there is a choice to be made: if members of the coalition continue to attack and alienate others, they undermine the chances of maintaining the coalition’s gains and electoral success.

There is a split on the right over support for Israel, led by Nick Fuentes and the Gripers. They challenge America First figures like Charlie Kirk on backing Israel, highlighting conflicts of interest. This divide has roots in past conservative clashes and is now prominent within the GOP base. The Israel lobby is seen as hindering American sovereignty, causing tension for figures like Ben Shapiro and his ally Matt Walsh.

Republicans supporting Israel should consider the connections between influential figures and Israeli interests. Notably, Epstein had ties to prominent individuals linked to Israel, and his mysterious associations raise questions. It's crucial to differentiate between Jewish identity and Zionist support; not all Jewish people endorse Israel's actions. The current escalation of violence against Palestinians coincides with significant Israeli influence in U.S. politics, particularly during Biden's presidency. The narrative that Israel is involved in human trafficking and political manipulation is concerning. Supporting Israel amidst these issues raises moral questions about complicity in violence and human rights violations. It's essential to critically assess these connections rather than blindly follow party lines.