reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The conversation centers on whether “Judeo-Christian values” is an acceptable term, given religious differences between Judaism and Christianity. The first speaker, addressing Mr. Shapiro, says Mr. Shapiro has consistently promoted the idea that America was built on Judeo-Christian values. As a devout Christian, the speaker claims difficulty accepting the term because Judaism rejects Jesus. The speaker contrasts Christian beliefs that Jesus Christ is God with what they describe as teachings in the Talmud, saying it teaches that Jesus is burning in hellfire and excrement. They also point to a conflict with the New Testament’s teachings to love enemies and pray for persecutors, referencing the speaker’s claim that “verse 15 of the Talmud states that even the best of the gentiles should be killed.” The speaker asks why Mr. Shapiro insists on using what they call an “oxymoronic term” given these “irreconcilable differences.” Mr. Shapiro responds that the speaker’s reading of the Talmud is “a really bad read.” He also argues that the idea that any text can support the claim that Judaism, “broad writ,” is disdainful or hateful toward Christians or toward non-Jews is “a tremendous misread of Judaism over the centuries and particularly today.” He states that he can cite parts of the New Testament he finds personally problematic, as well as parts of the Quran he finds personally problematic, and that he could likely find problematic parts in the Old Testament as well. He says this does not indicate what Judaism is or its historic impact on the world. Mr. Shapiro asserts that “Judaism is the foundation of Christianity,” and says Jesus and the New Testament acknowledge this. He argues that claiming Judaism and Christianity are completely “de-linked” and teach two completely separate lessons ignores that the Old Testament is part of the New Testament. He says Christians and Jews think differently, but that the idea that they are completely disconnected is wrong. He further responds to the criticism based on Talmud citations by saying that citing texts from around 500 CE, during a time when Jews were being persecuted by Christians in the Roman Empire, is “a real stretch” to conclude that Jews today are overall hateful of Christians. He adds that he tells Christians to go to church and to reengage with their faith, and says he does not try to convert people to Judaism because it is forbidden in Jewish law. He concludes by saying there is a group online that spends all day cherry-picking bad lines from the Talmud to create a “giant myth” that Jews seek the extermination of Christians or some other conspiracy theory, which he calls a lie, and he reiterates that Judeo-Christian values are “quite real” because Judaism and Christianity have “an awful lot in common.”

Speaker 0 states that socialism, Islam, and Palestine are the three holy grail taboos in American politics. Speaker 1 responds enthusiastically. Speaker 0 asks why Palestine is a part of Speaker 1's politics. Speaker 1 answers that growing up in the third world gives a different understanding of the Palestinian struggle.

Speaker 0 questions the idea of representative groups and opposes representing individuals based on group identity, using the example of Jewish representation in Congress. Speaker 1 argues that the entire population is not fully represented, noting the absence of a Black female president. Speaker 0 raises the question of whether Jews are considered white, stating it's been debated and depends on the context. Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 directly if he identifies as white. Speaker 0 clarifies he's a man of Jewish ethnicity, sometimes grouped with white, sometimes not, depending on who is doing the grouping. Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0 is not white at all. Speaker 0 reiterates that it depends on the context and acknowledges that Jews have been grouped both with and without white people.

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

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."

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.”

Speaker 0 believes Christians are biblically commanded to support Israel, based on the idea that those who bless Israel will be blessed. Speaker 1 questions if this refers to the modern political entity of Israel, with its current borders and leadership, as opposed to the Jewish people. Speaker 0 affirms that the biblical reference to Israel does indeed refer to the modern nation-state, which he says is the same nation of Israel spoken about in Genesis. Speaker 1 expresses skepticism, suggesting that most people interpret the Genesis passage as referring to the Jewish people, not necessarily the political entity of modern Israel.

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.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's focus on defending Israel, suggesting it represents foreign influence in US politics. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of singling out Israel and implying Jewish control over foreign policy, labeling it an antisemitic trope. Speaker 0 denies antisemitism, stating the concern is about a foreign government's influence, not Jews or Judaism. Speaker 1 challenges Speaker 0 to provide another reason for focusing on Israel. Speaker 0 cites the potential for war with Iran and Speaker 1's stated goal of defending Israel upon entering Congress. Speaker 0 asserts that a lawmaker's job isn't to defend any foreign government's interests, regardless of ancestry, and condemns the antisemitism accusation.

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 asks if Ron DeSantis has ever denounced them, to which Speaker 1 replies that he hasn't. They claim to be his biggest supporters and if he were to denounce them, they would say he's lying because he's trying to secure the presidency. Speaker 1 mentions that politicians in the US have to support Israel and that DeSantis is just pretending to be a friend of the Jewish people while actually being a friend of white America. They bring up HB 269, a bill DeSantis signed in Israel, and criticize it for not achieving its intended goals. They conclude that DeSantis is focused on the best interests of white America.

Discussion questions whether a lawmaker like Ted Cruz uses the Bible to justify aid to Israel and whether he knows the verse. The speaker cites: "Ted Cruz's Genesis twelve three." They reference "the New Testament" and "the writings of Paul where he talks about how that the new flesh is not the same as the people in the old covenant. The new flesh is everybody's." "Romans nine?" A participant "Ethnically Jewish" and "Converting Catholic from Judaism" asks: "Are you Catholic?" and says they have concerns about APAC. "I'm told that by some people Mhmm. That if I criticize APAC, I'm anti Semitic." Another adds: "I think it's ridiculous. Yeah. I I feel like it's great to have a concern for your country." They ask: "Do you think that the that APAC represents Again, I'm not saying I believe this, but I think this is what you're saying, that it represents a kind of cutting in line of prioritization away from the American people." "100%."

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.”

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's focus on defending Israel, suggesting it represents foreign influence over US politics. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of obsessing over Israel and implying Jewish control of foreign policy, which Speaker 0 denies. Speaker 0 refutes being antisemitic, stating the concern is with a foreign government's influence, not Jewish people. Speaker 0 points out Speaker 1's stated goal to defend Israel upon entering Congress. Speaker 0 asserts that a lawmaker's job isn't to defend foreign governments, and accuses Speaker 1 of being "sleazy" for implying antisemitism. Speaker 1 questions why Speaker 0 is only asking about Israel. Speaker 0 reiterates that the issue concerns a foreign government, not Jewish people.

The discussion centers on claims drawn from “Epstein files.” Speaker 1 says they found information “nobody else found,” highlighting Catherine Rumler, described as Barack Obama’s White House counsel and later general counsel for Goldman Sachs. Speaker 1 claims Rumler was “very, very close to Jeffrey Epstein,” with “constant” email exchanges. They cite emails in the latest tranche where Rumler tells Epstein that John Brennan, director of the CIA, “gave me the CIA’s highest honor this morning,” and where she tells Epstein she will arrange for him to be in Washington next Tuesday and sets up a meeting with Brennan. Speaker 1 asks whether there was contact between Jeffrey Epstein and John Brennan, noting Brennan “is not talking,” and states that “3,000,000 more documents” have not yet been released, and “of the ones that haven’t been deleted possibly” suggests permanent deletion may have occurred. They say people are expected to “take their words for it.” Speaker 0 suggests focusing narrowly on portions of the files involving sex trafficking and billionaires abusing kids, but Speaker 1 argues that zooming out shows “arms deals” and “collaborations across intelligence.” Speaker 1 says the theme everyone should focus on is that Epstein was “an Israeli access agent,” claiming certainty about this position. Speaker 1 says the next tranche (described as “3,000,000,” “like 2,700,000 documents”) shows Epstein trying to work for the CIA and possibly doing something with the CIA. They state they “don’t know yet” and that Epstein “didn’t authorize that.” Speaker 1 adds that Epstein was also working with MI5 and MI6 in the UK, “possibly the Germans,” and “definitely the Israelis.” They claim Epstein repeatedly tried to secure a one-on-one meeting with Vladimir Putin, was denied repeatedly, and eventually was offered a meeting with Putin and three others; Epstein declined and wanted only Putin alone, after which “the Russians walked away.” The conversation concludes with discussion of “Israeli connections,” including Speaker 0 saying that when they asked Congress people about it “today and yesterday,” they “run screaming from the room.” Speaker 0 also notes that the topic is sometimes turned into a Democrat-versus-Republican issue rather than something broader, and Speaker 1 replies: “And it’s not. They’re both corrupt.”

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

Speaker 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."

Speaker 0 opens with a provocative claim: “Fucked up the world is. That's a form of insanity.” The remark sets a mood of frustration and chaos. Speaker 1 then shares a personal moment: after coming home, they wrote a poem about Robbie which they intend to give him. They describe a reaction where someone took away Robbie’s property and Robbie began to blame it on the Jews, adding antisemitic rhetoric as a result. This accusation is presented as a reaction to a loss of property, with antisemitism framed as a consequence. Speaker 2 counters by specifying: “Not someone. The government. US government.” They elaborate that “the government and the Jews are one and the same,” asserting an equivalence between the government and Jewish people. Speaker 1 questions this claim, acknowledging it as “True true” and “Absolutely true. That’s never been—,” but the sentence trails as Speaker 2 presses the point: “Ask the Palestinians. The good Jews. Right? Why aren't the good Jews talking against the bad Jews? The so called good Jews out there.” Speaker 1 concedes that “There are. Very good people.” and “Wonderful people.” Yet Speaker 2 pushes back: “Why they talking” and then demands: “Why aren't the good Jews screaming against the bad Jews?” Speaker 1 suggests the reason is disagreement with the premise that there are “bad Jews,” implying that those who disagree are not such good Jews. Speaker 3 interjects with a stark comparison: “I equate the Jew and the devil together. To me, they're practically interchangeable. And I think the Catholic church did also. I think the entire concept of the devil is based on the Jews.” They reference the New Testament story where the devil shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and offers them if Jesus bows down and worships, implying this is symbolic of control and obedience for worldly wealth. Speaker 3 continues: “This is basically saying you can have all the money in the world. Do what you want. If you just do what I tell you to.” They interpret this as symbolic of the Jew. They claim: “This is symbolic of the Jew,” and even assert that “the devil is based on the Jew” and that “old pictures of the devil” resemble a Jew. Across the exchange, the conversation cycles between attributing political and financial power to Jewish groups, questioning the morality of “good Jews” versus “bad Jews,” and then offering a provocative theological claim linking the devil to Jews as a source of cunning or worldly power.

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.”

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

The discussion centers on how politicization of intelligence has manifested in different eras, comparing past and present administrations. Speaker 0 asks whether the politicized weapons claims about Iraq and the CIA’s statements in the 1990s can be compared to today’s politicization of intelligence under John Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard as head of DNI, arguing it is much worse now because of the mediocrity of those in control of key agencies. Speaker 1 counters by recalling the 1980s, noting that there was significant politicization of the Soviet threat to justify Reagan’s defense buildup, and adds that this is why he testified against Robert Gates in 1991. He asserts that politicization is bad, and insists that the current situation is worse than in the past. Speaker 1 explains: “It’s Because I look at the people who are ahead of these groups. Come on. Let’s be serious.” He targets the leadership of the director of national intelligence, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the CIA, saying, “Have you ever seen a cabinet in The United States of such mediocrity, of such venality?” He emphasizes his background, stating, “I haven’t,” and that nothing compares to what is going on now, warning that “a lot of damage is being done to The United States and to the constitution of The United States and to the importance of separation of powers and the importance of rule of law and the importance of checks and balances. This is very serious stuff.” Speaker 0 attempts to steer toward historical figures like Robert Maxwell, but Speaker 1 dismisses that concern as off point, insisting he is making a point about Israel. The exchange then shifts to U.S. support for Israel, with Speaker 1 asserting that “Israel gets what it wants from The United States. It gets it from democratic presidents and from republican presidents.” He also criticizes Barack Obama for signing what he calls “that ten year $40,000,000,000 arms aid agreement,” arguing that Obama “never should have signed” it “because they treated Obama so shabbily in the first place.”

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.'

Speaker 0 expresses the belief that as long as Israel exists and is supported by America, there will always be Muslims who pose a threat and seek to harm us. Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that they do not support Israel and do not believe it is worth American lives or dollars. Speaker 0 questions this stance, arguing that Israel is not comparable to other countries like Saudi Arabia. Speaker 1 clarifies that their main concern is the survival of the United States and expresses concern about the influence of APAC and the lobby on American support for Israeli actions.

Speaker 0 states that Jewish individuals own much of the media, fund politicians who demand reparations for the black community, and take the intellectual lead in combating initiatives proposed by the first group. Speaker 0 claims this results in black and white workers fighting each other while Jewish individuals profit and assume leadership. Speaker 1 agrees with Speaker 0, except for the claim that Jewish individuals profit. Speaker 1 believes Jewish leaders are doing what they think is correct. Speaker 1 states that Jewish individuals tend to take the intellectual lead in most movements. Speaker 0 claims that Jewish individuals create issues, and that the issue of reparations didn't exist until created by Jewish individuals. Speaker 1 is inclined to agree, and says Jewish individuals take the lead in civil rights generally. Speaker 0 claims they take the lead in opposing them, creating issues and dividing people.