Israel Pretends to Let Food into Gaza as More Allies Condemn Atrocities; Witkoff Proposes Impossible Iran Deal Red Line; Biden's Cancer Diagnosis Raises More Cover-Up Questions
Israel allows a miniscule amount of food to enter Gaza, only after the country's most steadfast allies began condemning Netanyahu's horrific atrocities. Then: Steve Witkoff announces an impossible 'red line' in Iran deal negotiations. Finally: Democrats weaponize Biden's cancer diagnosis to shield themselves from criticism about Biden's mental decline cover-up. ----------------------------------- Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update: Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook LinkedIn
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, more than two months ago, the Israeli military imposed a full-scale blockade on Gaza, refusing to allow any aid organizations to deliver food or medicine to the two million or so people We'll find out at some point how many Israel killed and how many Gazans are left.
All of this is being carried out, as always, with financing from Americans and American workers.
The world has watched Gaza increasingly starve and fall into mass famine.
The Israeli government is finally recognizing that the world is becoming repulsed by what it is doing.
Indeed, long-time supporters of Israel and media and politics and government are now denouncing that state's atrocities.
As a result, the Israeli government today announced that it would allow some humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, though in doing so it said explicitly that the amount of food they allow in will be minimal and that they are only doing it, this is their words, Because the world won't allow them to proceed to their final solution,
destroying all of Gaza and then expelling Palestinians from the Gaza Strip or putting them into camps, unless Israel gives them the cover of pretending to believe that the famine is now being alleviated.
Then, when it comes to an attack on Iran, there have long been two camps inside the Trump administration.
One that does not want a deal with Iran, but rather wants a war, and the other that wants a deal to avert a war.
Given how many times Trump has made clear that he is determined to get a deal, the strategy of the Warhawks is never to simply come right out and oppose a deal, because that would make Trump feel alienated.
Their strategy instead is to put conditions on the deal.
Yes, of course we want a deal, but these are the conditions that everyone knows Iran cannot and will not accept, so that war then becomes the only option.
On Sunday, Trump Special Envoy Steve Whitcoff, long reported to be in the camp of those trying to avert a war, We'll examine what all of that means.
And then finally, Joe Biden's team issued a statement yesterday announcing that he has advanced an aggressive prostate cancer that has already metastasized to his bones.
Democrats are despicably exploiting the announcement of that illness.
To the man that immediately everyone's just stopped talking about the 2024 cover-up that they perpetrated on the nation on the grounds that it's in bad taste now to pursue that scandal because Biden is sick.
Beyond that cynical demand, though, Biden's announcement of his very aggressive and advanced cancer raises far more questions and suspicions about the extent of this plot to cover up his health problems.
Until after the election is completed.
We'll examine all that and tell you about the latest.
Before we get to all that, a quick programming note.
System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after the first 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.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right after this quick message from our sponsor.
You've heard me talking about Field of Greens and its benefits for some time now.
They've been a long-term sponsor of our show, so you probably know it by heart already.
But what you might not have heard is that Brickhouse Nutrition's Memorial Day sale is on.
For a limited time, you can save 25% off everything with my code MEMORIAL25.
That includes, of course, Field of Greens, which is the super fruit and vegetable drink that literally promises that your doctor will notice your improved health or get your money back.
But it also includes Lean, the weight loss supplement that targets the goals of GLP-1 injections, but without needles or prescriptions.
People are seeing real results, and they love that it curbs the cravings.
Check out the website reviews, whether it's collagen, creatine, or any other docent form-related products.
It's all on sale for 25% off.
Kick off a healthy summer and save big while you're at it.
Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com and use the code MEMORIAL25 for 25% off.
Something extremely cynical and I would even say repugnant is currently going on with Israel's war on Gaza.
Now, that's been true for quite some time, but...
Every now and then, they go an extra distance to be morally repellent in a way that you previously didn't expect that they would do, and that's certainly been the case for the events of yesterday.
The Israeli government has seen a reversal in all sorts of prior allies, people who have long supported Israel and everything they've done, who have defended the war in Gaza, who are now suddenly saying, "Wait a minute." This has gone way too far.
I don't want to be associated with this anymore.
And are suddenly even admitting things like, oh, I made a mistake in supporting it.
And you have major Western outlets and Western governments, even people inside the Trump administration, now saying that, sorry, but mass famine, deliberate starvation of two million people, half of whom are children, that's not something we're going to stand by and watch.
And so only for that reason, That the Israeli government perceives that this rising anger over deliberate mass famine might impede what their real goal is, which is to cleanse all of Gaza, of all Palestinians.
For the ones who remain, they're going to put in what they call concentrated camps, concentrated humanitarian zones, which are basically concentration camps.
They're little tiny spaces surrounded by barbed wire and all sorts of...
Military assets and soldiers with weapons to prevent them from leaving.
They'll just kind of dole out a little food to them.
And that's basically the whole point of their life.
Because the goal, as they're admitting, is to destroy all of Gaza so they can take it for themselves.
Have it be part of Israeli land.
Have it be only for Jews.
And that has been the obvious goal from the start.
They've barely hidden it.
And yet so many people have fallen for this obvious deceit.
That we see in so many wars where you're given a pretext that has nothing to do with the actual goal.
The purpose of the war is to get the hostages back.
The hostages' families have long known Netanyahu has no interest in the hostages.
If you're really concerned about the hostages, why would you be indiscriminately bombing everywhere you can find where you know the hostages are kept?
And why would you impose mass famine and starvation on the place where the hostages are if you actually care about getting them back?
Donald Trump and the Trump administration showed how easy it is to get those back if you really want them back when they negotiated directly with Hamas and got out Eden Alexander, the Israeli citizen and IDF soldier captured on October 7th in active duty in a uniform who also happens to be an American citizen.
And everybody knows now it doesn't care at all about the hostages.
Those are the mascots, the instruments to use to justify what they're doing.
And I can't tell you how many times I hear every day.
Oh, if Hamas wants us to end, they should just give the hostages back?
Netanyahu and the Israeli officials, all of them, have repeatedly said that even if Hamas gave the hostages back, we wouldn't stop the war.
Because the purpose of the war is not the hostages back or even dismantling Hamas.
The purpose of the war is to take Gaza, to flatten it.
They're now bombing even the rubble.
They want it to be flattened completely, destroy every structure.
So there's nowhere for the Palestinians to say.
I just want to make sure that there's nothing but blank land that could turn it into a parking lot.
So the Palestinians have no choice but to try and flee and be refugees somewhere, and the ones who are too stubborn to leave and stay will just be in little camps.
That's the Israeli plan.
And the Israelis now know that everyone knows that's their plan, except for some U.S. loyalists who still deny it, even as Israel explicitly admits it.
And as a result, they're recognizing that the world's growing recognition Of the true extent of their atrocities, the true extent of their criminality, and always remember, the U.S. government, the U.S. worker, is paying for all of this, is arming all of this.
This is not some war on the other side of the world that we have nothing to do with.
This is an American war.
Every bitch as much as it is an Israeli war.
They're starting to realize that they have to do something to give these other countries a pretext to pretend that there's no more famine and the famine is being addressed.
Because according to Netanyahu, if they don't create some symbolic effort to allow some tiny amounts of food in, the world will stop it from ultimately doing what it really wants to do.
Here is, from earlier today, the headline is, Netanyahu orders resumption of aid to Gaza.
And this is what it says, quote, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday night ordered the resumption of aid to the Gaza Strip, effectively ending a blockade imposed in March.
On the recommendation of the IDF and based on the operational need to enable the expansion of the military operation to defeat Hamas.
So here's what they're saying.
This is a quote from Netanyahu.
On the recommendation of the IDF and based on...
Just a second.
All right, I was reading that and I can't go back apparently, but there it is.
Okay, on the recommendation of the IDF and based on the operational need to enable the expansion of the military operation to defeat Hamas.
So they're saying we're about to announce a new policy and the reason is not because we just suddenly decided mass famine was immoral.
It's because we need to enable the expansion of the military operation to defeat Hamas.
That's what all this is about.
Israel will allow a basic quantity of food to be brought in for the population in order to make certain that no starvation crisis develops in the Gaza Strip.
Such a crisis would endanger the continuation of, quote, Operation Gideon's Chariots to defeat Hamas, he said, according to a statement from the Prime Minister's office.
That is the operation to go in and occupy all of Gaza, control all of Gaza.
"Israel will act to deny Hamas'ability to take control of the distribution of humanitarian assistance in order to ensure that the assistance does not reach the Hamas terrorist," the statement added.
Now, when they announced that they're going to allow a tiny little bit of food, and I think they allowed in seven trucks today, when there's 450 trucks filled with food and medicine that have been waiting for weeks to get into Gaza, and they allowed a trickle of them, a tiny little...
Drop in the ocean for what's needed to save people in Gaza?
People on Netanyahu's right, the hardcore genocidal fanatics—not that Netanyahu isn't, but the hardcore ones—actually objected and complained and said, "We shouldn't allow any food in." And so Netanyahu had to say, "Don't worry.
Don't worry.
We're not going to allow real food in.
We're not going to really feed them." This is all just part of the control of the plan for us to take all of Gaza.
Here from the Jerusalem Post, the Israeli newspaper, from today, quote, Prime Minister Netanyahu, Israel will control all parts of the Gaza Strip.
Quote, the expansion of the operation in Gaza is for the IDF to take control of the entire territory to prevent Hamas from looting humanitarian aid.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday, the Cabinet decision on Sunday evening to renew such aid Was the correct move, he said, since without it, Israel would lose the support of, quote, its closest allies, including U.S. senators who, quote, support Israel unconditionally.
The prime minister said, quote, we cannot reach a situation of famine, neither professionally nor diplomatically, he said.
The video began and ended with the prime minister addressing other ministers and right-wing figures who criticized the entry of the humanitarian aid.
He said he called the criticism natural, but said his decision revealed "leadership" given that it was unpopular.
Can you imagine what it says about Israel?
That to have watched two million people, the majority of whom are children, and then a huge portion are women, and then men who have nothing to do with Hamas, to sit there and watch them just starve to death?
It's something the Israelis as a whole as a country are perfectly happy to watch and to cause, and therefore allowing even little bits and pieces of some flour into Gaza to prevent the world watching them starve to death.
That's unpopular in Israel to allow some food in.
Nobody, by the way, is asking Israel to provide the food.
The food's there.
It comes from international organizations, from world hunger groups, from the UN.
The issue isn't that Israel refuses to feed the Palestinians.
The issue is that Israel is blocking the entrance of humanitarian trucks that have been furnished by other international aid groups and humanitarian organizations.
This article goes on: "The video of Netanyahu came a short time after Finance Minister Smotrich called on the Prime Minister in an impromptu press conference to 'speak to the public and show leadership.' No aid will reach Hamas, period.
Anyone who says otherwise is simply lying.
The Religious Zionist Party chairman on Monday, in his statement following the cabinet's decision to renew aid to Gaza, Smotra said, quote, it will not reach Hamas.
"It will allow civilians to eat, our friends around the world to continue to provide us with international protection umbrella at the Security Council in The Hague, and us to keep fighting, God willing, until victory," he said.
"For two and a half months, we did not allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, creating enormous pressure on Hamas, and rightly so, but pressure must be managed so it doesn't explode on us." Do you see how they're going out of their way to say, look, we don't care at all.
We're happy to let the Gazans starve to death.
Just like wither away.
Watch your children.
It's kind of atrophy.
Dying of starvation is Pretty much the worst way you can die, the most painful, the most sustained and enduring.
And so these Israeli officials are going to be saying, I just want the world to know we're not doing this because we care about mass famine.
We're not doing this because we want to be humanitarians or humans about this subhuman population.
We're more than happy to starve them.
The problem is that the rest of the world thinks it's bad and we do rely on them for The money and weapons that we use to eliminate the Gazans, to ethnically cleanse Gaza and drive them all out.
And so we at least have to pretend we're not purposely really starving all of them forever to give these governments some comfort to say, okay, we're still going to support Israel.
They're admitting that.
In fact, they're emphasizing it.
Hear from Heretz, the other Israeli, another Israeli daily.
Newspaper, quote, Finance Minister Smotrich, we are destroying everything that remains in Gaza and the world isn't stopping us.
This is what the Netanyahu government is saying.
We are destroying everything that remains in Gaza and the world isn't stopping us.
From the beginning of the war, Israel said, we're going to block all food, all water, all medicine, all electricity from entering Gaza.
He said those are subhuman animals and we're gonna treat them as such, or human animals.
And they have done so repeatedly, and then the full blockade began on March 2nd, which is more than two months ago.
We hear from the BBC, Israel blocks entry of all humanitarian aid into Gaza.
That was two and a half months ago, and that has not let up.
Right after that announcement, Oxfam International Issued a statement, quote, Urgently gets into Gaza.
The International Court of Justice has ordered Israel to ensure aid delivers at scale throughout Gaza.
Now, the reason, the only reason, the Israeli government is saying, all right, we'll finally allow some food and just give them a little food.
Not all of them.
Just like little crumbs to get in.
It's because they watch the world, the part of the world that has always been most fanatically and unconditionally pro-Israel.
Finally say, I can't associate myself with this any longer.
I have to speak out against it.
It's starting to reach one of those levels of criminality and atrocity and just inhumane genocide that people are starting to realize, like, what is going to be of my life if the true extent of what has happened comes out, and I was one of those people who— Encouraged it and supported it.
And then even as the true extent of the criminality emerged, I never said anything.
I was too cowardly.
This is what's going on in a lot of people's brains, including people who have long supported Israel and specifically the war in Gaza.
One of the most pro-Israel journals in the West has long been The Economist.
They have vocally and vehemently The war in Gaza must end.
America should press Benjamin Netanyahu to accept a ceasefire, then press Hamas to disarm.
And here's what they said, quote, The cabinet approved a new plan for Gaza.
There is no reason to believe that they are right.
For a start, the operation is unlikely to free the hostages who remain imprisoned in Gaza, the only people who benefit from continuing the war are Mr. Netanyahu, who keeps his coalition intact, and his far-right allies who dream of emptying Gaza and rebuilding Jewish settlements there.
Food should not be used as a weapon.
Israel must allow aid into Gaza and let charities distribute it.
Some will be stolen by Hamas, which cares little for the plight of Gazans.
That is bad, but the alternative would be starvation.
One of the few newspapers equal to The Economist in terms of just being long-time spokespeople for the establishment, long-time supporters of Israel is the Financial Times.
And right around the same time, May 6, they published an editorial.
With this title, The West's Shameful Silence on Gaza, the U.S. and Europeans should do more to restrain Benjamin Netanyahu and basically went through the criminality of the war, how it went so much further than anybody anticipated, which is ridiculous.
The one thing I will give the Israelis credit for is that they never hid their true intentions.
I mean, they gave the idiots in the West who just blindly defend them some scripts to read about the hostages, Hamas, or whatever, but...
They were, even before October 7th, they were extremely clear.
They want the West Bank and Gaza as their own.
They wanted all Palestinians gone.
They believe God gave them that land.
And not only are they taking land in Lebanon and in Syria, lots of it, for themselves, all using U.S. weapons and U.S. money, they're now bombing the West Bank, clearing out the West Bank, forcing people out of their homes, letting these maniacal settlers, many of which come from the United States, not just Under the nose of the IDF, but with the affirmative protection of the IDF, driving Palestinians out of their homes and taking them for themselves.
But that was the plan in Gaza all along.
Probably the most pro-Israel pundit in all the United States and probably the most influential when it comes to liberal American Jews views of Israel is Tom Friedman.
He loves Israel.
He constantly has been in Israel.
He used to be a reporter in Jerusalem.
He is a very vocal and passionate Zionist.
And yet on May 9th, he published an op-ed in the New York Times with this headline, quote, This Israeli government is not our ally.
Quote, The notion that Israel has a government that is no longer behaving as an American ally and should not be considered as such is a shocking and bitter pill for Israel's friends in Washington.
Swallow.
But swallow it, they must.
I have zero sympathy for Hamas.
I think it is a sick organization that has done enormous damage to the Palestinian cause.
It is hugely responsible for the human tragedy that is Gaza today.
Hamas' leadership should have released its hostages and left Gaza a long time ago, removing any excuse for Israel to resume the fighting.
THAT JUST GIVE YOU A SENSE FOR HOW DEDICATED HE STILL IS TO THE SCRIPT OF WHOSE FAULT THIS IS.
BUT HE NONETHELESS SAYS, BUT NETANYAHU'S PLAN TO REINVADE GAZA IS NOT TO STAND UP A MODERATE ALTERNATIVE TO HAMAS LED BY THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY.
And the reason he's saying that The government who's doing that can't be considered a U.S. ally is because it for decades has been the U.S. position that is extremely damaging to American interests for this Palestinian-Israeli conflict to go unresolved
without a two-state solution because it impedes America's ability to do business in the Middle East.
It causes anti-American hatred because everyone knows that the only reason Israel gets away with all of this is because the United States, the most powerful military in the world in history, The biggest economy in the world just forces American taxpayers to pay for it all and even deploys military assets, puts service members of the United States in harm's way to always defend Israel no matter how many wars it starts.
And so even Tom Friedman is saying if they're going to reinvade Gaza and take it over, as they're clearly wanting to do, or annex the West Bank, the level of hatred not just toward Israel but the United States and the Middle East will be out of control.
Another very vocal supporter of Israel, Pierce Morgan, on May 16th, posted the following, quote, another day, another horrific massacre in Gaza.
This cannot go on.
Netanyahu is out of control and must be stopped.
Now, a lot of this is just conscience clearing.
I watched this happen during the Iraq War.
At the beginning, all the people who were opposed to the Iraq War were treated as, like, dirty.
Leftists and communists and America haters and pro-terrorists.
And then once the decent, respected establishment realized that they were right and that they had to admit it, they kind of came in with this posture like, the real voices that matter are here now to say that this war is wrong.
And even though, yeah, these people over here have been saying it from the start, they're just, they don't count.
They weren't saying it for the right reasons.
We are the authoritative voices, and when we say it's wrong, that's when it's wrong.
And that's exactly what they're doing now.
They're pretending like there's something about this war that was unpredictable, that it went to too many dark places.
It was so obvious it was going to go here from the start.
Here's an Israeli citizen who is a self-described passionate Zionist, believes strongly in the state of Israel.
Shayil Ben Ephraim.
He's a fairly prominent commentator in Israel.
And he said this on May 1st, quote, It gives me no pleasure to do this, but it has to be done.
I have long thought and heard about it, and Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Here's my full explanation of why and how I reached that conclusion.
And he goes on to explain that he used to vehemently object to the...
To the use of genocide for what Israel was doing.
He used to get angry about it.
And now he realizes that's the only term for it.
Outside of the United States, probably the two most dedicated and devoted supporters of Israel are the UK and Germany.
Germany because they're still trying to repent for the guilt they feel, absolve themselves of the guilt they feel from World War II and the Holocaust.
And ironically, I guess they think that giving weapons and money to the Israelis to help them ethnically cleanse and commit genocide against the Palestinians is a way to repent for their sins from 65 years ago.
But the UK is even more devoted to Israel.
And yet, members of parliament from the Conservative Party, the Tories, are starting to stand up and say, I've supported Israel my whole life.
I supported this war.
But I have to say I apologize for that, that I was wrong, and I see that I'm wrong now.
Here's Edward Lee, very standard, conservative, a Tory member of the House of Commons, and here's what he said on May 14th.
I've been a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel for over 40 years, longer than anybody here.
And Hamas is a brutal terrorist organization that hides.
It hides people, their own fighters, under hospitals.
But it's frankly unacceptable to recklessly bomb a hospital.
It's unacceptable to starve a whole people.
Is the Minister aware that many Friends of Israel worldwide, notwithstanding narrow legal definitions, are asking this moral question: When is genocide not genocide?
Mr Speaker, I've heard in recent weeks a series of very powerful interventions from the benches opposite, and I take them seriously with the weight that they hold, particularly from the father of the house and my neighbour in Lincolnshire.
We will not move towards making determinations from dispatch boxes on questions of legal determination, but that does not mean we will wait.
Mr. Speaker, the preliminary judgments of the ICJ and the provisional measures that they set out are important and we will abide by them.
So interestingly, you have the Conservative members of the Parliament, including this guy who for 40 years has been in the Friends of Israel group.
I don't know why these people get elected to represent the British people and then immediately go and join the Friends of Israel.
Caucus, but whatever.
That's just part of what conservatives and members of labor have long done in the UK, just like the United States.
If you're elected to Congress, it means you have to go make pilgrimage to Israel.
You have to hold press conferences on it every day.
You have to post about it every day.
You have to introduce pro-Israel resolutions every day.
But even he's saying, look, I just, you know, this is too much.
And that he wasn't the only one.
Hear from the Independent.
On March 4th, MPs report witnessing armed intimidation by Israeli settlers in the West Bank.
Senator Edward Lee and Uma Kumarin were among those to recount their experiences.
And there was a separate MP who stood up and actually apologized for his support for Israel in this war, saying I was totally wrong.
Earlier today, there was a joint statement from three countries long, vocally pro-Israel.
The United Kingdom, France, and Canada, they issued a joint statement on the situation in Gaza and the West Bank, and this is what they said, quote, We strongly oppose the expansion of Israel's military operation in Gaza.
The level of human suffering in Gaza is intolerable.
Yesterday's announcement that Israel will allow a basic quantity of food into Gaza is wholly inadequate.
We call on the Israeli government to stop its military operation in Gaza and immediately allow humanitarian aid to enter.
This must include engaging with the UN to ensure a return to delivery of aid in line with humanitarian principles.
The Israeli government's denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable and risks breaching international humanitarian law.
Oh no, it risks breaching?
It hasn't already breached that?
We condemn the abhorrent language used recently by members of the Israeli government, threatening that in their despair at the destruction of Gaza, civilians will start to relocate.
Permanent force displacement is a breach of international humanitarian law.
We will not stand by while the Netanyahu government pursues these egregious actions.
If Israel does not cease the renewed military offensive and lifts its restrictions on humanitarian aid, we will take further concrete actions in response.
Ooh, that must be so scary for Netanyahu.
I bet he's traumatized that Canada and France and the UK are saying, if you don't stop, we're going to take real concrete actions.
These countries are arming Israel.
They paid for a big part of the war.
They diplomatically support Israel.
And now they finally got around to like, oh, we better issue a statement condemning it so we have clean consciences so that when we die, no one can say that we didn't speak up.
They go on, quote, We oppose any attempt to expand settlements in the West Bank.
Israel must halt settlements which are illegal and undermine the validity of a Palestinian state and the security of both Israelis and Palestinians.
We will not hesitate to take further actions, including targeting sanctions.
This is just ass covering by people who are increasingly realizing what they applauded, what they enabled.
It's like people who joined the Nazi Party in 1938, 1939, 1940, '41, and then by 1944 they're like, "You know what?
I think we've gone too far.
I'm going to renounce my membership in the Nazi Party." Or like the people who supported the war in Iraq, and then like eight years later were like, "Maybe this is a mistake." Or like the people who supported the war in Vietnam, and then, you know, two million Vietnamese later and...
60,000 American troops later lost their lives, and they said, I don't know, it's starting to seem like this is probably going too far.
I'm going to start to speak out about this 10 years into the war.
Here is Germany, which, as I said, outside the United States is one of the two countries, along with Great Britain, who has most vehemently supported Israel.
This is from their foreign office.
And they've had, from the start of the war in Israel, they've armed Israel, they've...
They sent money to Israel, they sent all their top officials to Israel to stress their solidarity with the Israelis when it comes to Gaza, and yet now they're saying this: "Joint donor statement to humanitarian aid to Gaza.
Whilst we acknowledge indications of a limited restart of aid, Israel blocked humanitarian aid entering Gaza for over two months.
Food, medicines, and essential supplies are exhausted.
The population faces starvation.
Gaza's people must receive the aid they desperately need.
As humanitarian donors, we have two straightforward messages for the government of Israel.
Allow a full resumption of aid into Gaza immediately and enable the UN and humanitarian organizations to work independently and impartially to save lives, reduce suffering, We remain committed to meeting this acute need we see in Gaza.
Now, it does seem like...
The Israeli government's effort to pretend to allow in humanitarian aid is not effective to allow these countries to pretend they're doing that, in part because barely any aid got in today.
And barely any aid is going to get in.
Everybody knows that.
But more so because the Israeli government said, we're not really going to let in much aid.
We just need to do this to give the governments around the world an excuse to allow us to get on with our ultimate solution to the Gaza problem.
Which is cleanse it all.
Turn it into a parking lot, cleanse it all, put the remaining Palestinians in camps, and then rebuild apartments and houses and resorts only for Jews and make Gaza part of Israel.
And they put these governments in a difficult position because their populations are starting to turn on them.
People just don't want to see this anymore.
They can't take it.
Polls in the United States have showed a significant collapse.
In support for Israel among all demographic groups, including young Republicans, the only exception being older Republicans who watch Fox News, that demographic.
But the Israelis are like an apocalyptic cult.
They don't care what—they don't recognize moral limits.
They don't acknowledge the humanity of Palestinians.
They absolutely consider Palestinians to be animals.
There's no way you can just do what they've done to Gaza.
Bomb every remaining hospital and mosque and school.
They're bombing electricity generators for hospitals so that ICU patients on incubators die.
They've bombed shelters.
They've constantly bombed people in tents.
The number of children who are dead, including under three years old.
It's just as a statistic as Shuckman itself.
And there's no question the number of people who have died that we hear from, from Gaza, is extremely underestimated because they only count the people who go through the morgue.
Huge numbers of people are still lying under that rubble.
There's massive rubble everywhere with bodies underneath who don't make it to the morgue.
There are other people who die of disease or hunger who aren't counted because they're not actually killed with bombs or bullets, but they're victims of the Israeli action nonetheless.
They've stripped the Palestinians and Gaza of all remaining humanity.
I mean, they go to bed every night with Israeli bombers over their head being terrorized every night that that's the last night their children are going to wake up.
I don't even know how...
You get through this and then maintain any semblance of life, especially the million children in Gaza whose childhood is shaped by this.
How do you function?
How do you become a normal human being?
How do you ever feel safe or stable?
It's inconceivable.
And I think even if we weren't directly involved in it, you would have a need.
To speak up about it just because the levels of atrocity are so severe.
Easily the worst thing that's happened in the 21st century.
Maybe in our lifetimes.
Just in terms of the sheer humanity of it.
But the fact that we're paying for it all, that we arm it, that we diplomatically protect it, that the entire world knows that we're responsible.
And so the hatred toward Israel also...
Splashes onto the United States to a great extent.
All of this makes it imperative as an American, even if you don't care about the morality of Palestinians being starved to death and indiscriminately slaughtered every night.
Just in terms of what your concern is about American interests, special people have called themselves America First.
This word is devastating for the United States as well.
It's expensive.
If it leads to war with Iran, as we're about to talk about, it could be even more devastating in multiple ways if we let Israel drag us into this war.
But even just this in and of itself, you know, I know there are people who say, like, hey, you talk about Israel too much, you cover Israel too much.
I understand that.
We do cover it a lot.
I should remind you, though, that when the war in Ukraine was raging, we covered the war in Ukraine just as much because that, too, was an American war.
We talked about all the same things, but obviously, I mean, the number of civilians killed in Ukraine is a tiny, infinitesimal fraction of the number of civilians who have been killed in Gaza, despite the fact that Ukraine is a more populous country by a significant margin than Gaza.
Just in raw numbers, the amount of civilians in Gaza are way, way more.
Even though that war has only lasted that A tax has only lasted 16 months, whereas the one in Ukraine has gone on for—it's in its fourth full year.
How can you not talk about this frequently?
I mean, there's nothing else like it.
And it's a U.S. government policy.
And there are events, and we feel compelled to report on them.
And also, I think it's important to make manifest exactly— What is happening so that Americans can decide for themselves if this is something they want to continue to support.
All right, so we have been pretty optimistic about the desire of Donald Trump to avoid a war with Iran.
There have been a lot of encouraging things.
He definitely put the red light on the desire of Netanyahu to bomb Iran with U.S. logistical and military support Netanyahu came to the White House.
He has talked about how he doesn't want new Mideast wars on his legacy.
The fact that he stopped the bombing campaign that he restarted, that was started under Biden, that he restarted and escalated, he stopped that after a month when he realized that this was just going to be another protracted, endless war that was consuming all of America's stockpiles, spending a billion dollars a week.
Also, Bolsters the idea that he really doesn't want to be a president that gets dragged into another one of these wars.
And his envoy, Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff, has proven he's the one who facilitated the ceasefire deal that was obtained in January even though it fell apart.
He's the one putting pressure on the Russians and the Ukrainians to end that war.
And he is often talked about in ways that seem convincing the fact that we can get a deal with Iran.
The problem is that there's a major camp inside the Republican Party inside Trump world.
People like Marco Rubio, and before he was fired, Mike Waltz, Tom Cotton, and Lindsey Graham, that whole crew, that can't admit it.
They have to feign support for Trump, but they actually despise Trump's foreign policy.
But they have to pretend they support it because of how popular he is within the Republican Party, and they want to keep their influence in the White House.
So, their goal in...
Causing a war is not to tell Trump, don't negotiate, just go to war, because they know Trump won't do that.
What their goal is to say, we support Donald Trump.
We agree.
You should negotiate with Iran, try and get a deal.
And if you can't, then you go to war, because they can't have a bomb.
And so what they're trying to do is say, the deal has to include A, B, C, and D at a minimum, knowing that A, B, C, and D are impossible for Iran to accept.
Impossible in terms of their nuclear power program.
Impossible in terms of their legal rights.
Impossible in terms of their sovereignty.
Impossible in terms of their reputation and dignity in the world.
So they're feigning a desire to have a plan, but they're putting conditions on it that they know are poison pills that will make it automatically.
Impossible.
And that's been the plan of Rubio and Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham and that whole crew.
Now, it has been repeatedly reported, these kind of optimistic notes about the progress that the United States and Iran have been making, and Trump's been very positive about this.
Here from the Wall Street Journal, May 15, Trump says U.S. and Iran are close to a nuclear deal.
American negotiators made their first proposal to Iran, which Tehran says it will discuss after citing lingering differences between the two sides.
American negotiators for the first time pitched a nuclear proposal to their Iranian counterparts, according to people briefed on the matter days before President Trump said the U.S. was close to an agreement on the matter on Thursday.
The U.S. issued its proposal last weekend during the fourth round of nuclear negotiations between the U.S. and Iran since April 12th.
After those talks, the U.S. said it was encouraged by Iran's openness to Washington's approach.
The Iranians said the talks were, quote, difficult but useful in clarifying the differences.
I think we're getting close to maybe doing a deal without having to do this, Trump said at a business event in Doha, Qatar on Thursday.
Alluding to military strikes on Iran, quote, there's two steps.
There's a very, very nice step, and there's a violent step.
Violence like people haven't seen before.
And he's been talking about that a lot.
You know, trying to scare Iran into doing deal.
But also putting it on the table that he's been saying, we have weapons people don't even know about.
And the violence we would unleash on Iran if we don't get a deal done is basically cataclysmic.
Now, Steve Woodcoff has been definitely in the camp of people pushing for a deal.
He wants to get deals done.
And that's why it was, I think, at least noteworthy, and I'd even go further in saying quite alarming and maybe disturbing, that he went on ABC News this weekend with Jonathan Karl, and when asked about the Iran negotiations, this is what he said.
Okay, and then we have the other major set of negotiations with Iran.
Can you give us a sense of what is the outline of the deal that President Trump wants to get with Iran?
Well, the president has been very clear.
He wants to solve this conflict diplomatically and with dialogue.
And he's given all the signals.
He's directly sent letters to the Supreme Leader.
I have been dispatched to deliver that message as well, and I've delivered it.
But on the other hand, we have one very, very clear red line, and that is...
Okay, so he's saying...
We're open to negotiating.
Trump wants to negotiate.
Now he's saying we have one very clear red line.
This is the first time we're hearing this from the administration.
And red line is a very deliberate term.
It has a very clear meaning in international diplomacy.
When a president sets a red line, it's supposed to mean, if you cross it, we're going to go to war against you.
When Obama was president, he said, The red line for Syria and for Assad is the use of chemical weapons.
If Assad does that, if he crosses that line, which Obama described as a red line, the U.S. would take military action to take out Assad.
The U.S. intelligence agency claims Assad used chemical weapons.
It's in dispute.
But the U.S. government's position was they did, and Obama didn't do anything.
He let that red line be crossed, and he got bashed by Republicans mercilessly.
And not only...
Republicans, but also a lot of journalists who said that you cannot have a president declaring a red line and then have someone cross that red line and not do anything about it.
And then Biden did the same thing.
This is, right now, Rafa in Gaza is completely destroyed.
It's all flattened.
It's all rubble.
There's nothing left.
Huge numbers of people were killed.
But at the time, in 2024, that was the place where the Israelis had ordered all Palestinians to go, and they were living in refugee camps in Rafa.
And Netanyahu is threatening to invade and bomb Rafa.
And Joe Biden, when asked, said, no, he cannot do that.
We've made very clear that is our red line.
It is a red line.
Israel cannot invade or bomb Rafa.
And obviously, red line means red line.
You cannot cross this without serious consequences.
That's what the president means when he says red line.
And so Israel made fun of this red line.
They said, we're going to do whatever we want, even though the U.S. is paying for everything and we need the U.S., we don't care, they work for us.
And Netanyahu made clear, we're not going to stay out of Rafah.
And so they started invading Rafah, and then the White House was asked, what's going on?
Biden said it was a red line.
And the White House said, oh, they're not really crossing the red line.
It's very targeted, pinpoint, pinprick, uses of violence to take out Hamas.
And then two months later, huge numbers of people were dead in Rafa.
Now you look at the map, Rafa's no longer on the map.
And that was another red line that Biden let people cross with no consequences.
So when Trump is using red line, or Whitcoff is using red line, they know exactly what it means.
They're saying, under no circumstances will we allow this to happen.
Now previously that red line had been Iran getting a nuclear bomb.
That was the red line.
We will not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon.
We will go to war to prevent that.
But this red line is much, much different, falls way short of that, and is a red line that guarantees, if it's really a red line, that the U.S. won't ever concede on.
They're basically guaranteeing that there can be no deal with Iran, and war would be the only option.
Here's what he says is the red line.
But on the other hand, we have one very, very clear red line, and that is enrichment.
We cannot allow even 1%.
Of an enrichment capability.
We've delivered a proposal to the Iranians that we think addresses some of this without disrespecting them.
And so that's important.
We want to get to a solution here.
And we think that we will be able to.
But everything begins from our standpoint, John, with a...
A deal that does not include enrichment.
We cannot have that.
There you see on the screen, by the way, for those of you who are listening, on the screen, right, as he's saying this, we will not allow enrichment.
There's a top official who's quoted saying Iran will never give up the right to enrich uranium.
And we'll explain why in just a second, but let's hear the rest of Witkoff's answer.
Richmond enables weaponization, and we will not allow a bomb to get here.
But short of that, there are all kinds of ways for us to achieve our goals in this negotiation.
We think that we will be meeting sometime this week in Europe, and we hope that it will lead to some real positivity.
And that's where we are, sir.
Now, Iran has always said they aren't trying to pursue a nuclear weapon.
They don't want a nuclear weapon.
That's not the purpose of their centrifuges and enrichment sites.
What they're saying is we insist on the right to have a peaceful nuclear program.
That's our right under the agreements and conventions we signed that tried to stop nuclear proliferation.
Every sovereign country in the world is allowed to have a nuclear energy program to power the country.
And people say, well, Iran has so much oil, why do you need it?
The reason they need it is because they want to use nuclear power for their country.
It's cleaner, it's more efficient, and it lets them sell all their oil to the world to fuel their economy so they don't have to use it internally.
But more, it's just a right that every country has.
There's a nuclear non-proliferation treaty where every country promised who signed it not to obtain nuclear weapons in an exchange.
They were guaranteed the right to have a nuclear power program.
And the thing is, The original Iran deal that Obama and the Russians and the Europeans worked out with Iran was you can enrich uranium up to a certain point, I believe it was 3%, because 3% allows you all the nuclear power that you want and need, but it's nowhere near enough to make it into a weapon.
And that was the deal.
And they had inspectors there, cameras there, surveillance there.
All the United States government's intelligence agencies admit that Iran was abiding by that.
The problem with this no enrichment, like you can't even enrich it 1%, which is what Witkauf says, is that if you don't enrich uranium, you cannot have a nuclear power program.
And the Iranians will never accept giving up that right as a sovereign country, as a signatory to these conventions, as a country that wants nuclear power.
Not a nuclear weapon, but nuclear power.
Now, maybe Whitcoff is hinting at, oh, maybe there's still a way to provide nuclear energy to Iran, but not allowing them to enrich.
I don't know what he has in mind, but this no enrichment condition is the condition that the Tom Cottons and Lindsey Grahams and Marco Rubio's were insisting on because they know Iran will never agree to that, and they'll get the war that they want while pretending to have negotiated.
Here's Iran's foreign minister, Syed Abbas Aragachi, who, on May 18th, About all of this said this, quote, I wonder what they mean by malign special interest
groups that have always in the past set the agenda for previous administrations.
He's saying they can say whatever they want to placate those people.
Iran can only control what we Iranians do, and that is to avoid negotiating in public, particularly given the current dissonance we are seeing between what our U.S. interlocutors say in public and in private and from one week to the other.
So they're essentially saying Steve Wyckoff is going on TV and saying we're never going to allow enrichment, but privately with the negotiations, they're hearing something much different.
They go on, quote, As a NPT member, that's the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, is crystal clear, and there's no scenario, no scenario, in which Iranians will permit deviance from that.
Mastering enrichment technology is a hard-earned and homegrown scientific achievement, an outcome of great sacrifice of both blood and treasure.
If the U.S. is interested in ensuring that Iran will not have nuclear weapons, a deal is within reach.
And we are ready for a serious conversation to achieve a solution that will forever ensure that outcome.
Enrichment in Iran, however, will continue with or without a deal.
So they're really making clear that that is our red line.
That has always been the red line.
And they're saying, we don't want a nuclear weapon.
Whatever assurances you feel like you need to know that we have a nuclear power program but not a nuclear weapon program, we're willing to give you that.
We're willing to negotiate with that.
We don't care.
We're not trying to get a nuclear weapon.
But we will never give up our right.
To have the nuclear program that was guaranteed to us that we developed ourselves through our own technology and know-how and scientists and insisting that we can't enrich is basically insisting that we give up our nuclear program and we will never do that.
What's so odd about this is just last month, Whitcoff was saying the complete opposite.
Hear from Jewish Insider in April.
Whitcoff indicates that the U.S. is open to letting Iran keep its nuclear program.
Quote, "The lead U.S. negotiator in the nuclear talk said he's open to a deal that would only require limits and verification rather than complete dismantling of Iran's nuclear program." We've showed you this before when the Israeli government, when Tom Cotton, when Marco Rubio, when Lindsey Graham say, "Oh, we love President Trump.
Congratulations, President Trump, for pursuing negotiations and diplomacy as an alternative to war.
We totally support you." They say that while sabotaging the deal, and they're sabotaging the deal by saying, we only accept complete dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program, meaning their nuclear energy program.
Knowing that Iran has been saying for years, and they mean it, they will never give that up.
And what's concerning is, Whitcoff has always been saying, and Trump has always been saying, that's not the deal.
But the Republican senators have even threatened not to approve the deal in the Senate.
You don't really have to approve the deal.
The first-round deal wasn't approved in the Senate, but if you want it to have the status of a treaty, that's very hard to undo.
It needs to get to the Senate.
Republican senators are saying, unless it bars any enrichment and dismantles their nuclear program completely, we're not going to let President Trump do this.
That's the one thing they're going to defy President Trump on openly, is what Israel wants.
Here's the excellent...
Outlet, the news outlet, Responsible Statecraft, based in the UK, that does some great reporting, from May 16, just this last week, with this title, quote, zero enrichment fantasies will lead us to war.
They explain why this condition that Steve Whitcoff never embraced until this interview on Sunday is automatically guaranteed to lead to war.
This is what they say, quote, "This goal has not only proven unattainable, "but also counterproductive.
"Gifting Iran more time to advance its program "while delaying the constraints "a realistic verification-based agreement would impose.
In 2003, Iran proposed to the U.S. a comprehensive deal aimed at resolving all major disputes, including limits on its enrichment program.
At the time, Tehran had just 164 centrifuges, no stockpiles of low-enriched uranium, and no capability to enrich above 3.67%, sufficient for fuel, but far below the 90% required for nuclear weapons.
Tehran has made its position clear.
If snapback is invoked, it will not only withdraw from the Iran deal, But also exit the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and expel all IAEA inspectors, effectively turning its nuclear program into a black box.
Exiting the NPT takes 90 days, during which time there remains a window to reverse course.
align these timelines the Europeans are expected to initiate the snapback process in June ensuring that both the NTP withdraw and the full re-imposition of sanctions coverage just before October after which Europe loses the legal ability.
This has been going on for years.
And everybody has always understood the Iranians will negotiate anything.
They've tried for two decades now with the last.
As long as it doesn't require them to give up their right to nuclear weapon, which the sovereign country is entitled to have.
They need 3% or 4% enrichment to do that.
So far away from the enrichment needed to a nuclear weapon.
Here from the BBC, April 12th, what is Iran's nuclear program and what does the U.S. want?
Quote, why isn't Iran allowed nuclear weapons?
Iran says its nuclear program is for civilian purposes only.
It insists it is not trying to develop nuclear weapons, but many countries, as well as the IAEA, are not convinced.
Suspicions about Iran's intentions arose when the country was found to have secret nuclear facilities in 2002.
That broke an agreement called the NPT, which Iran and almost all other countries have signed.
The NPT lets countries use non-military nuclear technology such as for medicine, agriculture, and energy, but does not permit the development of nuclear weapons.
How advanced is Iran's nuclear program?
And remember, the reason this happened was because we had a nuclear deal, an Iran deal, that allowed inspectors all over Iran.
And it was only once...
The nuclear deal, the Iran deal, the U.S. withdrew from it under Trump, did that whole framework disappear?
And it made it much harder to know what the Iranians were doing.
Since the U.S. pulled out of the existing nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, in 2018, Iran has breached key commitments in retaliation for the decision to reinstitute sanctions.
It has installed thousands of advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium, something which was banned by the GCPOA.
Nuclear weapons require uranium, which has been enriched to 90% purity.
Under the Iran deal, Iran was only allowed to possess up to 300 kilograms of uranium, enriched to 3.67%, sufficient for civilian nuclear power and research purposes, but not nuclear bombs.
But by March 2025, the IEA said Iran had about 275 kilograms of uranium, which it had enriched to 60% purity.
That is enough to theoretically make about half a dozen weapons should Iran further enrich the uranium.
So you see, an agreement with Iran works.
It puts intelligence and surveillance and inspectors all over the country.
And again, even intelligence agencies in the US agree that Iran was complying with the deal when the Iran deal was imposed.
Once it was rescinded, the whole framework collapsed.
And Iran was freer to do what it wanted.
But Iran has made repeatedly clear they don't care about nuclear weapons.
They don't want nuclear weapons.
And the question is whether or not the faction inside the Trump administration that wants to drive the U.S. to an extremely dangerous war with Iran, all being pushed by Israel, whether that faction is now prevailing, or whether, as Iran suggests, Steve Whitcoff is now saying this stuff.
To placate Israel and to placate the hardcore warmongers in the Republican Party, when in reality they're negotiating on much different terms.
A huge amount rides on that question on the determination of President Trump and Steve Witkoff and J.D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, the faction pushing back on war with Iran.
A huge amount rides on...
Their ability to withstand what I promise you not only is but will continue to be immense pressure and attacks from the very powerful forces that want the United States dragged into a war with Israel's most threatening enemy.
$17.75 is giving away free starter kits loaded with premium coffee and gear while coffee prices have jumped over 30% this year.
$17.75 is out here launching freebies.
Like summing up the marketing team unsupervised.
Like what are you doing $17.75?
The whole market is increasing and you're not increasing your prices?
Are you just like wanting to go out of business?
Are you willing to lose money?
Are you just being generous?
What's the deal?
But it's only live while quantities last.
You get three bags of coffee, two 16 ounces of your choice, dark or medium, plus their longevity brand, infused with anti-aging CAAKG, clinically proven to reduce biological age.
Translation, turns out the Fountain of Youth comes in 16 ounces and doesn't taste like hell.
You cover two bags, 1775 covers the rest.
That's a full 16-ounce bag of coffee plus premium gear.
A matte black tumbler and frother and a gold scoop or a reusable K-cup filter.
Whole bean, ground, or pod, you don't have to have that imposed on you.
That's your call.
Start your day with coffee that backs your values, clears your head, fires you up, and makes you feel like yourself again.
Go to 7075.coffee and grab your free starter kit before someone realizes that they have made a terrible business decision.
Music.
Music.
I'm certainly not somebody who has particularly high expectations for ethical behavior or noble decision-making from the Democratic Party.
Quite the contrary.
I've seen them do some absolutely despicable things.
But what they're doing now might be one of the most nauseating and exploitative things I've ever seen them do.
And like I said, I've been watching them for a long time.
As you know, there's been this real scandal that has been obvious for a long time, but finally the media is now forced to confront because of this new book called Original Sin by Jake Tapper, who is the last person to should have wrote it in this book because he often led the way in attacking anybody, raising concerns about Biden's cognitive decline.
And now he's writing a book like, oh, look what I've uncovered, this cover-up.
When it was like Jake Topper, who was a key part of the cover-up.
But it's also co-authored by Alex Thompson of Axios, who's one of the very, very few people in the corporate media who has the credibility to write this book, because he was actually, for more than a year, out there banging the drums like, Biden's cognitive con is real.
People inside the White House are worried, but they won't go on the record.
They're covering it up.
And so as a result, now that the election's over, they're trying to rewrite history, and they're trying to say, Oh, look, it wasn't us, the Democrats, or it wasn't us, the media, that tried to cover up and conceal Biden's cognitive mind.
We just had no way of knowing.
And the reason we had no way of knowing is because the White House kept it from us.
They misled us.
We're the victims.
And we're angry about it.
We're angry at the White House.
Is this such a pathetic attempt for the media to try and pretend that the Deliberate, outright fraud they engaged in to conceal from Americans, what Americans already knew, that Biden was cognitively incapable of performing the duties of the president.
They know that they concealed it, and they're trying to pretend that they just didn't know, even though all Americans with no access knew.
Somehow the people closest in Washington's circles are now trying to pretend, oh, we had no idea.
And you have Democratic governors like Gretchen Whitmer and Gavin Newsom who are being asked about this and they're saying, I don't know, I barely saw the president.
So I only saw him like once or twice very briefly and I didn't notice anything different.
So all these people are caught and they're trying to use this book in order to pretend that they're now confronting what happened when in reality they're not confronting anything.
They're inventing an alternative reality to blame a handful of Biden aides for a Propaganda deceitful campaign, yet another one right before the election that they themselves led.
And they're failing.
In fact, Jake Tapper's reputation has been so damaged from this that he actually had to hire a PR crisis firm.
Like the kind of firm that you hire when your reputation is being destroyed.
It's like Anthony Weiner in the middle of his sex sandal hired a crisis PR firm.
P. Diddy has one.
That's the level that you have to be at.
Like in crisis.
You have to be in crisis to hire one.
And Jake Tapper has hired one.
And by the way, they spent the last week trying to plant negative stories about me, claiming I took a video out of context, that my attacks were in bad faith on Jake Tapper.
Poor Jake Tapper.
Because I've been beating the table about how can Jake Tapper, of all people, pretend to write a book exposing the cover-up of Biden's cognitive decline when he was one of the media leaders attacking viciously anybody who raised it.
But they weren't getting away with that.
They weren't getting away with blaming the White House because everyone's saying, what do you mean?
You were the ones, you, the Democratic Party, knew Biden's cognitive decline.
And he went on TV constantly.
Oh, I just met with the president.
He was sharp as a tack.
He was, like, solving algebra problems.
He, like, learned his fifth language.
As Joe Scarborough said, this version of Biden is the best version of Biden.
This was all what Democrats in the media were saying.
So nobody's falling for that.
So now they're trying something else to try and get everybody to just forget about all this that happened.
And what they're trying to exploit is what happened yesterday from CNN.
Biden is diagnosed with, quote, an aggressive form of prostate cancer.
Last week, President Joe Biden was seen for a new finding of a prostate nodule after experiencing increasing urinary symptoms.
On Friday, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer characterized by a Gleason score of 9, grade group 5, with metastasis to the bone, the statement said.
A Gleason score is 1 to 10, 9 and 10 being the most aggressive forms of cancer, and he has 9, and it's metastasized to his bone.
The statement continued, quote, while this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone sensitive, which allows for effective management.
Biden, 82, said his family, quote, are reviewing treatment options with his physicians, this statement said.
Joe Biden issued a statement yesterday, or someone issued a statement in his name, on Twitter saying, quote, cancer touches us all.
Like so many of you, Jill and I have learned that we are strongest in the broken places.
Thank you for lifting us up with love and support.
And there you see a picture that they posted with Joe and Dr. Jill and their, I guess, their cat.
Now, back last year, I don't know why we're using People Magazine for this, but whatever.
This happened regardless of the fact that we're using People Magazine.
In February of 2024, So, heading into the election year, here is the title, Joe Biden's doctor releases results of annual physical exam.
Quote, Joe Biden's annual physical exam revealed no signs of trouble, according to his doctor, who said that this year's checkup, quote, identified no new concerns.
He continues to be fit for duty, and he fully executes all of his responsibilities without any exemptions or accommodations, Dr. Kevin O 'Connor wrote.
And a letter on Wednesday afternoon, which was reviewed for accuracy and approved by physicians in the White House Medical Unit.
So note, just before we get to this point, look at how intensive the medical care is for a president.
They have their own personal doctor.
They have a team of physicians in the White House Medical Unit.
The president isn't somebody who just goes to get a checkup once a year and they're like, Good tasks.
Come back next year.
See you next year.
They're constantly scrutinized.
They're constantly monitored.
They're giving the most intensive medical care possible.
The President of the United States.
Quote, according to his updated health summary, Biden is currently, quote, undergoing treatment for multiple, quote, stable medical conditions that include non-valvular arterial fibrillation.
And other just seasonal diseases, sensory peripheral neopathy on both feet, and his gait, which, quote, remains stiff but has not worsened in recent years.
So very, like, benign conditions, some allergies, little stiff gait.
One new condition that arose since last year's exam, obstructive sleep apnea, also remains stable and has been alleviated via a CPAP machine, which was previously reported.
So he's ready to go.
Everything is great.
The White House said in February 2024, no hints of cognitive decline, no hints of any physical condition.
Now, here's a doctor who was chosen to go on Morning Joe named Vin Gupta.
And what he explained is that it takes a long time for prostate cancer to go from just prostate cancer to metastasizing to the bones.
It takes years, meaning that there's no doubt that Joe Biden had prostate cancer while he served his first term, probably all of his first term, but at least a good portion of it.
And it's not easy necessarily to detect prostate cancer, but the way you do is you have a blood exam that measures your PSA count, and if your PSA count is elevated, that's a strong sign that you're either at risk for prostate cancer, which leads to a prostate exam, or...
You have prostate cancer.
And while generally PSA tests aren't done on men over 70, again, the president just doesn't get ordinary treatment.
He gets the full panoply.
And I'm not going to say definitively that it's true because I don't have proof, but even doctors and media people, very sympathetic to Biden and the Democratic Party, Are acknowledging that it is extremely unlikely, extremely unlikely, that Biden,
for the first time this week or last week, just found out, or even the last hundred days since he left office, just found out that he has prostate cancer, aggressive prostate cancer, that has already metastasized to the bone, given that it takes years for that to happen.
Here's what Vin Gupta said on Morning Joe, which, as you remember, Morning Joe is like state Biden TV.
It was...
Scarborough, who went on air and he's like angrily and said, roll the tape.
I'm going to tell you something you don't want to hear.
Biden is as sharp as ever.
This version of Joe Biden is the best Biden.
It's a sick slander to say he's in cognitive decline.
I've never seen him sharper.
So that's the level of propaganda that this show has spouted in defense of Joe Biden.
And yet here's what they aired today.
Obviously, the PSA exam is not 100% accurate, and I've never met a doctor that doesn't say you needed to do the PSA exam and also have the physical exam as well.
I just find it hard to believe that any White House physician wouldn't say, okay, well, what my doctor and what every other doctor says, which is, okay, we've done the PSA test, and that's fine, but at least once a year, we need to do a physical exam again.
If you're just talking about a 78-year-old guy that is not running the free world, that's one thing.
But if you're a White House physician and you have any man over 40 years old, are you not going to at least say, hey, once a year, like every other physician says, once a year we need to do a physical exam and check?
Because this is like one of the leading causes, you know, one of the leading sicknesses for men over 40. Yeah, I mean, Joe, I think 100%.
And, you know, did they do a digital rectal exam to assess his prostate?
Again, typically that's done in the presence of symptoms.
To your point, he's the leader of the free world.
Did they do it and not characterize it?
It's hard to know.
We're speculating here.
I would say in an abundance of caution, probably be holistic and comprehensive.
That would make sense.
It is interesting to note that President Trump's, President Obama's, and President Bush II, In their most recent physicals, in their terms of office, obviously, 2025 for President Trump, did comment on their PSA levels.
And so they got screened while in office, and they commented on it.
It's not easy to access the most recent ones from President Biden.
You can read summary articles.
I couldn't access it on the archive site in the White House just before it came on.
But according to those that were able to, there is not a report of a PSA test on the most recent physical that was read out for President Biden's last year in office.
And so it's to say what was done, what was not done, you and I would be speculating.
But the other three most recent occupants of the White House had it drawn and it was reported out.
Now, if you believe that they just forgot to check for PSA levels, Or consider the possibility that Biden has prostate cancer at his age, even though they did it for all prior president.
They're just like, oops, we forgot.
And again, it's not just one doctor.
It's not like Biden goes and sits in a waiting room and then gets called in as one of the patients.
There's an entire medical team devoted solely to Biden and whoever works in the White House, but obviously particularly with Biden.
So obviously we need to know that.
We need to know, like, did on top of all the deceit and concealment of Biden's Cognitive decline, which the media and Democrats and the White House primarily perpetrated, did he also know that he had terminal cancer?
Because, by the way, even though they say it's hormone sensitive and therefore can be managed, the life expectancy, especially for someone older, with this form of aggressive prostate cancer that has metastasized to the bones?
Is not good.
I'm talking about a limited amount of time.
And given that he has clearly had this for quite a while, that's obviously something the American people should have known before deciding to vote for him.
Now, it turned out he dropped out, but it seemed like the plan was to go through the election and not have anybody know about this.
So that was the NBC medical contributor.
Here is Dr. Zeke Emanuel.
Who is part of a very Democratic Party family.
His brother is Rahm Emanuel, who was Barack Obama's chief of staff, longtime Democratic operative, worked in the Clinton campaign and White House.
He ran as a Democrat and won to be Chicago's mayor.
And Zeke Emanuel is also—he was a big part of the Obama team, helped plan and sell the— Obamacare.
These are not just neutral.
These are Democratic Party doctors.
In particular, Zeke Emanuel.
And listen to what he said about the possibility that maybe Biden just didn't know.
You believe it is likely, if this prostate cancer has spread to the bone, that he could have had it.
For up to a decade, but certainly it's likely, would it be fair to say, it's likely to have had this for at least several years?
Oh, more than several years.
Yeah, I should note that this is not just Dr. Zeke Emanuel.
He's an oncologist, meaning he studies and treats cancer, but he's always been at the forefront of his field.
I mean, this is one of the most respected, prestigious doctors that exist.
But he's a specialist in oncology, in cancer.
Oh, more than several years.
You don't get prostate cancer.
Again, I just want to stop here.
So this is not speculation.
If you have prostate cancer that is spread to the bone, then he most certainly, you were saying, had it when he was president of the United States.
Oh, yeah.
He did not develop it in the last 100, 200 days.
He had it while he was president.
He probably had it at the start of his presidency in 2021.
Yes, I don't think there's any disagreement about that.
And I'm just curious again, if your doctor to President of the United States that is a male That is an older man.
Would prostate tests, and again, we're just talking about a PSA screening, a blood test that you could do along with all the other blood tests.
It's not even that it would be intrusive.
Would this not be one of the first tests that you would conduct as a White House doctor?
If you're a White House doctor in this situation, I think you would certainly discuss it with the president and talk about the pros and cons.
I think if you then ask, well, if President Biden says, well, if I'm your father, which patients often do, you know, what would you recommend?
I think the fact is that most White House doctors would recommend getting the test.
And again, the evidence is, look at President Obama, President Bush, younger than President Biden, and they both got the test.
So, you know, the evidence is pretty clear.
I'm not opining on this.
I've listened to all these oncologists over the last 24 hours since this announcement came, and they're all saying exactly the same thing.
I don't think there's a single person who believes.
That Joe Biden just got cancer in the last 100 days since he left the White House or that he just found out about it.
It's inconceivable.
Here is longtime mainstream reporter Howard Foreman, who is very much aligned with the Democratic Party, and here's what he said, quote, It is inconceivable, that's the word I just used, that this was not being followed before he left the presidency.
Gleason grade 9 would have had an elevated PSA level for some time, but...
Can someone check?
Is this Howard Foreman?
Is he the journalist I'm thinking of, or is he a doctor?
Anyway, he says, Gleason grade 9 would have had an elevated PSA level for some time before this diagnosis, and he must have had a PSA test numerous times before.
This is odd.
I wish him well and hope he has an opportunity for maximizing his quality of life.
Yeah, he's not the journalist I think of.
He's a physician as well, so gives more weight, too.
That's what I'm saying.
All these doctors, and you're not talking about right-wing doctors here, MAGA doctors, just like people on Twitter popping up and claiming their doctor.
You're talking about the leading specialists in cancer and treating presidents are all saying the same thing.
And I think covering up someone's cancer with a very short lifespan as a prognosis Metastasized cancer to the bones?
You can't be the President of the United States running for reelection and not tell people about that.
Like, how many people in the White House knew about that?
I mean, I guess you could make the argument that doctors and physicians have a duty of confidentiality when it comes to their patients.
I don't know if there's an exception like there is with lawyers or psychologists, especially with psychologists that, say, if a client The patient tells you something that puts somebody else in danger, like I'm about to go kill this person or I did kill this person.
That's the one exception.
They have to go to the police.
But, I mean, the Biden family, I assume, likely knew.
Now, as I said, it's one thing to wish Biden well, express sorrow for his cancer.
I want to talk about that in a second.
But, you know, you can wish him well.
You can say, you know, Cancer is terrible, which of course it is.
It devastates a lot of people's lives.
So thoughts and prayers with Biden.
But at the same time, you can insist on an investigation as to whether this cover-up of his cognitive decline, who was involved with that, who in the media happened.
Of course all that needs to be understood.
That's a major scandal.
And now in making this announcement, which seems like it would distract from that investigation, it actually worsens it all because even Biden's allies are saying, wait, did he also conceal that he has malignant cancer?
Terminal cancer?
With a pretty short lifespan?
I mean, it can be up to, I guess, three years, five, but I mean, it can be very short too.
And yet, right away, The worst scumbags on the planet, the worst Democrats, immediately popped up and said, look, Joe Biden has cancer.
Our sympathy should be only with him.
And so I think it's time that we set aside all these investigations into whether we in the media and we in the Democratic Party concealed this from the public, that the president was basically cognitively impaired and couldn't do his job.
Because it also, by the way, has a...
Big question with it, which is if Biden couldn't perform the job, who was running the U.S. government?
I was asking that all throughout 2023 and 2024.
Who's making these momentous decisions to send military forces and assets to the Middle East to fund the war in Ukraine?
Who's doing all this if the president isn't?
Who decided to issue pardons and To whom?
Who was running the government?
We know Kamala wasn't.
She was out campaigning every day.
All these are major scandals, and they know this, and so look at what they're trying to do to say you need to stop looking at all this.
Here's David Axelrod yesterday on CNN.
His medical condition now, his announced medical condition now, do you believe that silences or delays Yeah,
well, I mean, I think those conversations are going to happen, but they should be more muted and set aside for now as he's struggling through this.
You got that?
It's fine to wonder about all this stuff, these gigantic historical scandals.
But I think you should be very muted, in fact, set aside out of respect for Joe Biden's help.
These people are feigning concern for Joe Biden as a means of announcing to the country that any attempt to continue to look into these issues, Joe Biden's not even the villain.
The villain are the people around him who concealed his cognitive decline in the media and the Democratic Party and the White House to enable him to win by lying to the American people.
It's not Joe Biden who's the target of this investigation.
It's all the people around him who lied.
So it's not like the principal attacks on Biden.
But David Axelrod pops up and says, look, we're all very sad.
I'm going to try and exploit the emotions around Biden's cancer diagnosis.
To say, you know what?
It's time to put this to the side.
And then the Democratic leader of the Democratic caucus, the minority leader in the House of Representative, Hakeem Jeffries, was asked about these issues, and he was even more explicit about, like, look, anyone who even asks these questions in light of Joe Biden's illness is despicable.
Listen to what he said.
Thank you, sir.
Given the revelations with President Biden's cancer diagnosis and the release of the HERB recording, why were Democrats not more open to talking about President Biden's age in 2024?
My thoughts and prayers have been extended to President Biden.
It's a painful moment for him and his family.
It's a very serious diagnosis.
My expectation that President Biden He's going to meet this moment with the courage and resilience that he's consistently shown.
It seems to me entirely inappropriate that at this moment in time, when President Biden is dealing with a serious and aggressive form of cancer, there are Republicans who are peddling conspiracy theories and want us to look backward at a time when they...
Actually are taking health care away from the American people?
No, as House Democrats, we're going to look forward.
They literally are trying to take health care away from millions of Americans at this very moment in the dead of night.
And Republicans want to fan the flames of conspiracy theories at this moment?
No, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Leader.
Okay, so can you believe how despicable that is?
How blatant and brazen it is?
This idea, people in Washington say this all the time when they get caught doing very guilty things, when they get caught doing terrible things.
They're like, you know what?
Why look backward?
I was in the past, all that stuff we did.
It's like six months ago.
Why do you want to look backward?
We have so many challenges to face that we should be looking To the future, forward.
That was what President Obama said when he ran on a campaign, saying he was open to prosecution to people who tortured as part of the War on Terror, who illegally eavesdropped on Americans with no warrants.
And as soon as he gets into office, he immunizes all of them, despite him saying it's going to be a real investigation, they're not above the law, if the Attorney General finds they're guilty, they should be prosecuted.
Within a month, he's like, None of them are going to be convicted or prosecuted or investigated, even though I spent the campaign saying so.
And the reason is because we have so many challenges to face as a country, it's time to look forward, not backward.
Being a manipulator, that is.
Every single conviction of somebody for committing a crime, every single investigation of wrongdoing or scandal, by definition, requires looking to the past.
Every single person who's in prison in the United States, and there are millions, are there because The police and prosecutors and courts and juries decided to look backward.
That's where you look when you want to investigate somebody's wrongdoing.
You have to look in the past because, by definition, it occurred in the past.
And then to just so performatively emote out of concern and love and sadness for Joe Biden when your real purpose is to exploit the natural feelings people have around cancer.
In order to shield yourself and your colleagues and your media allies and your party from an investigation.
And it also, not just this book, but also Biden's deposition with the special prosecutor Robert Herr, who was investigating whether Biden committed crimes by keeping classified documents strewn around his garage at a time that he had already left the vice presidency.
Same thing they prosecuted President Trump for doing.
And then last year, Robert Hurt came out and said, we're not going to prosecute President Biden.
Obviously, people wanted to know the answer, like the explanation.
Why aren't you prosecuting him when Trump got prosecuted?
And he said, in his deposition, Biden revealed that he basically is gone.
Like, he doesn't remember anything.
He's just like, his brain doesn't know anything.
He doesn't know the dates of basic things.
And...
He said the jury will never believe that he formed the proper intent to commit a crime because his brain is not functioning.
He's just an old man with memory problems.
And the Democrats went ballistic, attacked him, and then the audio finally got released.
The Democrats refused to release the audio when they were in power, and now it's released.
And it's so much worse when you listen to this audio.
It's like an old man who can't even process the question, who starts rambling, telling stories, forgetting the people he's talking about, forgetting the dates, stopping in mid-sentence.
Seriously, it's sad that all these people propped him up when he belongs in a nursing home.
And so, of course, this has to be looked to.
And now these people are trying to exploit the emotions around Joe Biden to say, no, no, it's disrespectful.
The only thing we should be doing is praying for Joe Biden.
How dare you take a look at this?
I mean, that takes some.
That takes like a sociopathic mindset to so brazenly exploit somebody's health problems and emotions around it to shield yourself from investigation for the wrongdoing that you engage in.
You can't have a soul and do that.
So let me just say one last thing about the sympathy that Is merited for Joe Biden, if any.
Now, I personally think that you should never root for anybody's sickness or death because I just think it erodes your soul to do that, erodes your spirit to do that.
I just don't take pride in anybody's death.
I don't take pleasure in anybody's death.
It's fine.
People think differently about that.
So I'm not going to ever celebrate someone's cancer diagnosis, no matter who it is.
Like if Netanyahu came out today and tomorrow and said, oh, I have terminal brain cancer, I wouldn't celebrate this publicly.
I wouldn't pretend I'm lamenting it, but I wouldn't celebrate it publicly.
I just don't think it's a good idea.
And I get, you know, people are affected by cancer.
They have family members who have died.
They're traumatized by cancer.
They hear cancer.
They want to express solidarity with someone who has it.
I totally get that.
Instinct, that emotion.
I certainly would never deny anybody that.
But there is this inconsistency, this sort of double standard in the discourse, which is President Biden announces he has cancer.
Nobody can say, like, it's karma or he deserves it or whatever.
Nobody can point to the fact that literally the day before he announced it, the Israelis bombed the last cancer hospital.
In Gaza, which had been treating 10,000 cancer patients, which was Biden's policy to arm and enable that.
So he has cancer, he gets the best treatment.
The people of Gaza don't even have a hospital to go to.
And, you know, if you say that, people are going to say, how dare you?
You're being, like, disgusting.
How can you politicize cancer?
But just imagine if, say, like, Vladimir Putin announced he had terminal, like, pancreatic cancer or the Iranian Ayatollah.
Or just whoever is most hated.
I remember when Hugo Chavez, who a lot of people in the West hated, I'll stay away from that, but he was certainly popular in his country among the country's poor, that's for sure.
But he wasn't obedient to the West.
The West hated Hugo Chavez.
And when he announced he had serious health problems, he had cancer, he was getting treated in Cuba, there was all kinds of celebration.
When he died, people in the West openly celebrated.
So a lot of people have watched Joe Biden over the last year and a half provide the arms and money and funding to the Israelis and the diplomatic cover and the cheerleading to destroy Gaza, to commit ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Are we really—is there no evaluation of somebody's behavior, of someone's character, before deciding if they merit sympathy?
Again, I don't think celebrating— Cancer is ever, for me at least, justifiable.
Other people can make their own decisions.
But we do often celebrate people's illness, celebrate their death, when we think they're sufficiently bad people.
Obviously, everybody celebrated Osama bin Laden's death.
People marched in the street to, like, say, USA, USA.
Like, celebrating the extinguishing of that life because they thought he was sufficiently evil to merit that.
Same with Putin, same with Iranian leaders, whoever.
Maduro, if he got cancer or died of a heart attack tomorrow, nobody will lament it in the West.
Everybody would celebrate it.
And so, it can't just be that American presidents are immunized from that same framework.
You know, like, if you're going to say, oh yeah, I'm happy this person got cancer, I'm happy this person died, if you're the person who wants to do that, then...
You can't, like, exempt American presidents.
They're not inherently benevolent people.
They do some really awful and terrible things.
And this kind of demand that everybody expressed sadness or prayers for or solidarity with, Joe Biden, I just named one thing that he did.
His whole career he's done.
He voted for the Iraq War.
He cheerled the Iraq War.
Every war, basically.
He's brought...
Bloodshed and destruction all over the world, responsible for the deaths of huge numbers of people.
So, either we take the position that all human life is sacred and we should always want its preservation and never celebrate its extinguishing, or we should take the position that we only lament somebody's sickness and its death if they were a good person.
And we either stay quiet or cheerlead it if they're sufficiently bad.
But you can't pick and choose between these standards.
But it's a very tribal thing to say, oh yeah, we can do that for foreign leaders, but American presidents, no matter what they did, no matter how terrible they are, they still are inherently good people and therefore deserve this kind of respect and solidarity when they get sick that other people who we think worse of wouldn't get.
It's always interesting, this discourse that emerges when somebody dies and whether you can celebrate it, say they're a bad person, whether you're duty-bound to be solemn about it.
People switch very quickly, and just 180 degrees based on what they think of the person.
So I think it's worth thinking in this case, if you're somebody who believes in that, to think about who Joe Biden really was, what he's done, and the impact that he has had on the world.
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 their first broadcast live on this program on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms.
And if you rate, review, and follow our program, it really helps spread the visibility of the show.
For those who have been watching this show, we are, needless to say, very appreciative.
And we hope to see you back tomorrow night and every night at 7 p.m. Eastern live exclusively here on Rumble.
