Biden Admin Pledges Every Last Penny To Ukraine; Russia Hysteria Explodes After Tulsi Nomination; Biden's Fraudulent Israel Ultimatum
While most Americans are worried about the economy, the Biden administration sends more money to fuel Ukraine's losing war. The corporate media and national security state melt down over Tulsi Gabbard's nomination. Plus: Israel does not comply with the Biden administration's phony ultimatum and faces no consequences.
- - -
Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET.
Become part of our Locals community
- - -
Follow Glenn:
Twitter
Instagram
Follow System Update:
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Facebook
LinkedIn
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m.
Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight, the American people delivered a resounding message last Tuesday at the polls.
Concerns over economic security, our highest priority, they said.
We overwhelmingly believe that the country is on the wrong track.
And most of all, we want change from prevailing D.C. policy.
Their grievances were as clear as they were valid.
Namely, we can't afford groceries.
Our communities are falling apart.
And in general, Washington seems to have abandoned us, caring about everybody except the American middle and working classes.
The Biden administration today showed how clearly they heard and cared about this message.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken boasted of the $8 billion, the $8 billion they just sent again to Ukraine on top of the $140 billion already sent.
And then he announced earlier today that, and I quote, every dollar we have at our disposal will be pushed to Ukraine before President Biden leaves office.
If you want to understand why elite institutions are so profoundly hated and many Americans voted for Donald Trump, you can start there.
Not just that the bipartisan ruling class has ignored the needs of ordinary Americans with things like endless wars and trillions of dollars being sent to fund them, but that even when Americans raise their voice in objection, as they did on Tuesday, DC officials simply ignore them and do not care and proceed to do what they want as though none of that ever happened.
Then, we devoted the bulk of last night's show to analyzing many of President-elect Trump's key choices for his cabinet and other positions, and one of the choices we assessed was former Democratic Congresswoman and DNC Vice Chairwoman Tulsi Gabbard to become his Director of National Intelligence, a position of great importance as it's charged with overseeing and coordinating all of the other intelligence agencies, including the CIA, the NSA, the DIA, and others.
The reaction to the choice of Tulsi Gabbard has been more unhinged than we can possibly describe, though not necessarily more unhinged than we would have predicted.
The choice of attack, the main one is, you'll never guess, Claiming that without the slightest basis whatsoever that Tulsi Gabbard is a tool of the Kremlin and in Vladimir Putin's pocket.
And the loudest cries in this regard come from the very people inside the U.S. security state whom Donald Trump has vowed to destroy.
Exactly the people that ought to feel scared and threatened by Trump's choice of DNI if he follows through on what he promised he would do.
These people, the ones who have been running the U.S. security state and who are now crying and screaming over this choice, have simply not accepted that they were rejected electorally and democratically and that they are both despised and in need of serious uprooting.
And that was one of the things the choice of Tulsi Gabbard was intended to do.
Give the American people exactly what Trump vowed he would do.
And then finally, 30 days ago, the Biden State Department sent the Israeli government what purported to be a, quote, ultimatum.
This is all in reports to the fact that northern Gaza, in particular, was being deliberately starved and ethnically cleansed.
And the letter said, unless you show dramatic improvement in the availability of humanitarian aid into Gaza, including food, clean water, and medicine, then the U.S. government would consider cutting off further transfers of arms to Israel, given that U.S. law actually bars the arming of any government that is using those weapons to violate international law and human rights.
Now, it was very clear from the start when that letter was sent how insultingly cynical and fraudulent it was.
It was issued just a little more than two weeks before the election, when polls increasingly showed that Kamala Harris' campaign was in serious trouble in Michigan and elsewhere due to the ongoing refusal of young voters, Arabs and Muslim Americans to go to the polls and vote for her.
It was clearly designed, this letter was, to deceive those voters.
Into believing that the U.S. is finally going to do something to stop the mass starvation and other humanitarian crises Israel with the U.S. on board has created in Gaza with full U.S. support.
It was a bit like when Kamala Harris three weeks before the election said, oh, black men may not vote for me.
Hey, here's a black agenda that we just whipped up.
It helps you to get Bitcoin, you can smoke weed, and that's about it.
Now, this 30-day limit from the State Department given to Israel magically expired not before the election, but after.
That was the telltale sign that the US government had no intention of enforcing it.
And indeed, even after the Israelis themselves made clear that they were ignoring these US demands, after the US government itself made clear that Israel had made no improvements but rather went in the opposite direction, cutting off even more food and water into northern Gaza,
and after multiple aid groups certified with data that Israel had woefully failed to meet any of the US demands, let alone all of them, The U.S. government stood up today and proclaimed that Israel has made great progress, and thus, surprise, surprise, the United States would not be cutting off any weapons to Israel at this time.
There's so much moral and strategic reckoning that are going to come from this policy, but the fact that they just did this as a blatant political stunt, as even a lot of Democrats say, revealed just how much moral rot there is in the people who have been doing this.
Now, before we get to all of that, We
that that has happened, you can click on the link and begin watching live.
It really helps the live viewing numbers of each program and therefore the free speech cause of Rumble itself.
As a reminder, system update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after the first broadcast live here at Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms where if you rate, review, and follow our program, it really helps spread the visibility of the show.
Finally, every Tuesday and Thursday nights, once we're done with our live show here on and rumble, we move to Locals, where we have our live interactive after show That after show is available only for members of our Locals community.
Tonight being Thursday, we are going to, right after the show concludes, go do that after show, where we take your questions, respond to your critiques, hear future suggestions for guests and for shows that...
After Show is available only to members of our Locals community.
So if you'd like to join, which gives you access not just to those After Shows, but also to multiple exclusive original content that we published there.
For example, last night we had an interview scheduled with Jeremy Lafredo, who was held abusively and baselessly in Israel for doing reporting.
We didn't have time to put that interview here.
We put it exclusively on the Locals platform.
There's a lot of exclusive content like that.
Hopefully we're going to have that interview for you shortly on this show when time permits.
It's a place that we have a lot of interactive features and most of all, it is the community on which we most rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
Simply click the join button right below the video player on the Rumble page and it will take you directly to that community.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
In an election in which polls have clearly and unmistakably reflected that the number one concern of Americans when going to the polls is that their family lack economic security, that they are suffering from increasing food prices that often makes it difficult even to be able to buy groceries.
Their kids don't have health care.
Their communities are ravaged by fentanyl.
And the U.S. government seems to care less and less about the lives of all of them other than a tiny handful, a sliver of people in Washington who are there to make money and feed off the system with Donald Trump in 2016 so successfully railed against as the D.C. swamp.
And that's why it has always been amazing, given that perception, which is clearly accurate, that our towns in the industrial Midwest have been gutted by free trade, as a lot of people predicted under Bill Clinton, as people's livelihood has been destroyed by the financial crisis and then by COVID, as people's livelihood has been destroyed by the financial crisis and then by COVID, as wealth and income inequality have risen more than ever before to the point where the middle class is all but destroyed or COVID as wealth and income inequality have risen more than ever before
to the point where the middle class is all but destroyed or people are barely hanging on to middle class life where the American dream of passing on a better life to your kids is increasingly precarious.
This is something that is not even in doubt that this is what the vast majority of Americans think.
And yet over the last year, the last two years, the primary policy of the Biden administration has been to just take tens and then hundreds of billions of dollars and send them overseas.
Please.
This is American taxpayer money, money that the United States government has, and they've not been using it to solve any of those problems that Americans in large numbers are saying are burdening their lives and making them angry.
But instead, they're just sending it overseas to Ukraine or to Israel to pay for their wars, to fund these wars that have no effect whatsoever on the lives of American citizens, except that these endless wars and the military-industrial complex that benefits from it Continue to grow.
Now, you would think that in the wake of that stinging defeat that the Democrats just suffered, primarily due to the perception I just laid out, that they would at least pay lip service to the idea that they heard that message that they're interested in changing their policies.
And yet, one week after the election, just a little bit over one week, the U.S. Secretary of State for Joe Biden, Anthony Blinken, stood up today.
And he's been under a lot of pressure by the media saying, look, Donald Trump seems like he wants to get into office and finally end the war in Ukraine.
This endless, senseless, destructive, bloody war that has cost the United States $150 billion or more.
That has killed hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russians.
That the Russians are winning.
That has destroyed Ukraine.
That will inevitably end.
And exactly the sort of Russian occupation of Ukrainian territory that could have been averted at the beginning through the kind of an agreement that Russia and Ukraine were headed to until Boris Johnson and the United States government intervened and said, we don't want you to diplomatically resolve the war.
We want this war to continue for our own interest.
And here's what Blinken said after hearing that message that I just laid out about the election.
This is what he announced.
As we're working to make sure that Ukraine has what it needs to effectively defend itself, the United States continues to step up.
We've obligated just recently and pushed out the door another $8 billion in security assistance for Ukraine.
That was in September.
So he's boasting here, look, we just pushed out the door another $8 billion Two months before the election, we pushed that out the door, meaning we took it from the Treasury and we gave it to Kiev, a country drowning in corruption that has no accountability in terms of how that money is spent.
So he's boasting, look, we're doing a lot.
We just took this $8 billion on top of the $150 billion we already pushed out, quote-unquote, meaning pushed from our home, from our country to that country.
And then here's what he says they're going to do until Joe Biden leaves office.
They're almost half a billion dollars just a few weeks ago.
And President Biden is committed to making sure that every dollar we have at our disposal will be pushed out the door between now and January 20th.
That's the message to the American people.
We heard your message.
We got booted out of office.
You're extremely angry at our indifference to your interests.
And we want you to know that in response to that message, what we're going to do is we are going to take every available dollar we can find and send it over to Ukraine.
Now, in one sense, I understand that it really is part of Joe Biden's legacy and the legacy of NATO That they painted themselves into the corner by saying that we cannot allow Russia to take even one inch of Ukrainian land.
That any resolution to this war that resulted in Russia winning any part of Ukraine or even letting them keep Crimea which they had a referendum and annexed in 2014 because the people of Crimea viewed themselves as Russia as a response to the coup that we helped engineer in Kiev.
That even allowing them to keep Crimea Would be a defeat to Russia, which we cannot allow under any circumstances.
So they created this goal of this war that was always impossible.
The Russians would absolutely use nuclear weapons rather than give up Crimea to NATO. Especially given how much NATO has now been involving itself in Ukraine.
And nobody now thinks, nobody thinks, even Zelensky, even Kiev, even European capitals are admitting...
That the only possible outcome for this war is to give Russia parts of Ukraine to allow them to occupy it as a buffer and to ensure that NATO will never include Ukraine, or at least for a long time.
Putin has won the war.
There's no expulsion of Russian troops.
And yet the left simply cannot admit reality.
And so what they're trying to do is to increase the war and escalate it as much as possible in this futile hope That it will somehow improve the Ukrainians' negotiating position.
So here is what Joe Biden is doing and what the New York Times calls, quote, his swan song.
No legislation to help the American people, but instead, quote, a diplomatic trip overshadowed by President Trump's victory.
President Biden will attend global summits in Peru and Brazil as world leaders prepare for the return of Donald Trump's, quote, isolationist foreign policy.
The week's two summits in Lima and Rio de Janeiro will not be the reaffirmation that Mr.
Biden has wanted of a foreign policy legacy built during a career in Congress and the White House.
Rather, the gatherings will be a kind of elegy for a bygone era that defined American foreign policy for most of the president's life.
Quote, Said Richard Haass, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Mr.
Haass said the trip represents, quote, a bridge between two very different American conceptions, two very different conceptions of America's role in the world.
Aides to the president say he is determined to keep pursuing that agenda until his last moment in office.
This agenda that has been so destructive that the United States is going to rule the world with military force, that we're going to dictate who runs what country and what part of the world, that has bankrupted the United States, that has destroyed the American homeland and the people who live in it, that has killed immense numbers of people, and that the United States isn't even capable of achieving anymore.
The article goes on, What
is Biden going to do?
Get one of those little machines while he's at the beach in Rehoboth that detects coins and send them over to Ukraine?
This war is over.
This war is over.
The only question left is how many people NATO is going to allow to be killed, send weapons to be killed, how much more of Ukraine is going to be destroyed.
But the outcome is something that everybody understands, which is that Russia will gain a buffer zone between it and the West, will not allow Ukraine to expand up to that most sensitive part of its border.
And that the provinces in the Donbas in eastern Ukraine that regard themselves as Russian, who have been waging a war, a civil war, since 2014 to gain some sort of autonomy, will be under Russian control and not the control of Kiev.
That is the reality.
Ukraine will be left as a rump country.
You may not like that.
You may not wish it were true.
But that's just the reality of it.
It's been the reality for at least a year.
That NATO and Biden have just refused to accept.
In pursuit of this fairy tale that does not exist.
Here's the New York Times yesterday.
Quote, Ukraine prioritizes security, not territory, as Trump pushes truce talks.
Meaning, even Ukraine has now accepted the idea that they're going to have to give up what had been Ukrainian soil in order to get this war over.
Quote, discussions over a potential settlement have heated up since the election last week of Mr.
Trump, who has vowed to press for immediate talks.
That's a shift from the Biden administration's longtime position.
That the timing in terms of any settlement should be left to Ukraine.
Mr.
Trump has been openly skeptical about continuing American aid to Ukraine, and has said he can bring about an end to the war in one day without saying how.
Perhaps the most detailed clue of Mr.
Trump's views came in a July interview with Fox News.
Quote, I would tell Zelensky no more.
You've got to make a deal, Mr.
Trump said, said of President Zelensky of Ukraine.
I would tell Putin if you don't make a deal, we're going to give him a lot.
Mr.
Trump and Mr.
Zelensky spoke last week, but neither side made public what has been discussed.
Now, one of the things that we've had Professor Mearsheimer on our show before to emphasize is that Trump can go to Russia all he wants and say, if you don't do a deal of the kind we want, we're going to give a lot to Ukraine.
That's what the West has been doing for two and a half years.
Putin doesn't care about that.
Putin doesn't seem in any rush to end this war.
He'd be more than happy to continue to expand the war.
No, I don't think anyone thinks or takes seriously Trump's threat that he would involve American forces in Ukraine or anything like that.
The Russians believe that the United States and NATO provoked this war and fueled this war.
They had endured a very heavy cost for it.
And the only deal they're going to accept is one that they believe is fully within their national interest to protect what they perceive as their national security, which is NATO's incursions into and control over Ukraine, which they simply won't accept.
Here, but I do think that Trump's desire not to say we're going to keep pouring every dollar we can find into Ukraine, as Blinken said today, but instead to say we need to do everything we can to bring an end to this war is absolutely the correct one.
Not just because this war has been immensely costly, but because having the United States and Russia, the two largest nuclear powers on opposite sides of a proxy war, is unbelievably dangerous.
To say nothing of the cost to the United States and to American citizens, to our inability to focus elsewhere in the world.
All the way back in August of 2023, which is a year and a half ago, CNN published this poll that read, quote, majority of Americans now oppose more US aid for Ukraine in the war with Russia.
Most Americans oppose Congress authorizing additional funding to support Ukraine in its war with Russia, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, as the public splits over whether the U.S. has already done enough to assist Ukraine.
Overall, 55% say the U.S. should not authorize additional funding to support Ukraine, versus 45% who say Congress should authorize such funding.
And 51% say that the United States has already done enough to help Ukraine, while 48% say it should do more.
A poll conducted in the early days of the Russian invasion in February 22 found 62% who felt the U.S. should have been doing more.
Partisan divisions have widened since that poll, too, with most Democrats and Republicans now on opposing sides of questions on the U.S. role in Ukraine.
So clearly, in the West and throughout the United States, there is a recognition that this war has to come to an end, and I vastly prefer President Trump's insistence that this war end, that we can't fund it forever, and many of his top national security appointees have said the same,
to what had been Joe Biden's vow of That we will support Ukraine for as long as we have to, a vow that very subtly changed to we will support Ukraine for as long as we can.
Russia won the war, NATO and the United States lost the war, and there's no changing that, and it's time for that to be accepted.
Here from the Council on Foreign Relations, September of 2024, so just a couple months ago, Title, how much U.S. aid is going to Ukraine?
Since the war began, the U.S. Congress has voted through five bills that have provided Ukraine with ongoing aid, doing so most recently in April 2024.
The total budget authority under these bills, the headline figure often is cited by news media, is $175 billion.
Now part of the $8 billion that Lincoln referred to might be part of that authorization that they're just drawing down.
But that's a huge amount of money.
It's over $180 billion now on top of what the Europeans have given.
And nobody Believes this war is being won by anybody but Russia.
Here's The Economist, which has been a very vocal supporter of NATO, of the U.S., and NATO financing of Ukraine.
And they have been, to their credit, quite candid about how destructive this war has been to Ukraine.
Hear from The Economist.
Ukraine is now struggling to cling on, not to win.
Russia is slicing through Ukrainian defenses and parts of the battlefield.
Do you remember a year and a half ago when I used to have Professor Saxon and Professor Mearsheimer on?
I mean, I still do, but to talk about the war in Ukraine, or when I would just talk about it by myself, anybody who suggested what was so obvious, which is that Russia would inevitably win the war just on sheer size alone, in a war of attrition, was called a Russian agent, was trying to sell Kremlin down the river.
It was just reality that the West didn't want to accept.
And as a result, hundreds of thousands of people have needlessly died.
To say nothing of the drain on American resources.
Here from NBC News, in an exit poll November 5th of the 2024 election, quote, voters expressed deep concern about America's democracy and economy.
Quote, women are twice as likely as men to rank abortion as their top issue, according to preliminary results.
Asked to choose among five issues, 34% of voters said democracy mattered most to their votes, while 31% said the economy.
Abortion and immigration ranked as the next most important, while just 4% named foreign policy.
There have been other exit polls that show that different, that show the economy first, and even among people who say democracy is their concern, Something like half of them voted for Trump.
They believe it's Democrats undermining democracy in all sorts of ways, including by weaponizing the justice system against their political opponents.
But if you think Americans wake up, and on the top ten of their concerns is whether Russia or Ukraine will rule the Donbass, You're living in a fantasy world.
And so when Blinken stands up and says, we just sent another $8 billion out the door to Ukraine and we're going to get every dollar we can to shove out the door before we leave, if Democrats are still confused about what they lost, all they have to do is listen to what Blinken said today and everything ought to be clear.
Seems like every segment is a good segue into pointing out what I'm about to point out, which is that the only uncertainty in our world is uncertainty.
There are all sorts of geopolitical risks like the one we just covered.
There's wars in Israel and the Middle East as well, all of which risks destabilizing global markets, as well as the fact that the Fed just continues to nonstop print money.
It means it's hard to feel secure about your financial future.
Since 2020, the U.S. dollar has lost 24% of its buying power.
And with inflation still rising and government debt ballooning to feed these wars, your hard-earned savings are at risk.
That's why when it comes to understanding alternatives such as investing in precious metals, what I trust is Lear Capital to help me understand what the alternative is, the benefits of gold and silver, physical assets that hold their value even in turbulent times.
Lear has educated me and all sorts of other people about the ways one might go about diversifying into gold that can give you control over your financial security.
With those helpful guides, you can understand how to take possession of various high-value metals, store them safely, or roll over your IRA or 401k tax and penalty free.
It's easy to get started.
You just call Lear Capital today at 800-920-8388.
Or visit leergreenwald.com for your free wealth protection guide that'll get you started helping understand this.
They've got loads of reports actually there to help you understand the current political and economic landscape that I can really recommend.
And here's a special offer for my viewers.
You get a $500 credit toward delivery, storage, or IRA fees with your qualifying purchase.
Learn how you can protect your future.
Call LEAR today at 800-920-8388.
That's 800-920-8388.
or go to leergreenwald.com today.
Last night we spent a long time covering the implications of all of the different choices that Donald Trump has thus far announced to his cabinet, many of which are predictable, many of which I think are somewhat disappointing in terms of what their historical ideology has been.
although I help I tried to emphasize and point out that the effort to try and read into each of these appointments is, I think, very ill-advised because there's so many question marks about who will build power and how in the Trump administration.
One of the choices that we covered that I think is quite positive was the choice of Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence, in part because that is such an important job When it comes to actually undermining and dismantling the most rotted,
fundamentally corrupted parts of the US security state, And although there are parts of Tulsi Gabbard's foreign policy that I've not always agreed with, and we've talked about it before, I've interviewed her before, in general I consider Tulsi Gabbard an extremely smart and capable person, and most of all she has a lot of integrity and understands how the U.S. security state has been radically corrupted in a way that a lot of other people who could be chosen for that job do not.
And obviously that's why Trump picked her as well.
That's an extremely important job for Donald Trump's Agenda of cleaning out the deep state, of getting rid of these faceless bureaucrats in the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, who undermine the elected representatives whenever they dislike their policy choices.
A real threat to democracy is this whole secret, unaccountable world, and Tulsi Gabbard has a real chance to clean it out.
And that's why, if you notice, The choices that the establishment are comfortable with, the Marco Rubio's and the Elise Stefanik's and the John Ratcliffe's to run the CIA, these are not really generating any sorts of controversy at all.
It's the Pete Hegsess and especially the Matt Gaetz and the Tulsi Gabbards.
And today Trump announced That he's nominating RFK Jr.
to be his Health and Human Services Secretary, which means that he will oversee the FDA and the CDC and all these other health agencies.
Certainly, he's going to cause a lot of uproar as well, but I would say Matt Gaetz is the one that has upset people the most, closely followed by Tulsi Gabbard.
And here is Elizabeth Warren on MSNBC today trying to explain why she, Elizabeth Warren, national security expert, is so enraged at the choice of Tulsi Gabbard.
Many things I disagree with Marco Rubio on and I haven't decided yet about voting for him, but he is qualified.
He has experience.
We may have differences that would cause me to say I don't think that he should be secretary of state.
And we'll go through that.
We'll listen to the hearings.
I want to hear very carefully from him.
But what we're talking about with people like Matt Gaetz is very different from what we're talking about with people like Marco Rubio.
And we just have to keep that in mind.
But do understand with Matt Gaetz, and you've already made this point, he's not the only one out there who is unqualified and who raises whole questions like Tulsi Gabbard does.
You really want her to have all of the secrets of the United States and our defense intelligence agencies?
Do you want Tulsi Gabbard to have all the secrets of the intelligence agencies when she's clearly in Putin's pocket?
Accused Elizabeth Warren.
Now...
What is the evidence?
I know none is needed, so I'm asking rhetorically.
What is the evidence for Elizabeth Warren's accusation that Tulsi Gabbard has been in Putin's pocket?
There is none.
It's an absolutely repulsive charge, but it's so part of Democratic Party discourse that they just, it will accuse anybody of that the minute they feel like they want to.
It doesn't take, at least Joseph McCarthy, when he used to go around accusing everybody of being a Russian agent or a Kremlin sympathizer, would pretend that he had the evidence in his briefcase that he never showed.
These people don't even bother pretending that, they just assert it as though it's true.
And it's so interesting that Elizabeth Warren is saying, look, Marco Rubio, for all my disagreements with him, this is a serious guy, but Matt Gaetz and Tulsi Gabbard, they're just not qualified.
Why?
Why is that?
Why is Marco Rubio, who has advocated every single war and urged and encouraged many others, in Elizabeth Warren's eye, someone who's qualified to be the Secretary of State?
He's been a senator for about 14 years, so is that what it is?
Okay, well, Matt Gaetz has been a congressman for six years.
Tulsi Gabbard was a congresswoman for six years.
She was someone who spent her life in the US military.
She was deployed overseas in those kinds of wars.
And she was on the House Armed Services Committee and the other committees in the House that investigated foreign policy and that was responsible for it.
In what way are Matt Gaetz, say, or Tulsi Gabbard unqualified for a cabinet position compared to, say, Barack Obama, who was in the U.S. Senate for four years before he was elected president?
But what you're seeing here is that the Democratic Party is completely in bed with the Republican establishment when it comes to who they consider appropriate and who they don't.
Marco Rubio, of course, they don't like Marco Rubio ideologically in some ways, but he's one of those people who they think should be chosen.
Like Elise Stefanik is going to sail through.
Marco Rubio is going to sail through.
It's the people who are there to shake things up, which was part of Trump's primary appeal politically in 2016, 2020, and 2024, that are going to scare these people the most.
And that's fine.
Elizabeth Warren did not win.
She ran for president.
She lost.
Her party ran in 2024.
They got crushed.
Who cares what Elizabeth Warren wants or thinks?
But the fact that she would just go on the air and accuse Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian asset despite there being no evidence, it's really something that ought to be the source of defamation lawsuits.
But unfortunately, Tulsi Gabbard being a public figure, it's almost impossible to win.
But these people are scum.
If you are willing to just go around and label people as traitors to your country, as working in secret for a foreign adversary, which is a grave crime, especially somebody who has fought in combat and devoted their whole lives to working in your country's military, that is something that ought to be just considered that is something that ought to be just considered so far beyond the bounds of whatever they think Matt Gaetz and Tulsi Gabbard are.
But of course it's become the primary tactic in part because the Democrats and neocons who have aligned are using the same tactic that was always the tactic of neocons.
From the minute I began writing about politics and the war on terror, anybody who objected to U.S. policy or U.S. wars or any of the assault on civil liberties was declared by the Bill Crystals and David Frums and Dick Cheney's and Donald Rumsfeld of the world of being in the pocket of the terrorists.
And this is just a...
Other expression of that same kind of tactic that if you dissent in any way to the government's policies, you get accused of being disloyal.
Even if you're somebody who put your life on the line to fight for your country, it makes no difference.
Here's Bill Kristol's site, The Bulwark, which today said, quote, The curious case of Tulsi Gabbard.
Is she a Russian asset or a dupe?
What has Tulsi Gabbard done to even raise this question?
Here was John Bolton today on CNN. Now, it's really...
I just want to remind people that just like Liz Cheney and Dick Cheney were considered war criminals until about eight seconds ago when they started praising Kamala Harris, John Bolton was considered such an extremist, such a warmongering sociopath that even during the first Bush term or the beginning of the second Bush term in the War of Ontario when Bush and Cheney were getting everything they wanted,
Bush tried to make John Bolton the ambassador to the UN. And the Senate, which was, again, afraid to challenge Bush, especially on national security, was giving him anything he wanted, declared John Bolton over the line.
They twice rejected that nomination.
And Bolton couldn't get confirmed.
And now, just 20 years later, The wise statesman to whom we're all supposed to listen about foreign policy is the very same John Bolton who appeared both on CNN and MSNBC today to opine on the propriety of Trump's choices.
Here's what he said on CNN. Well, I thought it was the worst cabinet-level appointment in history until they then heard about the Matt Gaetz appointment.
Really, my reaction was that this is like the legend of Caligula, the Roman Emperor, who wanted to nominate his horse as a Roman consul.
He had to be a Roman senator at the time to be a consul, and it was intended to show how demeaned and degraded the Roman Senate had become.
So now we're going to see whether the American Senate can stand up and reject two people who are totally unqualified, unfit professionally, and really lacking in the moral characteristics, the character that you need to hold these jobs.
I think this vote should be 100 to nothing against both of them.
I mean, speaking for myself, If I would have to pick between John Bolton and Tulsi Gabbard running the intelligence apparatus or U.S. foreign policy, I would pick Tulsi Gabbard without giving it the slightest thought.
There is nothing that you can do in American corporate media or in American political discourse to get yourself disqualified from being presented as the expert as long as you speak poorly about Donald Trump.
I've said this before and I don't really mean it all that hyperbolically.
I really do believe that if in somewhere in Germany, Adolf Hitler were discovered to be alive at the age of whatever, 106, that his suicide was fake, that he just kind of lived in obscurity in Germany and they found him.
As long as he, when he was arrested, said to the media, the German media, you know, one thing that really alarms me Is that Donald Trump is about to become president again.
I find him unstable and authoritarian.
As someone who myself was an authoritarian, I recognize in him what I did.
I have a lot of regrets for it.
I really do believe he would get an MSNBC contract or a CNN contract and be treated as some sort of wise pundit.
That's the only qualification.
John Bolton has been not just wrong, but Bloodthirsty wrong, disgustingly wrong, completely wrong about every single thing on which he's commented in the past 25 years, and yet here's NBC and CNN holding him up as the conscience of the nation, as the moral arbiter of who should and shouldn't get to serve in the cabinet of the person who just won a massive mandate from the American people.
Speaking of people with no business to opine that way, Abigail Spanberger is a Democratic congresswoman from Virginia, but before that she was a lifelong CIA operative.
That's why she became a Democratic congresswoman.
They were purposely recruiting people from the CIA and the NSA and the FBI because that's what the Democratic Party has become.
She decided she wasn't going to run for re-election because she wants to run for governor of Virginia next year.
And here's what she had to say about Tulsi Gabbard's choice.
Quote, as a former CIA case officer, as though that's supposed to be a credential, I saw the men and women of the U.S. intelligence community put their lives on the line every day for this country the way Tulsi Gabbard did, but not Abigail Spamberger.
And I am appalled, appalled at the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to lead the DNI. Not only is she ill-prepared and unqualified, but she traffics in conspiracy theories and cozies up to dictators like Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin.
What conspiracies does Tulsi Gabbard traffic in?
You mean things like claiming that The Russians were blackmailing Donald Trump because they had a tape of him urinating on a prostitute in the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow or that he had conspired with the Russian government to hack into the DNC's email as part of the 2016 election or that the reporting that the New York Post did was based on fake documents produced by Russia rather than authentic documents.
These are the people who spew conspiracy theories all the time.
One person who was extremely excited by Abigail Spanberger's denunciation of Tulsi Gabbard was Michael Hayden.
And just to remind people of who he is, for those who don't know, Michael Hayden was running the NSA for George Bush and Dick Cheney.
And his job was to detect threats to the United States.
That's what the intelligence community, especially the NSA, the National Security Agency is there to do.
He was the head of the NSA on the day that 9-11 got attacked.
Imagine being the person who failed to detect 9-11 when you have a $100 billion a year intelligence apparatus that you're running.
And as a result for that failure, George Bush and Dick Cheney moved him, Michael Hayden, to run the CIA for them.
So he has spent years in the darkest bowels of the U.S. security state, And above the Abigail Spamburger tweet saying it's appalling that Tulsi Gabbard was nominated, he said, quote, I work with you.
What can we do?
The answer is nothing.
You can do nothing.
And I think this is such an important point, is that if you really believe, as I do, that the U.S. security state is this subversive, destructive component of our government and in our political life, If you really believe that it is radically abusing its powers to illegally interfere in our politics, to spy on our citizens, To produce propaganda and lies against the core of what it was supposed to be when it was created.
Something that would never interfere in our politics.
These are exactly the kinds of people, Michael Hayden, Abigail Spamberger, John Bolton, who ought to be alarmed and threatened by what Donald Trump is about to do.
These are the people who need to be targeted and attacked and uprooted and all the things that they've done.
If Abigail Spamberger and Michael Hayden and John Bolton weren't deeply concerned by Donald Trump's selection of somebody to run the Director of National Intelligence, that would be a very alarming sign.
Here from the Atlantic writer Tom Nichols, so predictable what he's going to say, he replied to a tweet by Gary Kasparov, the former Russian.
Gary Kasparov replied to him, Tom Nichols said, quote, Gabbard has every right to our personal views, however inscrutable they may be, but it's a security risk.
Gabbard is a walking Christmas tree avoiding lights.
And then Kasparov said, a Russian Orthodox Christmas tree.
Do you see how...
Just childish and pathetic these people are.
They just run around calling everybody Russian agents without the slightest basis for having any idea why they're even saying it.
I want to show you a clip that I think so vividly illustrates how these people function.
That in their circles you're just supposed to accuse people of being Russian agents or cozying up to Assad.
And it doesn't even matter if you know why you're saying it.
And the best proof of that is when Barry Weiss went on Joe Rogan in 2019 and Tulsi Gabbard came up and Barry Weiss did not know that Tulsi Gabbard had repeatedly appeared on Joe Rogan's show and that Rogan really likes Tulsi Gabbard.
And here's what Barry Weiss said about Tulsi Gabbard and what happened as a result.
Kirsten Gillibrand.
Oh, monstrous.
Monstrous?
Ideas.
Ideas.
Well, when she was 22, she had...
No, she's an Assad toady.
What does that mean?
What's a toady?
I think that I used that word correctly.
Jamie, can you check what toady means?
Like toe in the line?
Is that what it means?
No, I think it's like a...
T-O-A-D-I-E. What does that mean?
I think it means what I think it means.
So just to be clear, so far when Tulsi Gabbard came up, Barry Weiss said, what?
She's awful.
She's a sod toady.
And then Joe Rogan said, what do you mean?
What does that mean, an sod toady?
And Barry Weiss has no idea what she even meant, so she's trying to get a dictionary definition.
Toady.
Definition of toadies.
A person who flatters or defers to others for self-serving reasons.
A sycophant.
So she's an Assad sycophant.
Is that what you're saying?
Yeah, that's known about her.
What did she say?
That's known about her.
You don't even need to give a reason.
You don't have to provide any evidence for that accusation.
It's just known.
Everybody knows.
You listen to CNN, you listen to MSNBC, read the New York Times, everybody knows Tulsi Gabbard's a toady of Assad.
I don't even know what that means, but everyone says it.
And if you ask me why, how I know it's true, I'm just going to say, like, it's known.
What do you mean?
I have to give evidence?
Everybody knows that.
What did she say?
I don't remember the details.
We probably should say that before we say that about her.
We should probably read it rather.
Well, I have read it.
So do you see what's happening here?
This is what happens with all of these people.
First he said, what do you mean by an Assad toady?
She had no idea what she even meant.
She just was repeating what she always said.
And then when she said, well, it's known, he said, well, what did she do that justifies that accusation, that very serious accusation?
And she said, I don't remember.
I don't know.
I don't know.
And then Joe Rogan said, well, before we accuse her of that, we probably ought to know.
She just got exposed completely.
And it's not just Barry White.
This is how they all are.
They have no idea why they call people Russian assets.
They could never, if they were forced to justify it, do so.
But they're never asked to because in these closed information circles in which they reside, they're never challenged.
It's just assumed that you're allowed to make that accusation.
Here's the rest of this.
I don't remember the details.
We probably should say that before we say that about her.
We should probably read it, rather.
Well, I have read it.
No, we should right now.
Oh, yeah.
Okay.
Just so we know what she said.
Look up Tulsi Gabbard.
I've had her on here before.
I really enjoy talking to her.
I like her a lot.
Are you serious?
Yeah, I like talking to her.
Okay, okay.
I like talking to her.
I don't know about...
I think she's like the motherlode of bad ideas.
Whoa.
I'm pretty positive about that, especially on Assad.
But maybe I'm wrong.
I don't think I'm Well, my take on her was that I think as a person who's coming from the left, who's also a veteran and is very articulate and sensible and a woman, and in talking to her, we didn't get into Assad or any of those things, but talking to her about what she feels is wrong with the current administration and the way things are running and a direction she thinks things could go in, she has very promising ideas.
I didn't know about this.
But doesn't she also, did she ever apologize for believing in conversion therapy?
I didn't even know she believed it.
Do you see what Barry Weiss just did?
She got completely exposed, having no answer whatsoever to Joe Rogan's question on what basis to accuse her of being this.
She's like, I don't remember.
I read it somewhere.
And then the more Joe Biden said, I mean, the more Joe Rogan said, well, I actually like Tulsi Gabbard.
Barry Weiss just got more and more nervous.
She just thought Joe Rogan would automatically agree with her.
And Barry Weiss's world is just assumed.
And this is how liberal discourse works.
It absolutely is.
And by liberal discourse, I mean establishment discourse about foreign policy, of which Barry Weiss is a complete adherent.
I mean, can you imagine going around in public on one of the most watched programs in the country and accusing somebody of being an Assad toady and then admitting that you have no idea why You think that what justifies that accusation, even though you just got done multiple times, asserting that it's definitely true because everybody knows it, and then just slinking around like a coward and saying, oh, let's talk about her views on LGBT and conversion therapy that she believed when she was 21.
This is what this discourse is.
Now, To be clear, here's the Washington Post in 2024.
Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Buttigieg, MSNBC. Rather, this is 2019.
Oh, actually, here's the debate between Pete Buttigieg and Tulsi Gabbard when they were both running for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020 when Tulsi was still a Democrat and Pete Buttigieg raised this issue of her having met with Assad.
And if your question is about experience, let's also talk about judgment.
One of the foreign leaders you mentioned meeting was Bashar al-Assad.
I have, in my experience, such as it is, whether you think it counts or not, since it wasn't accumulated in Washington, enough judgment that I would not have sat down with a murderous dictator like that.
Congressman Gabbard, let me allow you to respond.
Thank you.
You were asked directly whether you would send our troops to Mexico to fight cartels, and your answer was yes.
The fact checkers can check this out.
But your point about judgment is absolutely correct.
Our commander-in-chief does need to have good judgment.
And what you've just pointed out is that you would lack the courage to meet with both adversaries and friends to ensure the peace and national security of our nation.
I take the example of those leaders who have come before us, leaders like JFK, who met with Khrushchev, like Roosevelt, who met with Stalin, like Reagan, who met...
Like Reagan, who met and worked with Gorbachev.
These issues of national security are incredibly important.
I will meet with and do what is necessary to make sure that no more of our brothers and sisters in uniform are needlessly sent into harm's way fighting regime change wars that undermine our national security.
I'll bring real leadership and experience to the White House.
I mean, this is so pathetic that in Democratic Party politics now, meeting with a bad person that you think is a bad foreign leader is somehow evidence that you're in bed with them.
The most significant foreign policy actions of the last 50 years came when presidents met with who we consider to be the world's worst, most savage dictators.
Tulsi mentioned when JFK met with Khrushchev at the height of the Cold War, when the United States had been involved in a Cold War, arguing that the Soviet Union was the evil empire, as Ronald Reagan put it.
Nixon went to China, a country that he had been warning was a grave danger and a repressive or brutal regime for years and then went there and opened relations there and met with the Chinese leaders and created arms agreements.
Ronald Reagan did the same when it came to Soviet leaders even before they collapsed in his first term negotiating all sorts of arms deals.
The idea that if you go and meet a foreign leader Even who's an adversary, it means somehow you're in their pocket or you're cozying up to them.
It's disgusting.
The reason Tulsi Gabbard went to Syria was because she was opposed to the dirty war that Obama had unleashed.
Spending a billion dollars a year having the U.S. fight alongside al-Qaeda and ISIS and trying to remove Bashar al-Assad and destroying that country.
And Tulsi Gabbard's view is, why are we in Syria?
Why are we trying to fight Syria and change the government?
Which is Trump's view too.
And so here the Washington Post is saying Trump's pick of Gabbard resurfaces questions about her 2017 Syria visit.
This is what they all talk about.
Quote, Look at all this innuendo, this McCarthyian innuendo.
Gabbard named Wednesday...
Gabbert, named Wednesday by President-elect Donald Trump as his pick for Director of National Intelligence, wrote in a blog post at the time that she went to the country to, quote, see and hear directly from the Syrian people impacted by the devastating civil war there.
If we're going to be at war with the country, you ought to go to that country.
And see what's going on and meet with the leaders about how to resolve it.
And, quote, she divulged, she met with Assad, whose regime is backed by Iran and Russia and stands accused of killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.
The meeting with Assad, she said, was not planned.
But when the opportunity arose to meet him, she did so because, quote, we've got to be able to meet with anybody that we need to where there's a possibility that we could achieve peace.
And that's exactly what we talked about.
Gabbard met with Assad twice when she was in Syria, the Honolulu civil beast reported, citing travel forms.
She first met with Assad for an hour and a half shortly after rising in Damascus, and again for 30 minutes, two days later.
The civil beast reported, it is not unusual for members of Congress to travel abroad or meet with foreign leaders, but it is rare for them to do so with leaders who are accused of committing atrocities against their own people or are seen as unfriendly to the United States.
Gabbard has likened her meeting with Assad to Trump's meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
It's unusual for members of Congress or U.S. officials to meet with dictators accused of killing their own people.
Joe Biden had a fist bump and a hug with Mohammed bin Salman, the head of Saudi Arabia.
He does the same with General Sisi in Egypt.
Of course you have to talk to Foreign leaders, including the ones who are adversarial to the United States.
Now, just to give you a sense for how ahistorical this is, in 2007, the Bush administration had a policy of trying to isolate Syria To punish Syria for alleged interference in Iraq.
It's kind of funny when the United States invades Iraq and occupies it and is destroying the country and then accuses Iran or Syria of, quote, interfering with Iraq.
But that was the U.S.'s view, was that Assad was making it more difficult for the United States to do what they were trying to do in Iraq, and they were trying to isolate and punish Syria.
And so Nancy Pelosi decided that she would go And fly to Damascus and meet with Assad, the leader that the Bush administration was trying to isolate.
And obviously the Assad family, the father first and then the son, had been accused of all sorts of savage acts for a long time.
And Nancy Pelosi said, I don't care what you think, I'm going to meet with Assad in Damascus.
And that's exactly what she did.
Hear from NBC News.
You see the picture?
There's Pelosi.
There's Assad.
Pelosi shrugs off Bush's criticism meets Assad.
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday for talks criticized by the White House as undermining American efforts to isolate the hardline Arab country.
Now, here's the thing I think is most important when it comes to this effort to malign and demean Tulsi Gabbard's loyalties or patriotism because she had the audacity to meet with a a bad guy, a foreign leader who was an adversary,
In 2007, when President Obama, then Senator Obama, and Hillary Clinton had their war to see who would become the nominee of the Democratic Party, one of the big differences that And Hillary Clinton tried to exploit was that Barack Obama was asked whether he would meet with a whole bunch of dictators without preconditions, including Hugo Chavez and, I believe, Assad and North Korea.
And Obama said, yeah, of course.
You can't ignore people in the world with whom we have differences.
That's a formula for war.
And Hillary Clinton tried to attack him as inexperienced and reckless.
For saying that.
You don't go and meet dictators.
Hear from the Washington Post July 2007.
Quote, Barack Obama's offer to meet without precondition with leaders of renegade nations such as Cuba, North Korea, and Iran touched off of war words with rival Hillary Rodham Clinton calling him naive and Obama linking her to President Bush's diplomacy.
Quote, Older politicians of both parties questioned the wisdom of such a course while Obama's supporters characterized it as the repudiation of Bush policies and refusing to engage with certain adversaries.
It triggered a round of competing memos and statements Tuesday between the chief Democratic presidential rivals.
Obama's team portrayed it as a bold stroke.
Clinton supporters saw it as a gaffe that underscored the freshman senator's lack of foreign policy experience.
I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive.
Clinton was quoted in an interview with the Quad City Times that was posted on the newspaper's website on Tuesday.
In response, Obama told the newspaper that her stand puts her in line with the Bush administration.
Now, I suppose you can have whatever sorts of disputes you want, disagreements you want about whether or not Someone should actually go and meet with a foreign adversary somehow that it's better to just not talk and not have communications with them.
But even if you disagree that it's a good thing to do, if you think it's wrong politically or geostrategically, it doesn't remotely justify accusing the person who does it, who wants to go and negotiate, of being a toady of Assad or in the pocket of Putin.
This is sick things.
This is sick discourse.
It's so unhinged.
And it's basically an attempt to just be like uber jingoistic to say that any attempt to speak with the bad guys, to want to do anything but go to war with the bad guys makes you a traitor to your country.
And it's exactly the sort of liberal mentality that has put them in an alliance with neocons and with the U.S. security state because that is exactly how increasingly they've come to think.
It began with Russiagate, particularly the idea that Russia is this great evil.
We have to destroy them.
No talking to Russian officials.
Anyone talking to Putin is immediately suspect.
It's a scummy way of trying to discuss people's character, but it's also an incredibly dangerous framework to say that anybody who speaks to a foreign leader will be accused of being unpatriotic, but that is the attack on Tulsi Gabbard. but that is the attack on Tulsi Gabbard.
Have you ever checked the back of your creamer packaging?
Spoiler alert: it's a chemistry set.
You have oils and sugars, thickeners with no real dairy in sight.
If that's how you're starting your day, then it's time to upgrade to 1775's Protein Creamer.
This is the real deal.
10 grams of whey protein to fuel your energy, support muscle recovery, and keep you feeling full longer without the sugar crash.
It has zero sugar, zero fat, under 50 calories, it's non-GMO, naturally flavored with vanilla and proudly American fuel for people who don't settle.
You can pair it with 1775 Single Origin Coffee, which as you know, is part of a Rumble product designed to keep this website that's devoted to free speech up and running.
And you're not just waking up, but you're fulfilling it with a purpose as a result.
It's pure, high quality, and unapologetic.
This blend is crafted for mornings that match your mindset.
said, you can use the promo code GLEN for 15% off and make your mornings as strong as your beliefs.
30 days ago to this day, 30 days ago to this day, the State Department under Secretary Blinken wrote a letter to the Israeli government that was also signed by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin,
which advised the Israelis that the U.S. government believed that they were which advised the Israelis that the U.S. government believed that they were purposely blocking humanitarian aid, especially into northern Gaza, but also doing what they could to ensure that aid doesn't get to any part of Gaza, including food, clean
And the American government noted that any attempts to block humanitarian aid or to siege a part of a country or an entire country and starve to death is a violation of international law and human rights law.
And that under American law, a law enacted by Congress signed by the President, the United States is barred legally.
From providing weapons to countries that use those weapons to engage in human rights abuses or violations of international law.
The United States government said, we're giving you 30 days to show significant improvements in all of these areas.
Otherwise, we would consider an arms embargo.
Now, as soon as I saw that the 30 days came after the election, of course I knew that Nobody took this letter seriously, that it was just a political stunt designed to try and deceive young voters who were disillusioned with U.S. support for the Israeli destruction of Gaza and Arab and Muslim voters that they needed in Michigan to try and believe, like, as a latest effort that the Biden administration was willing to put limits on Israel.
But they did it very publicly yet again.
They said, here are our red lines.
If you don't meet these in 30 days, we're going to strongly consider cutting off ties.
There's nobody who thinks...
That the Israelis made any progress in any of this.
In fact, the Israelis since then have ensured that it's all worsened.
There's less aid than ever getting into northern Gaza.
There's fewer trucks entering that are humanitarian nature.
The IDF is purposely blocking it.
They're ethnically cleansing Gaza, northern Gaza, by forcing everyone to leave and shooting people who don't.
And even American outlets, which are very reluctant to criticize Israel, Are acknowledging that the Israelis simply did not do what the Americans demanded in this letter here from the Washington Post yesterday, November 12th.
Quote, Last month, the Biden administration gave Israel an unusually stark ultimatum, improve aid access to hunger-ravage Gaza in the next 30 days or risk losing some American military support.
With the deadline set to expire Tuesday, humanitarian organizations say Israel has failed to follow through, bringing the Palestinian enclave to the brink of mass starvation.
Quote, things are going to go from bad to worse, UN humanitarian coordinator Mounad Hadi told the Washington Post on Friday after a trip to Gaza's besieged north.
He described the situation facing civilians as, quote, beyond imagination.
With the deadline here, authorities in Israel have touted their progress.
Another crossing into Gaza has been opened.
A polio vaccination campaign has been completed.
The number of trucks entering Gaza is up from last month's record low.
A few have reached hospitals in Gaza's northernmost cities, which Israel has sealed off from nearly all outside assistance for more than a month.
But a Washington Post analysis based on interviews with more than a dozen humanitarian workers and officials found that Israel has largely failed to comply with the three main demands of the U.S. letter.
Surging humanitarian aid across the enclave, resuming access for commercial trucks, and ending the isolation of the North.
So the Israelis simply didn't do it.
They didn't pretend to do it.
Even a week ago, Before the election, the State Department admitted that there was no sign they were moving there, but they said, oh, we're going to wait 30 days.
We've gone over this letter before.
Here it is.
It was written on October 31st.
It was written to the then Minister of Defense that Netanyahu has now fired, Yovagolant.
And Rod Dramer, the Minister of Strategic Affairs, signed by Anthony Blinken and Lloyd Austin.
And we went over the various demands that this letter included, including all these different attempts to try to demand further humanitarian aid surged into all parts of Gaza, but especially into northern Gaza.
Now, a group of Eight organizations, including the one run by John McCain's widow, Cindy McCain, Oxfam, who's been warning forever that Gaza's on the brink of famine, that many, many children and other people have died of hunger already.
They united and said, here's all the data proving that none of this was improved.
And so, yesterday, the AP's Matt Lee went to the State Department in order to badger the State Department spokesman about what everybody knows that they're lying about, which is that they sent this letter as a stunt for the election, never meant it, and now they have to stand up and lie and say that Israel is delivering humanitarian aid to Gaza, even though everyone in the world knows they're not, and here's how that went.
As you've heard me say, and as you've heard Matt and the Secretary say previously, if we don't see steps being taken, we, of course, will appropriately enforce U.S. law.
But today...
But correct me if I'm wrong, isn't that what you guys said a month ago?
That is what we said a month ago, and that is why we laid out...
And they have not yet met them, because you say that they have taken some steps, but more needs to be made.
In other words, they have not...
That letter...
...by the deadline, and you are giving them a pass.
There's no other way to look at it.
No, I don't think that is true.
That letter was specific about some specific areas where we wanted to see them take some additional steps.
Have you seen those steps?
We have seen some of those steps being taken, yes.
It didn't say some, it said all, right?
Matt, the point is, more than any singular step, we outlined a number of steps that we wanted to see taken.
What matters most is not just a specific action or a specific item, but the totality of the progress that we see.
I'll let others have a crack at that.
The point is, Matt, that we want to see the totality of the humanitarian situation improve, and we think some of these steps will allow the conditions for that to continue to progress.
Go ahead.
I mean, people like this who are employed by the State Department have been standing up every day and defending everything the Israelis have been doing and the destruction of Gaza, and to me, these people deserve Nuremberg trials.
I don't understand what...
Could possibly be worth it in the world to stand up every day and lie for the Israelis and be humiliated by the Israelis in front of the entire world and then have to go and stand there and have everybody know that all these demands that you made of Israel were not complied with.
Now the reality is the U.S. is not really demanding anything.
Everybody knows, including the Americans, that the Israelis aren't going to do it.
The Americans don't care at all.
But the entire theater is so sickening given that what they're doing is denying and justifying and covering up for what is clearly the most horrific war against humanity and the most atrocious immorality of any war this century at least.
Here on CNN, and again this is starting to break into the mainstream given how transparent it is, here's CNN yesterday reporting on all this.
Israeli President Herzog at a critical point in another critical point in the war against Hamas and Gaza.
Today is the deadline that the Biden administration had set for the Israeli government to significantly increase the amount of aid reaching Gaza.
In a joint statement, eight humanitarian aid organizations say that the Israeli government has not only failed to do that, But also, quote, to take actions that dramatically worsened, that took actions that dramatically worsened the situation on the ground.
Think about how that has to be, that for CNN to say that not only did the Israelis ignore the letter and refuse to even make progress toward any of the demands, they went in the opposite direction.
And they ensured that those humanitarian crises worsened, which is exactly what has happened.
Kylie Atwood is live in Washington with the very latest.
And Kylie, if today is the deadline, what happens now?
It's a great question, Kate, and it's one that we are waiting to hear from, from the Biden administration.
As you said, this is an assessment that eight humanitarian aid organizations did.
Because this letter was a public letter.
It was from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense to their Israeli counterparts making these demands, more than a dozen very clear demands about what Israel had to do in terms of taking steps to allow More, excuse me, humanitarian support into Gaza.
Now, what these aid organizations are saying is that based on what the United States laid out, their assessment is effectively that Israel failed this test, that they did not live up to the demands that the U.S. was making on All of the demands that the U.S. made, they said that they failed to meet the criteria and on none of them did they see full or significant progress from Israel.
As you said, across the board, these aid organizations felt that Israel actually made the humanitarian situation in northern Gaza over the last month worse.
And here's the letter that the aid organizations wrote.
There you see the names of them and it essentially just goes through each of the different Each of the different demands that the United States made, and for example, here's just a kind of representative chart where they list all the demands of the United States government with the U.S. government called requirements, and then there's the grade, the record, the note at the end, which is either red that they haven't done it at all, yellow that they've done it a little bit but still more is needed, and green to show that they've complied.
You see that there are no greens.
They're almost all red because the United States...
Demands were never intended to be demands.
They were intended to be an election ploy designed to fool voters into thinking that they cared in the slightest about the war crimes and wars against humanity that they've been enabling with the Israelis in Gaza.
Here, I'm going to take you...
Just have you take a look at this, which is the testimony of Nizam Mahmoud, who is a doctor who has spent time recently in Gaza.
And I just want you to take a listen to what it is that he's describing under oath before the British Parliament.
I was operating on one young girl one night who died not long afterwards.
I can't even begin to describe her injuries.
But when I'd finished operating on her, an ophthalmologist was trying to take out her left eye, which was just pulp.
And he was a lovely, gentle man, maybe five years older than me.
And while he was working, he was just saying, yeah, when they came in February, they got all of us who were still here, they put our hands behind our backs, tied them up, put a hood over our heads.
We made a stand for 10 hours, beat us, cursed us in Arabic, humiliated us, and then some were taken away, some were killed, some were detained, some were released.
We had a medical student who worked with us who described how the women had all been lined up and been told to strip down to their underwear and made a stand for hours like that, which is deeply, deeply humiliating.
Particularly in that culture.
And then when they told her she could go, they wouldn't give her her clothes back, so she had to run through the streets like that, which for her was extremely traumatic.
So there's a consistent theme of attack, humiliation, aggression against people who are simply trying to do their job to try and help people.
Last night we interviewed the American journalist Jeffrey Lafredo, who described his own But Jeremy Lafredo, who described his own humiliation that he endured at the hands of the Israelis, and obviously given that he was an American journalist, they were much more limited in what they could do, and yet they were completely sadistic in the kinds of things to which they subjected him.
That was the interview that we put on Locals for now.
We're going to try and put it on this show as soon as we have some time.
Now, I just want to show you, and there's been some really horrific events Horrific videos of that same person actually who testified that British doctor about how common it was for children who were blown up as part of Israeli bombs to be alive and be on the ground and then a drone would come and shoot them on purpose or snipers would shoot them.
There's been a lot of evidence about that as well.
Here is a Gazan journalist who lives in Gaza whose name is Abu Bakr Abed, and he's been writing articles for the news site DropSite about what he's been experiencing.
He was on Breaking Points with Ryan Grimm, who's from DropSite, and described what it is that he's been experiencing in northern Gaza.
I'm curious on a personal level, if you don't mind me asking, it's mid-afternoon there now in Gaza.
What have you eaten so far today?
And what is your hope for what you might have before the day is over?
You can see how the electricity was cut off.
This is one of the main things that is happening right now in Gaza.
So it's very expected that I'm talking to you, you are still in the light, and I'm hoping, and I'm like a human being, I'm a human being, I'm supposed to be a human being, and I'm just like wishing, hoping for a day instead of you, like for a moment, like give me like a moment of your life, of It's your worst day to me, so that I can feel at least that I'm a human.
But what we're hearing so far is that, again, it's just like some loaves of bread, you have some loaves of bread, if you have it even, and they are made by bug-infested flour, of course, because there is no flour that has been allowed into the strep.
But at the same time, we have, like, as I wrote in this piece, we have some, like, sat at this local plate and with some olive oil.
So that's what we eat every single day.
It's just one time.
So we are making a process here.
We're making a schedule clear.
You know, like, we minimize things.
So everyone has a pop.
I mean, they just don't have food.
And the reason they don't have food is because at the beginning of the war, the Israelis said, we're not going to allow food, water, medicine, or electricity into the Gaza Strip.
And that's exactly what they proceeded to do.
They're starving populations because they want them to force them out so that they can destroy it and rebuild and have the Israelis take it over.
And those people know that if they leave, they will never be able to go back to their homes again.
They'll be refugees for the rest of their lives.
And you could, you know, just pre-eat every day.
You can watch every day people in Gaza, aid groups, describing that they've never seen anything like that.
Western doctors and nurses who go there come back and are completely traumatized by the things they're seeing.
And, of course, it's not like any other war.
Even in Lebanon, which the Israelis are now trying to repeat what they're doing in Gaza and in Beirut, at least people can flee.
In Gaza, there's no fleeing.
It's an extremely densely packed war.
Strip of land.
And it's one of the most densely packed places in the world.
Those people are locked in.
Even Lebanese can, the Lebanese are fleeing into Syria and into Turkey and other countries.
There's no leaving Gaza.
This is what they've been living with for more than a year now.
Constant bombardment, killing, people being wounded, no hospitals functioning, every university, every school blown up.
Most hospitals completely out of function, even the ones that can function, don't have even the most basic needs.
People are being operated on without anesthesia, all the things that you've heard, and it's only getting worse.
And in northern Gaza, where there's no journalist permitted, as you see, they cut off the electricity all the time.
If a journalist tries and goes and reports critically on what's happening, they did what they did to Jeremy Lefredo, which is try and intimidate him by suggesting he was arrested for terrorism.
They put him in solitary confinement.
They beat a Palestinian prisoner next to him.
If you haven't seen that interview, you can see it on our local platform.
And as I said, we're going to try and put it on the air within the next few days.
But if you're an American citizen, this is something that is your war.
You own this war.
Your government has been paying for it, has been arming it, has been doing everything it can to isolate itself diplomatically to protect Israel, even while the entire world turns against it, and increasingly regards it as a genocide, as a horrific war against humanity, a crime against humanity, and there's no way anymore to conclude that it is.
And to watch the State Department so cynically exploit and manipulate all of this by pretending to send a letter that you have 30 days after the election to improve on this, otherwise we're going to cut off arms and then have the Israelis just so blatantly not only not improve on it but make it worse, and have these utterly vacant sociopaths otherwise we're going to cut off arms and then have the Israelis just so blatantly not only not improve on it but make it worse, and have these utterly vacant sociopaths who work for the U.S. government stand up and lie when everyone knows they're lying and say, "I know the Israelis have made
I mean, whatever rage and disgust you feel probably isn't sufficient.
And at some point, the full record, the full record, the comprehensive record of what's been going on in northern Gaza, what's been going on in the rest of the Gaza, how many people have actually been killed, the destruction, the sadism that's going on in Israeli detention camps, all of that's going to emerge.
It's going to be cemented into history.
And I think everybody is going to have to account for what it is that they did during this time, especially the government, which is the United States, that has done the most to ensure that it can continue to happen.
All right, so that concludes our show for this evening.
As a reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after they first are broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms where if you rate, review, and follow our program, it really helps spread the visibility of our show.
Finally, every Tuesday and Thursday night, once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we move to Locals, which is part of the Rumble platform where we have our live interactive after show.
We take your questions, respond to critiques, hear suggestions for future shows and guests.
We're about to go do that, being tonight is Thursday night.
And that show is available only for members of our Locals community.
So if you'd like to join, it gives you access not just to those after shows, but to the original written exclusive content such as the interview that I referenced It gives you access to the written transcripts of every show that we publish the next day, professionalized written transcripts.
And most of all, it is the community on which we really do most rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
Simply click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you directly to that community.
For those of you watching this show, we are, of course, very appreciative.
We hope to see you back tomorrow night and every night at 7 p.m.
