TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Congress members have "APAC people," essentially APAC babysitters, who are deeply embedded in APAC and have direct contact with the members. Some congressmen admit they will consult their "APAC guy" to influence ad campaigns. The speaker questions why this relationship is not public knowledge, suggesting it's not beneficial for congressmen to be seen as having a buddy system with a foreign country representative. The speaker also shares Thomas Massey's anti-war stance, highlighting his concerns about escalating tensions with Iran and the influence of the military-industrial complex. Massey points out that as soon as the US stopped spending $50 billion a year in Afghanistan, they started spending $50 billion in Ukraine. He suggests that Massey's anti-war position transcends specific conflicts or groups, aligning with a desire to stop people from dying, a sentiment the speaker associates with Donald Trump's campaign promises.

This conversation centers on Israel, lobbying, and US policy. Speaker 0 says he’s been very pro Israel and defender of its right to defend itself, but has 'no skin whatsoever in defending any lobbyist group,' and has declined repeated invitations to go to Israel. He notes mounting pressure to stay aligned and that he’s not on Hamas’ side, though his views have shifted since 10/08/23. Speaker 1 explains APAC is 'not registered under FARA' and describes freshman trips to Israel, meetings with government members. He notes that '3.8, billion dollars in funding for Israel' is an annual decision, that Israel is 'less than 400,000,000,000 in debt,' and that Israelis have 'government funded health care' and 'government funded college.' He questions why the US funds this given its own economic strain, citing that 'we buy money from your defense contractors' and that Israel can buy from Israeli defense contractors.

US senators. Last year, 93 out of 100 US senators were people whose campaigns had been funded by Israel, APAC, and the Israel lobby. 93 out of 100 US senators were taking money from a group that represents a foreign government and foreign interests in order to operate our government on behalf of someone else, and they all work here in this building. This is representative Ro Khanna from California, and he does not take APEC money according to their website TrackAPEC. Here's what he had to say. "It's too much. I mean, it's too much. If you have people who have a particular point of view, in Apex case, they're basically whatever Netanyahu does is right. That's their point of view. And they're saying, okay, you don't take that view, we may come after you. We may have millions of dollars spent against you." Now ask any American content creator what the scariest subject to cover is, and the answer is Israel. Even YouTubers I know will say their channels were shadowbanned for months after covering them. And folks, the plot around free speech thickens. News just broke that Larry Ellison, cofounder of Oracle, will be buying TikTok, a platform where young people can freely exchange unfiltered ideas. No Israel connection here. Right? Wrong. Ellison is one of the IDF's largest private donors, giving the army tens of millions of dollars through Friends of the IDF, a nonprofit that brands itself as a nonpolitical, nonmilitary organization, but somehow also is the official US partner of Israel soldiers.

They're not registered. He explains Republicans tell him they'd vote with him but "would just take too much flack back home," and that "everybody but me has an APAC person"—an "APAC babysitter" embedded with a congressman. He notes four members said they'll talk to their APAC person to "dial those ads back." He asks why this isn't more widely known, saying "It doesn't benefit anybody. Why would they wanna tell their constituents that they've basically got a buddy system with somebody who's representing a foreign country?" He contends "it's the only country that does this" with an APAC liaison; "they pay for trips for congressmen and their spouses to go to Israel," describing the trip as "vacationy"—seeing the wall and the Dead Sea. The dialog contrasts love of Israel with "the government of Israel" and ends with "That's a completely different thing from taking orders from its government."

Many members of Congress have an APAC representative, akin to a babysitter, who communicates on behalf of APAC. This person is often a constituent but is closely tied to APAC. On the Republican side, it's common for members to have lunch with their APAC contacts, who have their personal cell numbers for direct communication. Some Congress members have mentioned consulting their "APAC guy" to influence ad campaigns. This relationship is not publicly acknowledged, as it doesn't benefit Congress members to reveal they have a connection with a foreign entity.

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.

Have you ever wondered how a major lobbying group like AIPAC can represent a foreign country without registering under the FARA Act? AIPAC boasts about its political spending and success rates but nearly faced registration as a foreign agent in the past. Originally known as the American Zionist Council, they were close to being required to register in 1963, but after President Kennedy's assassination, the effort stalled. Despite the Justice Department's stance that anyone representing foreign interests must register, AIPAC remains unregistered, avoiding disclosure of its funding sources. This situation raises concerns about foreign influence in U.S. politics, highlighting the need to address similar threats from other nations, like China, in our democracy.

Two speakers discuss U.S. policy on Israel, lobbying, and domestic politics. Speaker 0 says she’s pro-Israel and defender of Israel’s right to defend itself and of American Jews on campuses, but has no loyalty to any lobby group and has refused trips to Israel. She notes rising pressure to stay in a stance, saying, 'you're not allowed to' move off the lily pad. Speaker 1 explains APAC’s influence in Washington: 'APAC takes every single that they can, freshman, member of Congress, their first year... they take them on a very special trip to Israel' and that Israel receives '3.8 billion dollars in funding for Israel' annually, with an exception allowing purchases from Israeli defense contractors. He contrasts Israel’s economy with the U.S. debt and asks why Americans fund Israel. They emphasize America First, say 'any anti Israel people are welcome here,' and mention Judge McFadden's flag ruling about Israel.

APAC is ostensibly a group of Americans who lobby on behalf of Israel, and they're very effective. As a candidate, they wanted me to do homework for them on Israel. When I refused, they suggested I copy Rand Paul's paper. I may be the only Republican in Congress who hasn't done homework for them. They tried to get to me through churches, using organizations like Christians United for Israel to co-opt evangelicals. After I was elected, they ran ads against me, so I banned them from my office. This cycle, they spent $400,000 against me. I think they're afraid of one person speaking the truth. They've called me a bigot and an anti-Semite, which is disgusting. I'm not anti-Semitic, but I don't like APAC. They should be registered with FARA, like anyone lobbying for a foreign government. Many Republicans agree with me privately but fear the backlash. Everyone has an "APAC person" they talk to, which is crazy. No other country has this kind of influence.

Many members of Congress have an "APAC person," akin to a babysitter, who communicates on behalf of APAC. This person is often a constituent but is closely tied to APAC. On the Republican side, it's common for members to have lunch with their APAC contacts, who have direct access to them. Some members have mentioned consulting their "APAC guy" to influence advertising decisions. It's surprising that this arrangement isn't widely known, as it could be perceived negatively by constituents. Congress members likely keep this relationship private because it doesn't serve their interests to disclose that they have a close connection with a representative of a foreign entity.

The speaker states that the promise was to put America first, and believes there are still voices in the administration, such as J.D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, and RFK Junior, who could prevail. However, they were not persuasive in this case, but somebody was. The speaker claims that APAC, the Israeli lobby in congress, is very persuasive. The speaker observes that their colleagues' social media feeds all look the same, tweeting the same message about supporting Israel.

Republicans often feel pressured by APAC to vote a certain way, with each member having an "APAC person" influencing them. APAC arranges trips to Israel for congressmen, but not all have gone. Despite personal love for Israel, they differentiate between the people and the government. The speaker enjoys visiting Israel with family but emphasizes not taking orders from its government.

Members of Congress on the Republican side have an "APAC person," described as an "APAC babysitter," who regularly communicates with them regarding APAC matters. These individuals are often constituents but are deeply involved with APAC. Members meet with them when they visit D.C., exchange cell numbers, and have ongoing conversations. Some members have said they would "talk to my APAC guy" to potentially influence ad campaigns. The speaker questions why this arrangement is not more widely known, suggesting that members of Congress may not want to publicize their relationships with individuals representing a foreign country, as it doesn't benefit them politically.

Did you know that in Israel when you have a baby you get a check and then that baby gets a check every month until it's 18 put into the mother's bank account? It's our tax dollars.

Have you ever wondered how a major lobbying group in America can represent a foreign country without registering under the FARA Act? APAC boasts about its political spending and success rates but has avoided registration. Historically, they were nearly required to register as a foreign agent in 1963 when they were known as the American Zionist Council. President Kennedy was pushing for this, but after his assassination, the pressure eased, and they never registered. This allows APAC to operate without disclosing their funding sources. Consequently, they can influence elections while their policies remain unpopular with many Americans. It's crucial to recognize this influence and prevent foreign entities from undermining our democracy.

"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."

Speaker 0: "I'm very pro Israel" and "defensive of their right to defend themselves," but "I have absolutely no skin whatsoever in defending any lobbyist group, including AIPAC" and asks, "what they do to get the loyalty of politicians." She refuses outreach to visit Israel, wanting to "cover this conflict from here" and insisting she is not "on Hamas" side. Speaker 1: "'APAC is not registered under FARA' and explains lobbying tactics: taking freshmen on 'a very special trip to Israel,' inviting 'influencers,' and that Israel receives '3.8 billion dollars in funding for Israel.' He notes 'Israel is the only democracy in The Middle East' and says Israel can 'use that money to buy from Israeli defense contractors' instead of American ones. He cites Judge McFadden on flag-burning and says, 'We don't have time to fund what you're doing.' Ad: 'text m k to the number 989898.'

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.

Members of Congress on the Republican side have an "APAC person," described as an "APAC babysitter" who constantly communicates with them on behalf of APAC. These individuals are often constituents but are deeply connected to APAC. Members meet with them in DC, exchange cell numbers, and have ongoing conversations. Four members of Congress have told the speaker they would consult their "APAC guy" to potentially influence ad campaigns. The speaker questions why this arrangement is not more widely known. The speaker believes congressmen conceal this relationship because it could be detrimental to reveal they have a close connection with someone representing a foreign country.

So, what's an APAC person? Think of them as your APAC babysitter, always in contact, deeply rooted in APAC. Most Republican members have someone like this. When they visit DC, you have lunch, exchange numbers, and stay in touch. I've personally heard members of Congress say, "I'll talk to my APAC guy" to potentially influence ad strategies. Why haven't you heard about this before? Well, it's not beneficial for a congressman to advertise a buddy system with someone representing a foreign country. They're not likely to publicize it.

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.

Politicians have close ties with APAC, like a babysitter. They have lunch and conversations with APAC members who influence their decisions. Some congress members even ask their "APAC guy" to tone down ads. This buddy system is surprising and not widely known.

Speaker 0: Do we need this connection with Israel? What is it? No one ever explains what it's for. I feel like. Right? That would help everybody have a much better understanding, you know, because it starts to feel like America is just a shell company, an LLC for Israel. That's what it starts to feel like a lot of times, you know? Do you feel like that that's realistic, or do you feel like that that's off base? Speaker 1: I would I wouldn't send them a dime. Like, that's my position. I don't think whatever we're getting isn't worth it.