reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Genesis: 'And God said, I will curse those who curse Israel' and 'And through you, I will bless all nations.' These quotes were spoken to Abraham. He asks, 'are Israelites or are Jews still God's chosen people?' and answers, 'No.' He cites Galatians: 'There is neither Jew nor Gentile slave nor free nor is there male or female for you all are one in Christ Jesus.' 'If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.' He claims this provides 'clear and undeniable evidence from scripture that God said that if you are one in Christ, you are God's people, and you are the seed of Abraham.' He states, 'the modern day Jews that reside in the state of Israel are not God's people. It is the Christians, the people who are one in Christ.' He urges, 'Read these passages, read the context around them, and don't just go based upon one little pluck from the bible to base your entire belief system off of when it comes to who are God's people.'

Speaker 0: The Israelites is not Israel. And as Tony and I are both Catholic, and so when we talk about the Israelites that are talked about in the Bible, there is a clear distinction between this prophecy about the Israelites and the government of Israel and white Europeans settling into the holy land. Mhmm. And so when we say this, like, the Israelites, the Israelites in the bible are actually the Palestinian people who have been there for thousands of years, not the white European from Ukraine or Poland or America. The Israelites are the people who were indigenous to that land that lived there for thousands of years, and those are not the people who have Trump wrapped around his finger. It's this, like, settler colonial white Europeans that have settled into the land of the actual Israelites that have either blackmailed him or cut deals with him financially. I mean, we go back to greed. Right? Greed is always, like, a big factor decisions. So Trump, in all senses, is wrapped in intertwined with this government and the Zionist regime and the Rothschilds and the Vanderbilts and the 13 rich families that control the world, basically. Right.

A reporter from the Stue Peters Network repeatedly asks members of congress whether they care more about the American people or Israel. One congressman says Israel is a strong ally and needs US support. The reporter asks if the US should continue funding Israel despite its links to 9/11 and the attack on the USS Liberty, and claims that APAC money is flowing into Congress. Another representative compares the question to asking if he loves his wife more than his daughter, stating they are different loves. He does not answer directly. One congressman states he cares more about the American people, making him the first to give that answer. The reporter asks if APAC should register as a foreign agent, claiming it is pumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into congressional candidates and promoting an Israel-first policy.

The discussion centers on the way lawmakers reference religion in foreign policy and whether that approach is effective. Speaker 0 asks the audience how many think a respected lawmaker like Ted Cruz uses the Bible to justify aid to Israel, even if he doesn’t know the verse, and whether that is the best approach. Speaker 1 responds by referencing Ted Cruz’s Genesis twelve three, and notes that many find that off-putting when contrasted with the New Testament, specifically Paul’s writings about the new flesh not being the same as the people in the old covenant. Speaker 1 asks, “Yes. Romans nine?” and agrees with the sentiment. Speaker 0 then asks Speaker 1 if they are Catholic, to which Speaker 1 replies that they are converting Catholic from Judaism, revealing that they are ethnically Jewish. The exchange confirms Speaker 1’s Jewish ethnicity. Speaker 0 brings up concerns about APAC, asking if Speaker 1 has concerns about APAC. Speaker 1 confirms that they do. Speaker 0 notes that some people tell them that criticizing APAC equates to being anti-Semitic, asking whether this is true. Speaker 1 calls that notion ridiculous and says it’s great to have concern for one’s country. The conversation shifts to APAC’s influence. Speaker 0 presents a characterization (as a possible summary of Speaker 1’s view) that APAC represents a form of prioritization that cuts in line, away from the American people. Speaker 0 asks whether this is a fair summary. Speaker 1 answers affirmatively, “100%.” Finally, they articulate the core idea: the public votes and are citizens, but a separate group is described as receiving higher priority for whatever reasons. Speaker 1’s agreement underscores a shared concern that APAC’s influence creates a prioritization that bypasses the ordinary American electorate.

"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."

Speaker 0 asks if Ted Cruz uses the Bible to justify aid to Israel and if he even knows the verse. "Genesis twelve three" is cited, seen as off-putting when viewed against the New Testament. "The new flesh is not the same as the people in the old covenant. The new flesh is everybody's." The dialogue moves to religious identity: "Are you Catholic?" "Converting to Catholic from This is my next step," and "ethnically Jewish." Concerns about APAC are voiced: "I'm told that, by some people Mhmm. That if I criticize AIPAC, I'm anti Semitic." "I think it's ridiculous." They discuss whether APAC represents "a kind of cutting in line of prioritization away from the American people," and affirm "100%," noting we vote, but "a separate group gets higher priority because of whatever reasons."

"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."

Charlie Kirk is accused of critiquing Israel’s actions in Gaza during this summit, with claims that he is supposed to be a Christian conservative. A number of participants argue that critiques of Israel are being framed as anti-Semitism, while others emphasize that disagreeing with the current Israeli government or questioning AIPAC does not automatically make someone anti-Semitic. One participant says the repeated “anti-Semitism” labeling is being used as an excuse to “spout anti-Semitism.” They argue that people treat Israel as sacred while demanding reduced involvement, referencing uncertainty about “Messiah” and “Reminds me of the CIA.” Another participant responds that an ally should treat an ally differently, and claims they are told that criticizing AIPAC is anti-Semitic. A participant states they have “concerns about AIPAC,” describing it as a prioritization problem: citizens vote and pay attention to American interests, but “a separate group gets higher priority.” Another participant says the entirety of the idea of a PAC is to represent a group, but criticizes allowing a group they claim “doesn’t even represent American interests” to influence representatives. They also claim that only about 20 members across the Senate and House are fully doing the work of the American people. The discussion includes examples of anti-Semitic accusations being dismissed. One participant says they do not hate Jews, and argues that defending a nation should not be treated as hatred. Another participant compares the dynamic to how “racism” is used—if people disagree, they are called names without proof, based on inability to “prove them wrong.” On Israel aid, a participant says the U.S. sends almost $4 billion to Israel “every year,” totaling $319 billion adjusted to inflation since 1948, and says this makes them upset. They argue the money could be better spent supporting an economy at home, including homes, rather than military strikes. They respond to a hypothetical five-year plan for Israel to decouple from USAID by saying Israel could be self-reliant, with balanced budgets and a sovereign wealth fund, and that such a transition would make people think higher of Israel and stop constant discussion. Religious references are raised, including Genesis 12.3 and Romans 9-6, and the conversation notes someone describing being ethnically Jewish and having concerns about AIPAC. A final exchange asks whether canceling Tucker would change anti-Semitism levels; one participant says it would increase because supporters would be treated as anti-Semites by association. The conversation ends with a claim that there is an “earthquake” coming on the issue that others do not believe, and urges hearing it “from people themselves.”

The speaker argues that “Christians evangelists here in America, which almost all of them are Republicans, they probably all gonna vote for Trump” and that they are “very poor Israel.” He says, without Christianity, the U.S. has little to do with Israel, noting “The only things they are helping us is because of religion reason.” He contends they’re “not doing it for us. They are doing it only for themselves.” He warns, “Make no mistake. They all believe that once we will go back to the holy land and JC Penny will show up to redeem the world, he will put us all to be burned in hell,” because “we've never accepted him, and we won't accept him.” He questions why “a lot of the people who made Aliyah, it's Christian money,” adding “They get hundreds of millions of dollars donation from them.” He says “the Messiah would come,” but “They just have the wrong identity of the Messiah. That's it. They believe that it's actually JC.” “They would dump all the Christian symbols you know well because it would be so obvious that it's all fake. Mhmm. Rabbi Thay”

Speaker 0 states their support for Israel stems from a biblical teaching: those who bless Israel will be blessed. Speaker 1 questions if this refers to the modern government of Israel. Speaker 0 clarifies the Bible refers to the nation of Israel. Speaker 1 asks for a definition of Israel, questioning if it means the current political entity run by Benjamin Netanyahu, and Speaker 0 confirms that it does. Speaker 1 suggests the Genesis verse refers to the Jewish people, but Speaker 0 disagrees. Speaker 1 points out Speaker 0 cannot cite the exact scripture. Speaker 0 says they are explaining their personal motivation, not saying all Christians must support the modern state of Israel. Speaker 1 summarizes Speaker 0's position as being based on a Bible verse they cannot locate.

"As Christians support the government of Israel, we are commanded to support Israel." "It says that those who bless you, Abraham, this was before Israel, will be blessed by God." "And those who curse you, Abraham, will be cursed by God." "For not all who are born into the nation of Israel are truly members of God's people." "Being descendants of Abraham doesn't make them truly Abraham's children." "Israel didn't have a nation or a land to call their own for almost two thousand years since the destruction of the temple in the year seventy AD." "The nation of Israel was recreated through some political operatives after World War II." "I think the scripture makes it clear that it's about whether you're blessing or cursing the true children of Abraham, those who believe the promises of the gospel."

Hello, I'm Ted Pike, and this is my wife, Alain. Today, we discuss the powerful influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Congress, which secures nearly $5 billion annually for Israel. Elected officials avoid criticizing Israel due to fear of being labeled anti-Semitic, a serious political risk. The media, largely controlled by Jewish interests, reinforces this narrative, discouraging any dissent against Israel. As a result, politicians are constrained by political correctness regarding Israel's actions and the ongoing aid. This situation arises from deep-rooted religious beliefs within Christianity that have fostered a strong bond with Israel, blinding many to the suffering of Palestinians.

Speaker 0 argues that the biblical quotation is being misrepresented, saying that instead of “I will bless those who bless Israel,” the relevant wording is “I will bless those who bless Abraham,” and claims the passage is not even being quoted properly by those using it to justify action. Speaker 1 says the effect is to distort American politics, stating that it was agreed during the “Russia hysteria” of the last administration that it was wrong and illegal for a foreign government to control American politics. They assert that now the national conversation is centered on a “tiny, totally irrelevant” country with “one great city, Jerusalem,” described as geopolitically irrelevant and “at the behest of a foreign government.” Speaker 1 adds that the foreign government is said to be openly threatening censorship of those who disagree—“you don’t agree with us? We’re gonna censor you”—and questions how that can stand. They state that they see a pattern in which small satellite groups, including the ADL and APAC, push the position, and that “the congress obeys.” They conclude that a foreign leader calling for censorship of American citizens, along with related organizational and congressional responses, must be a “red line.”

"Israel is the only country I know of that has some sort of incredible influence and control over nearly every single one of my colleagues." "Because APAC are Americans, therefore, they can legally donate to members of congress and senators." "Freshman, member of congress, or first year in congress, they take them on a very special trip to Israel in August." "That's Dems the and Republicans or just Republicans? They take both of them. Yes." "So they take them on this trip to Israel." "They wear the, kippah." "They and even though they're Christians. They're they're not Jewish, but yet they're adorning, Jewish attire, and they're at these Jewish, religious sites." "The Israeli government is secular." "This is not the biblical Israel." "It is the secular government of Israel."

The speaker describes meeting with prime minister Netanyahu as part of a Christian conservative Gen Z focus group, noting that Netanyahu listened attentively and heard their concerns. "APAC is not an Israeli organization. It has no ties whatsoever to the government of Israel. It's not foreign lobbying." "APAC, like, makes up less than 5% of the lobbying." "Israel is not offering to fund anybody. They're not trying to get involved in American political advocacy groups. That has never happened." "If you're about this, who you should be concerned about is Qatar because they are doing this." "Many of these protests slash riots that you see destroying our cities, a lot of that has foreign funding from Qatar." "Netanyahu's first address to congress was to say that they didn't want aid."

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.

Speaker 0 asserts that they have never taken money from the Israel lobby and asks if Speaker 1 has. Speaker 1 clarifies that APAC raises a lot of money for him, but emphasizes that the fundraisers are individuals, not the PAC itself, meaning it’s a misnomer to say the PAC raises money. He describes APAC as an American lobby and explains that APAC stands for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He admits APAC is not a “foreign lobby” and says its purpose is not effectively defined as a single objective. He states his own entry into Congress thirteen years ago with the goal of being the leading defender of Israel in the United States Senate and says he has worked every day to that end. He notes that APAC is sometimes more effective than he wishes and then characterizes APAC as “a fever swamp of terrified of APAC.” Speaker 0 challenges the idea that APAC lobbies on behalf of the Israeli government, insisting that APAC lobbies for a foreign government. Speaker 1 responds that APAC is not lobbying for a foreign government; it is lobbying for a strong US–Israel relationship and for America and Israel to be closely allied. Speaker 0 maintains that APAC is lobbying for the interests of another country and reiterates that it is not true that APAC has nothing to do with the government. Speaker 0 asks about how much contact APAC leaders have with the government of Israel, and Speaker 1 acknowledges some contact, suggesting that the government of Israel is often frustrated with APAC, and asks whether they talk. He compares the situation to lobbying for more US–Mexico trade, noting that one would talk to both sides. Speaker 0 accepts that there are many countries that lobby Washington, including Israel, and expresses familiarity with how lobbying works, including knowing Americans who lobby on behalf of foreign governments and even being related to some. The central question for Speaker 0 is not whether foreign governments lobby the United States, but why it isn’t admitted as a common practice. He states that it’s true that many countries lobby Washington, including Israel, and asks why they aren’t registered as foreign lobbies. Speaker 1 responds that they are not registered as such.

Speaker 3 said he has been told that criticizing AIPAC makes him anti-Semitic. Speaker 1 called that “ridiculous.” Speaker 3 said it feels good to have concern for one’s country and asked whether AIPAC represents a “cutting in line of prioritization” away from the American people—meaning that although Americans vote and are citizens, a separate group gets higher priority. Speaker 0 responded that the point of a PAC is to represent a group, but said there is a “huge problem” with allowing a group that does not represent American interests to influence people who are supposed to represent Americans. Speaker 0 said he has previously stated that he thinks only “like 20 representatives between Senate and the House” fully do the work of the American people without the interests of some group pulling their sway. Speaker 1 said that “over since 1948” the amount amounts to “$319 billion adjusted to inflation” and argued that there are multiple things the money could have been spent on at home instead of military strikes for Israel. Speaker 1 said the money could have been better allocated toward supporting an economy that would help the current generation afford homes. Speaker 3 asked what else would improve views if Israel’s government presented a “five-year plan to decouple from us aid,” including moving toward self-reliance, and noted that Israel is a rich country that has balanced its budget and money in a sovereign wealth fund. He asked whether people would think more highly of Israel if it stopped relying on U.S. aid and if the issue were talked about less. Speaker 2 agreed that people should be less focused on labeling, saying that the word “racism” is used when there is disagreement and that “we just have to call them a name.” Speaker 2 said he does not think people are anti-Semitic, arguing that people “just can’t agree with them” and can’t “prove them wrong,” so they “throw a word out” like “anti-Semitic” because they think the U.S. should stop sending money there. Speaker 3 said, “thank you” and noted that some people he tells “must get more aggressive.”

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 reporter from the Stue Peters Network repeatedly asks members of congress whether they care more about the American people or Israel. One congressman says Israel is a strong ally and needs US support, while another compares the question to asking if he loves his wife or daughter more. The reporter asks if the US should continue funding Israel despite alleged links to 9/11 and the attack on the USS Liberty, and suggests that APAC money influences congress. One congressman says he cares more about the American people, making him the first to give that answer. The reporter asks if APAC should register as a foreign agent.

The speaker, Ted Pike, and his wife discuss the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (APAC) in Congress. They claim that Israel, through its control of Congress, receives a significant amount of annual funding. They argue that elected officials fear being labeled as antisemitic if they criticize Israel, and that the media, primarily controlled by Jews, promotes this narrative. They suggest that politicians are unable to openly criticize Israel or suggest an end to aid, due to political correctness and Zionist control.

Speakers discuss Netanyahu’s influence: "He's using The United States, its economy, and its military power for his own ends." They note it's common but "remarkable how effective he's been at that and how contemptuous he is." "80% of Americans support us." They warn U.S. support is "tens of billions a year." "Phoebe Netanyahu is a foreigner." Concerns about Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz surface: "Ted Cruz says right into the camera, I was elected. My main goal was to help Israel." They argue antisemitism is "a dodge" and that "anti Semitism very often is a way to pass the buck. It's their fault." They contend Netanyahu is a threat—"I think that clearly they're gonna try and blow up Al Aqsa Mosque" to "build the third temple"—and ask, "Where's our self respect?" "I am way, way more angry at my leaders than I am at Netanyahu."

Speaker 0 criticizes Senator Cruz for not quoting the Bible correctly, saying, "god says that I will bless those who bless Israel," which is, "not what Genesis says," because it "says, I will bless those who bless Abraham." He notes it was "in that name that he said, this is why we have to do it," calling it "preposterous" and "sad." Speaker 1 argues the effect is to distort American politics. Referring to the Russia hysteria, he says it's wrong and illegal for a foreign government to control our politics, but now "our entire national conversation is about this tiny, totally irrelevant little country with a one great city, Jerusalem," at the behest of a foreign government who's openly saying, you don't agree with us? We're gonna censor you. He cites "the ADL, APAC" as satellites and says "congress obeys," calling it a red line.

Speaker discussion questions whether Ted Cruz uses the Bible to justify aid to Israel, noting 'Genesis twelve three' and that some see it as off putting when confronted with the New Testament, particularly Paul's writings about 'the new flesh is not the same as the people in the old covenant' and Romans nine. The dialogue reveals that the speaker is ethnically Jewish and converting Catholic, and has concerns about APAC. They mention being told that criticizing APAC could be labeled 'anti Semitic,' and 'I think it's ridiculous.' The group asks if APAC represents 'a kind of cutting in line of prioritization away from the American people,' to which the response is '100%,' followed by 'We vote. We're citizens, but a separate group gets higher priority because of whatever reasons.'