reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 delivers a heartfelt apology and clarification surrounding a controversial statement. He begins by admitting regret for saying that he “despise[d] Christian Zionists,” explaining that the remark came from anger and informing listeners that he does not actually despise Christian Zionists, whom he then describes as among the nicest and most trustworthy people in various respects. He emphasizes that his anger was aimed at a particular line of thinking, not at individuals who identify as Christian Zionists. He specifies the core issue that provoked his comments: on at least a couple of occasions, the Israeli government bombed churches in Gaza and killed Christians. He asserts that these bombings were not accidents and notes that Israel is a high-tech military force capable of precision, to the extent that he mentions they gave pagers with bombs to Hezbollah. He states that “they didn’t accidentally bomb two churches and kill these Christians, and they never apologized for it.” In discussing responses to this grievance, he says he raised the issue with a couple of Christian leaders, including the Speaker of the House, asking how their government could be paying to bomb churches and, by extension, paying for it. He recounts the consistent reaction he received: “the Bible commands us to support Israel.” He recounts a critical question: “And I said, so Jesus is telling us that we need to get on board with murdering Christians. Is that what you’re saying?” He characterizes the response as essentially silencing him, stating that they “basically were just like, shut up,” which he found deeply distressing as a Christian. He clarifies the main point he intended to convey: one cannot support the murder of innocents, regardless of the pretext, and such an act is not allowed in his religion. He asserts that there is no justification for murder of innocents in the New Testament, and that if there were, it would not represent his religion at all. He reiterates his distress and emphasizes that he does not hate and should not have used the term “despise,” clarifying that the statement was about a specific line of thinking, not about the individuals. He concludes with a sincere apology for not being clearer in his original expression.

I've lost a lot of friends. I've particularly in the Israel question, I've never talked about Israel. I'm not a hater of Israel. Netanyahu is really hurting The United States and the world. It's completely out of control. Over twenty years, twenty five years. And, so I've always had that view, but I've kept it to myself because it's not worth it. But we've been pushed so hard and used so much by him that it's just terrible for the country that I I grew up in. And so I've said something and, you know, you do that and people you really, like, had dinner with and really liked are all of a sudden denouncing you as a Nazi or whatever. I never wanted that and it makes me sad now.

It's strange that many Christian conservatives/nationalists are anti-Israel, given Israel's importance to both Jews and Christians, especially concerning Jesus's Jewish heritage and biblical history. Organized tours to Israel often have more Christians than Jews. All Jewish and Christian people should care about preserving Israel to preserve biblical history. Christian history is tied to Jewish history; Christianity wouldn't exist without Judaism. God's covenant with Abraham remains with Israel and the Jewish people. Israel fights America's battles by pushing back radical Islamic jihadism. Judeo-Christian values connect Christianity, the Jewish people, Israel, and the United States. The threat in America is real; if pro-Israel events aren't safe in Texas, nowhere in America is safe for Jews or Christians who support Israel.

To restore balance between the United States and Israel, the speaker says we must get our theology right. This is not a message aimed at Israelis or Jews; it targets Christians, the largest group of Israel supporters in the United States. He calls the belief that God favors some people by DNA 'the oldest of the Christian heresies' and says, 'The chosen people are people who choose Jesus.' He declares, 'That is not Christianity. It is heresy.' He warns that if America pulls the plug on Israel, god will pull the plug on us, and, 'God will kill you if you don't support Bibi Netanyahu.' He argues that 'The Christian message is universal' and that, 'If you find anyone leveraging the message of Jesus to justify the killing of innocents, that person is committing heresy.'

"If Bibi Netanyahu, if he does something I don't like and if I criticize it, am I, like, a bad Christian? Absolutely not." "What I find strange is that we're able to criticize the American government sometimes in the Christian world with more freedom than the Israeli government." "To be pro Israel means you believe in the nation of Israel Mhmm. Not necessarily the government of Israel." "When you when Joe Biden was president, you and I were what we loved America, but we detested our government." "If they challenge a foreign government, which is what happens so often. Right. Like you're a bad Christian if you have a question about a foreign government." "Right. That creates backlash that I don't think people understand."

The discussion centers on Israel, Iran, and the United States’ role, focusing on perceived double standards about “foreign agents,” changing U.S. policy under Donald Trump, and concerns about influence inside American politics. Mario and the other speaker open by reacting to news claiming Netanyahu intends to tap pro-Israel Republican lawmakers and media figures such as Mark Levin to help undo progress toward a peace deal with Iran. They argue that Netanyahu’s position is not about nuclear weapons in practice, but about continuing pressure on Iran. The speaker says deterrence and nuclear power mean Israel will not be attacked the way it fears, and that Iran’s role as a regional power has checked aggression. They also claim there is no military option to change Iran’s position, which is presented as part of why Trump signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU). The conversation then turns to a perceived double standard in U.S. discourse about foreign influence: critics fearmongering about certain countries and allegedly demonizing anyone who is complimentary or fair toward them. The speaker says careers are threatened and people are accused of being foreign agents in one case, while Israel-related foreign influence is treated as normal. They emphasize that if the U.S. treats Russia differently from Israel regarding foreign agents, the same standard should apply to both. They discuss frustration with criticism aimed at people outside the U.S. for caring about democracy and sovereignty, and note that Americans are not portrayed in similar stories to the same extent as prominent pro-Israel media figures. The speaker also argues that foreigners can support Israel verbally without risking lives or bankrolls in the way Americans would. On the war with Iran and the MOU, the speaker says Trump’s shift and signing reflect inability to pursue a military alternative, and that “math is math.” They emphasize that Iran is described as having control over the Strait of Hormuz and that prolonged conflict would worsen economic and material pressures, including a fertilizer crisis, beyond oil and gas. They argue that continuing engagement risks restarting a pointless war, especially given claims that Netanyahu is working to sabotage peace efforts. The speaker highlights Netanyahu’s stated intent to continue offensive actions in Lebanon and questions what the U.S. would do after Iran’s retaliation. Lindsey Graham’s support for the MOU is described as notable, and they debate whether this represents short-term defeat-acknowledgment while planning longer-term sabotage, versus a genuine shift. The speaker says it is difficult to determine directly but claims Israel has exerted pressure on U.S. policy for a long time and suggests the relationship is not based on genuine closeness between Trump and Netanyahu. They state Israel’s acceptance of U.S. support is framed as financially and militarily asymmetrical: the U.S. is described as funding roughly half of Israel’s military and providing major foreign aid, while the speaker claims Israel’s intelligence provided to the U.S. has allegedly pulled the U.S. into wars. A related topic is the potential merger of U.S. and Israeli military and intelligence structures. The speaker calls it “wild,” says it would make it “nearly impossible to get rid of” personnel they describe as Israeli infiltrators, and warns that it could lead to violent domestic upheaval if the trend continues. They also claim Senator Tom Cotton is pushing to merge Mossad and the CIA and call into question whether he is influenced by something like cash. The conversation includes discussion of political outcomes and voter behavior, including a claim that Israel-aligned influence may be “lucky” when fighting happens in primaries because voters are more galvanized and less focused in general elections. They argue that non-voters form a large block, that media division contributes to atomization, and that the system needs change rather than demonizing ordinary citizens. Turning to Israel’s internal perspective, the speaker says Israelis may believe they are entitled to border expansion and claims that U.S. support for decades conditions Israel to think its actions are acceptable. They argue that this makes it harder for Israeli society to undo narratives that justify harming civilians. They reject empathy toward “terrorists,” and claim that when critics label wrongdoing as terrorism, they are accused of anti-Semitism. The transcript discusses Mike Huckabee’s remarks that the U.S. “wouldn’t exist without Israel.” The speaker responds that the U.S. is older than Israel and argues that Israel cannot exist without U.S. support. They also link Huckabee’s stance to evangelical Christian beliefs about Israel’s role in the second coming, stating that those beliefs affect support for the state of Israel. They reference Huckabee’s meeting with Jonathan Pollard (described as a U.S. traitor) and say the White House response was no but there was “no problem,” expressing anger that such actions would not be treated as unacceptable. On whether Trump is under duress, they discuss claims that Trump’s behavior shifted after the 2024 assassination attempt. The speaker says they are not an insider but is influenced by Joe Kent’s claims and says Israel “has the capacity and capability” to carry out assassinations and use blackmail. They continue that Trump’s choices may reflect constraints rather than ideological alignment. Finally, they discuss how much control a U.S. president truly has, describing the deep state, unelected bureaucrats, and agency autonomy as factors that allow decisions to be made without presidential approval, including references to CENTCOM and past claims that “authorization from the U.S.” does not necessarily mean Trump personally authorized actions. The conversation concludes with the speaker expressing hope Trump continues working toward peace, while emphasizing skepticism that the MOU will lead to a lasting peace deal, and warning that U.S. influence structures and institutional autonomy could undermine desired outcomes.

If Bibi Netanyahu does something I don't like and I criticize it, am I a bad Christian? Absolutely not. What I find strange is that we can criticize the American government sometimes in the Christian world with more freedom than the Israeli government. To be pro Israel means you believe in the nation of Israel Mhmm. Not necessarily the government of Israel. When Joe Biden was president, you and I were what we loved America, but we detested our government. You never you never once said, hey. I'm I'm out on America. And what they don't want is they don't wanna be called bad Christians Mhmm. If they challenge a foreign government, which is what happens so often. That creates backlash that I don't think people understand.

"If Bibi Netanyahu, if he does something I don't like and if I criticize it, am I, like, a bad Christian? Absolutely not." "What I find strange is that we're able to criticize the American government sometimes in the Christian world with more freedom than the Israeli government." "To be pro Israel means you believe in the nation of Israel Mhmm. Not necessarily the government of Israel." "When you when Joe Biden was president, you and I were what we loved America, but we detested our government. And those two those two things beautifully coexisted." "Exactly. And what they don't want is they don't wanna be called bad Christians Mhmm." "If they challenge a foreign government, which is what happens so often. Right. Like you're a bad Christian if you have a question about a foreign government." "Right. That creates backlash that I don't think people understand."

The speaker says a figure has annoyed the Jewish community over the last few months with criticisms of Israel. He cites a Jerusalem Post piece about backlash after Tucker Carlson spoke at SAS, where people were calling him an anti Semite. "I know Charlie and here he's little do they know half the time he's on college campuses, all he's doing is Hasbara and defending Israel. And he doesn't even wanna be. He doesn't even know the issues that well, but he's forced to." "But he dutifully with a smile on his face, defends Israel left and right." We saw him in England, at the debate, passionately defending Israel. And that's not even what he wants to be doing. Now he's getting criticized as an anti Semite. So I wrote that piece in the Jerusalem Post basically saying, listen, everybody. Stop with the purity tests for every single view that he has to line up with, I don't know, B. B. Cabinet decisions. "Relax. Okay? This is our greatest ally. Yes, he has questions. Yes, he's influenced by the other side as well." "Good. I'm talking to him."

Let me explain what's going on. The elitist Jews—the woke liberal elitist Jews, the ones like the border deputies who are pro open borders—don't represent all Jews. Netanyahu and his government are conserve conservative. They're not woke. They're not liberal. They're not open borders. They're conservatives. I've been invited by the conservative government. So you'll see the woke liberal Jews upset—the ones who want mass open border immigration and have created a hostile environment for ordinary Jews, the ones that don't represent most ordinary Jews. There's a big divide, as you’ve seen with the ADL. These so called voices of the Jewish community betray the Jewish community with their hugging up and cozying up to Islam and open border mass immigration; they're the reason all these problems are happening. They're upset because the real Zionist Jews, who are strong conservatives, invited me. And they're upset about it.

The transcript centers on a chaotic, on-the-ground interview set around a political event described as America First, with strong pro- and anti-Israel sentiments and tensions about free speech and enforcement. - Inside the event, Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss being kicked out and the mystery of why someone was trespassed. They question why they were removed, claiming they were curious about the treatment of the other person and asserting, “There’s no reason you’re getting kicked out.” - The speakers insist on the idea of free speech in America, contrasting it with what they see as limits on criticizing Israel. They reference Candace Owens’ planned appearance and note that Turning Point disavowed her views, stating the organization “does not sponsor her views” and that she’s “not an employee,” implying a hypocrisy in defending free speech while limiting critique of Israel. - There is a recurring theme that Israel is being criticized as a global issue, with claims that “Israel’s leadership be kissing our wall” and assertions that Israel is prosecuting a genocide in Gaza. They state numbers and condemnations, including claims that “they’ve killed 30,000 women and children,” and accuse Israel of using U.S. money and bombs. - The conversation shifts to Christian concerns, arguing that Christians are harmed by Israeli policy—citing that Israel vandalizes Christian churches, bomb Christians in Gaza, and bans the gospel. They argue that if Israel is the “holy land for Christians,” its actions contradict that claim, labeling the land “the devil’s land in Israel” and asserting that “they hate Jesus.” - The speakers discuss anti-Semitism laws, noting that Republicans in multiple states have backed anti-Semitism measures and that there are efforts in Congress and the Department of Education. They claim the definition of anti-Semitism has been broadened to prohibit statements like, for example, saying that Jews killed Jesus, referencing what they describe as the Passion narratives. - Personal beliefs and identity come into play, including an exchange about who should lead, with Speaker 0 saying Christians should be central, and Speaker 1 emphasizing that the country should be Christian and that “Christ is the king of the world,” advocating for Christian leadership in America. - The group comments on the ease of entry and exit from the event, noting that security is visible and that protesters are across the street in a designated protest area. They mention plans to possibly debate Charlie Kirk on the issue, and discuss the internal dynamics of the movement, criticizing figures like Brooke Rollins and JD Vance as part of a broader critique that “America First” has been undermined by insiders. - The conversation ends with plans to leave the scene, take photos, and reconnect with their driver, signaling a departure from the event after a brief appearance and confrontation. They reference future actions, including potential debates and continued protests, and acknowledge the frustration of the current situation.

Speaker 0: "We're just gonna try to we're we're gonna just stamp out everything type type of practice, but it goes to the point where if, for example, if I I have less ability sometimes online to criticize the Israeli government about backlash than actual Israelis do. And that's really, really weird, isn't it, Megan?" Speaker 1: "That's not right. Wrong headed." He says he faced blowback after saying, "Mossad, possibilities with Epstein," a comment he stands by, and that he "reported what Alan Dershowitz has said as his lawyer." He writes, "He says, I think he would have told me. He didn't say he had any of those connections. I hear all that. That doesn't mean it's not true." "I think all these things should be explored." "It's one of the many things that should be explored around Epstein." He finishes, "But saying that and also saying he might be a US asset, etcetera, doesn't make you antisemitic."

"If Bibi Netanyahu, if he does something I don't like and if I criticize it, am I, like, a bad Christian? Absolutely not." "What I find strange is that we're able to criticize the American government sometimes in the Christian world with more freedom than the Israeli government." "To be pro Israel means you believe in the nation of Israel Mhmm. Not necessarily the government of Israel." "When you when Joe Biden was president, you and I were what we loved America, but we detested our government." "You never you never once said, hey, I'm I'm out on America. On America's right." "And what they don't want is they don't wanna be called bad Christians Mhmm." "If they challenge a foreign government, which is what happens so often. Right. Like you're a bad Christian if you have a question about a foreign government."

Benjamin Netanyahu is not the same as the nation of Israel at all. "Bibi is despised by many people, in Israel." There are "huge divisions within the Israeli government," and "parts of the intel world in Israel that do not support some things Benjamin Netanyahu has done recently." "his attempt to hijack Charlie's memory and use it for his own political ends, particularly because what he said was completely untrue." "Charlie didn't hate Jews. He loved Jews. He loved the state of Israel, loved going there." He "did not like Bibi Netanyahu, and he said that to me many times, and to people around him many times." "He felt that Bibi Netanyahu was a very destructive force." He was "appalled by what was happening in Gaza," and he "resented Netanyahu using The United States to prosecute his wars for the benefit of his country, and that it was shameful and embarrassing and bad for The United States."

"And that suits the Israelis just fine." "And if you're wondering why there's an awful lot of lunatic antisemitic comment about Israel online, you have to wonder how much of that is organic." "But how much of it is not organic at all?" "How much of that is being ginned up on purpose to make legitimate questions about the US government's relationship with the government of Israel seem like crackpot stuff, like hate, like David Duke level lunacy?" "Probably some because it serves their interest." "And so the true shame here, the actual villain in the story is the leadership of The United States that is putting up with serial humiliation for decades." "You'd think every country would act that way, and most do." "And for what reason? So if there's someone to be mad at, it's our leaders."

I've lost a lot of friends. And I've particularly in the Israel question, I've never talked about Israel. I'm not a hater of Israel. Certainly not a hater of Jews. But Netanyahu is really hurting The United States and the world. It's completely out of control. I've thought that for a very long time, Over twenty years, twenty five years. I never wanted that and it makes me sad now. Friends who denounce you as Nazi for your honest opinion are not really friends. I've lost one real friend Right. In the past ten years. One actual friend, and I and I feel it's painful for me. And it wasn't about Israel, but we just diverged politically and he could not be friends with me.

The discussion centers on political criticism and backlash tied to Israel. One participant says Americans can be criticized heavily about their own government—citing being “brutal” on presidents from Barack Obama to Joe Biden and also being critical of Donald Trump “where he deserves it too”—but claims a different standard applies when criticism involves Israel. They describe a “hard no” response from a faction of the conservative movement, where critics are labeled “grifter[s]” and attacked by “bots nonstop online,” alongside an “apparatus” that “immediately turns on you.” They ask who is effectively trying to “veto” or block efforts by figures such as Tom Massie, podcasters, and people raising issues on social media. The other participant argues that the groups involved “entirely support Israel,” and points to Israel-related funding and campaigns, saying they have to set aside “seven hundred and fifty million dollars in a propaganda campaign” and references hiring Brad Parscale. They say Brad Parscale runs Salem Media and “had to register as a foreign agent for a foreign government.” They also claim that during the Trump reelection effort, “millions of dollars had disappeared from the campaign,” and that Parscale was “in charge of it,” implying it is “kind of shocking” and “odd” that he would be responsible for missing money and later overseeing other efforts. They add that it was “so significant” that he “had no choice,” and note that Parscale is “upfront about being a paid—at least… about being” something related to the arrangement being discussed. The conversation then returns to criticizing Israel’s government and foreign policy. One participant says it is “fine to be critical of Israel,” arguing that having “an issue with Israel’s foreign policy” or claiming Israel “getting us into a war” should not automatically make someone an “anti-Semite” or “a bad person.” The transcript ends mid-sentence with “I question the.”

"If Bibi Netanyahu, if he does something I don't like and if I criticize it, am I, like, a bad Christian? Absolutely not." "What I find strange is that we're able to criticize the American government sometimes in the Christian world with more freedom than the Israeli government." "To be pro Israel means you believe in the nation of Israel Mhmm. Not necessarily the government of Israel." "When you when Joe Biden was president, you and I were what we loved America, but we detested our government." "And those two things beautifully coexisted." "If they challenge a foreign government, which is what happens so often." "Right. Like you're a bad Christian if you have a question about a foreign government." "Right. That creates backlash that I don't think people understand."

To get into government, one faces headwinds if they oppose the US-Israel relationship, in both appointed and elected positions. The Israel lobby has incredible power over government decisions. Questioning Israeli government policies leads to accusations of antisemitism, which is unique. There are legitimate concerns about antisemitism on college campuses.

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.

Entering a discussion about Israel often leads to accusations of racism or anti-Semitism if there's any disagreement. Free speech is a fundamental right, and no one should dictate what you can say or think. When questioning U.S. support for Israel, critics are quickly labeled as bigots, regardless of their background. This tactic is used to shut down debate and deflect criticism. Every American has the right to express their views openly, and that should be respected as part of the nation's values.

Christians should support the biblical Israel, not the current state of Israel. Criticizing those who claim to be Jews but are not is mentioned in the Bible. Questioning and criticizing should be allowed, as it is a red flag when certain groups or narratives cannot be questioned.

Speaker 0 describes the backlash: "The behavior by a lot, both privately and publicly, are pushing people like you and me away." He adds: "I am learning biblical Hebrew and writing a book on the Shabbat. I honor the Shabbat, literally the Jewish Sabbath. I visit Israel and fight for it." He asserts identity and support: "Yes. I'm an American citizen." "Yes. I want Israel to win." "But my moral character is now being put into question." He emphasizes the impact of online discourse: "Well, you and I believe that we're Americans and Americans first, period. End of story. We are citizens of this nation." He cites: "And the thing about Epstein is just so bizarre. I don't know who he was an agent for. It might have been Israel or an asset, or it might have been nobody, but we're allowed to speculate about that. It's like just some rule. You can't go there when it comes to Israel." He concludes with: "I love Israel."

The speaker asserts that the Trump administration was “the best administration I’ve ever seen,” noting it’s ten years after the Trump movement and Brexit, and that their side is in power. They express willingness for a long political run, saying they’d be happy if JD Vance could be president for eight years and Marco Rubio for another eight, with continued involvement. They remark that after Trump, the drumbeat of opposition began quickly, accusing him of starting World War III or being controlled, and they stress that those in government have different responsibilities from those in opposition. They ask how JD Vance can win the next election if the group outside has spent four years tearing each other apart. The speaker then addresses being Jewish within the NatCon movement. They state they’ve never done this before and are not particularly comfortable with it. They reflect that it was easy and great to be a leader in the nationalist movement and Jewish until about a year and a half ago, because whenever left-leaning Jews or others accused their speakers of antisemitism, the speaker could defend them, arguing people hadn’t spoken to the person, hadn’t read full statements, and were taking a sentence out of context. They found it fun and rewarding to defend against what they viewed as false, ridiculous antisemitism accusations, and it made them popular. Now, they say, it’s not that easy anymore. They acknowledge that criticism of Israel is fine as a policy discussion, but they’ve been struck by the “depth of the slander of Jews as a people” online over the last year and a half, and say they didn’t expect this on the right. They observe a transition among some on the right—people they once admired and still admire in part—who now believe that praising the Muslim Brotherhood, Islam, and the Quran is appropriate, and that Jews are a big problem. They express hope this will pass and call for reconsidering the relationship between Jews and Christians, proposing a mutual discussion and honor if possible, rather than a vile stream of accusations about Jews’ actions toward Christians in the Middle Ages. Finally, they stress that the coalition was built by Donald Trump and is broad enough to win the next election and future ones. They warn that driving coalition members out, dishonoring them, or keeping them dishonored will lead to loss: it would destroy Vance’s prospects, Rubio’s prospects, and America’s prospects. The speaker presents a choice: preserve the coalition or risk undermining it.