JD Vance and Rand Paul Clash on Due Process: War on Terror Echoes; Has the U.S. Given Up on Confronting China? Ben Shapiro's Latest Falsehoods About Israel
MAGA deploys the same War on Terror tactics to target alleged drug traffickers, threatening the right to due process. Plus: Has the U.S. given up on confronting China as it becomes increasingly entangled in the Middle East and Latin America? Finally: Glenn dismantles Ben Shapiro's lies about Israel. ------------------------------------ Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update: Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook
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 Trump administration very courageously blew up a small speed boat in international waters off the coast of Venezuela last week, killing 11 people on board.
They claimed that the boat was filled with Trendargua members transporting drugs, but offered no evidence for that claim.
Although Trump officials offered very conflicting reports about the targeted boat, Secretary of State Marco Rubio first claimed that it was headed to Trinidad, while Donald Trump shortly thereafter claimed it was actually bringing drugs into the United States to harm your children.
All Trump officials agreed that Trump has the absolute right to order whatever boat or whatever other locales blown up whenever he wants without any permission from Congress and without having to provide any evidence of wrongdoing.
Taking the lead in advocating this rather radical position was Vice President J.D. Vance.
One person who did not agree with this view, to put it mildly, was GOP Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, a longtime supporter of due process, going back to his opposition to the Bush Obama war on terror, when Obama claimed, among other things that he had the right to drone whoever he wanted without offering any evidence that they had deserved it in any way.
We'll examine this most definitely significant issue.
Then one of the oddest parts of the decision to blow up a boat for Venezuela and then claim that it was necessary because drugs were coming to the United States as the pretext is that Venezuela, according to the United States government's own documents, is an extremely trivial source of the drugs that entered the United States.
By far the biggest and most dangerous source we have been told for years is China.
So why are we blowing up Venezuelan boats and not Chinese ones?
There are signs that the U.S. is fully retreating from confronting China, especially as it becomes a much more powerful military presence.
So this serves this blowing up this Venezuelan boat or bombing a few people in Yemen as a very nice theatrical distraction.
We'll examine the US-Chinese relationship in this context.
Then finally, Ben Shapiro is on some sort of book tour.
He has a new book out, yay, and it brought him today to the radio show, The Breakfast Club.
On that program, he was asked about the billions of dollars in American aid that flows to Israel every year, as well as the massive amounts of reparations paid to Jews after the Holocaust.
That was all in the context of the Breakfast Club host asking Ben Shapiro why black people shouldn't receive reparations for what they endured in the United States the way Jews did after the Holocaust.
In response, Shapiro unleashed a remarkably high number of demonstrable lies in just a short two-minute clip, one after the next.
And we will document those not just to establish that Ben Shapiro lies frequently when he talks about Israel and everything relating to the US relationship to it, but also to document the truth about the topics that were raised on that program.
Before we get to all that, a quick a couple quick program notes.
First of all, we are you reminding you that system update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after their first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all other major podcasting platforms.
Or if you rate review and follow our show, it really helps spread the visibility of the program.
Finally, as independent journalists, we do rely on our viewers and members to support the show, which you can provide by joining our locals community where you get access to a wide range of exclusive benefits and content.
We often provide exclusive video interviews or video segments that we don't have time to put on the show.
We did that on Friday night, for example, where we covered the original claims and events relating to this blowing up of the Venezuela boat that we uh streamed exclusively for our locals members.
There are a lot of other benefits interactively as well.
We do a Q ⁇ A session every Friday night where we take member questions exclusively from our locals members that we answer on the full show here.
And most of all, it is the community on which we really do 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.
now welcome to a new episode of system update starting right now So, as I just said on Friday night, we covered a few parts of the decision by the U.S. government to blow up a Venezuelan speed boat that it claimed the government did with no evidence was a boat filled with drugs.
Given the size of the boat, it couldn't have been very many drugs.
As I said, maybe it could have like been enough to serve a large bachelor party or two.
But it certainly wasn't any significant amount of drugs.
Marco Rubio said it wasn't even going to the United States and instead was going to Trinidad.
And then once people started asking quite regularly, why are we blowing up small boats that are going from Venezuela to Trinidad?
Donald Trump said, no, no, the boat was coming to the United States, and they were going to dump it all in the United States and poison your children with it.
And that's why we decided to kill them.
They were also Trendargua boats.
And all of this was offered with zero evidence of any kind, with no congressional authorization to use military force in order to target any sort of drug gangs or drug trafficking.
That's not normally how drug traffickers are dealt with.
They're usually intradicted and arrested.
The boat is seized and the drugs are seized, but they're not usually just vaporized from the air by military force by the newly christened Department of War.
But that's what Trump did.
And here is his announcement.
He went on to True Social and he posted a video.
He's obviously very proud of this.
You see this, it's a small boat.
I mean, like a very small speed boat.
It's not a ship.
It's not some gigantic vessel.
I don't even know how much drugs you could put on a boat like this, especially if the boat, as they claim, had 11 people on it, which doesn't make a lot of sense.
If you're drug traffickers, you obviously want to have as few uh a number of people as possible on the boat in order to make room for more drugs.
You wouldn't want to shuff the boat with unnecessary people.
But that was the claim.
It was filled with 11 uh 11 uh people, all Trendaragua members, they claimed.
It was filled with drugs, and he was either going to Trinidad if you believe Marco Rubio or to the United States if you believe Donald Trump, and then everybody else who aligned their version with Donald Trump, and here's what happened to the boat.
You can see it on the screen.
It's obviously under U.S. military surveillance and targeting.
And it's making its way through the water and international waters.
And it's about to, there you go, it's just uh blown up into a million pieces.
Obviously, everybody on board was dead very instantly.
Uh and one of the things that has amazed me is that one of the things that I had become interested in in terms of intra-party Republican debates ever since Trump got on the scene, was the very direct criticism that Trump was raising continuously from the 2016 campaign on about orthodox foreign policy, orthodox wars in both parties, orthodox economic policies.
And MAGA was supposedly a movement, principally of younger people who looked at all these wars and said, Why are you why are we keep bombing people all over the world?
Why do we keep getting involved in these foreign conflicts?
Why don't we focus on our own country that's falling apart instead?
And yet it's been amazing for me to watch how easy it is to convince most Trump supporters, not all, but most, to just start cheering for the very words they said they were against.
You just tell them these are bad guys.
These are like the bad guys that you hate, they're terrorists, they're they're like Arab terrorists or Muslim terrorists, or they're drug dealers, they're like Venezuelan cartel members.
No evidence presented, no arguments made as to why this is gonna help our country.
And then a huge number of Trump supporters go around saying, yeah, we killed the terrorists, yeah, we killed the drug dealers.
I mean, it's really that crude, that primitive of a process.
And so even if everything the government said here about this ship, this boat, this small boat, were true.
There are 11 Trendwa members on it.
It was carrying cocaine, it was coming to the United States.
The United States has been waging a quote-unquote war on drugs for many decades now.
Does it seem to you like it's worked?
And as we talked about on Friday night, it's very similar to the U.S. invasion of Panama.
The United States was a longtime ally of the Panamanian president, Manuel Noriega, and suddenly out of the blue, George Bush 41 needed a war because he had this wimp label that was following him around.
And he said, you know what, we're going to invade Panama.
Noriega is a drug dealer, drug trafficker, he's sending drugs into our country.
So we're going to go and we're going to take him out, killed a bunch of Panamanians, invaded the country, took out Noriega, put in some other leader we like better.
Does it seem like that had a good effect on the amount of drugs?
Have you ever heard anybody since 1989 in the United States say, you know, I'm really trying to get cocaine, but I just can't find any.
It seems like our invasion of Panama really dried up the supply of cocaine.
If you have to assess how drug epidemics are going to end, one by trying to kill as many people who traffic in it or who sell in it as possible by just going around bombing the world whenever you feel like there's like a small boat with people who sell drugs on it.
Or number two, finding out the reasons why addiction is skyrocketing in the West and dealing with those problems, those economic and spiritual problems that create the void in which addiction emerges.
What do you think is the more likely method or the more effective way to handle that?
And you actually think it's a coincidence that Venezuela is a country extremely rich in oil, extremely rich in oil.
And one that the United States, and especially people like Marco Rubio, America first, but still very focused on Latin America, where he and his family come from.
You think it's a coincidence that we just decided to attack Venezuela, send huge amounts of military assets there?
What we're really looking to do is blow up a bunch of their boats, even though, according to US government documents, a tiny amount of drugs that come into the United States actually come from Venezuela, as opposed to that being the pretext for what we're doing, which is trying to facilitate regime change in Venezuela so we can have access to their oil.
The same U.S. foreign policy that has been going on for decades and decades of coups and regime changes and wars for oil or for other kinds of abilities for our largest multinational corporations that really don't care about the American public at all to advance their economic interest.
But one of the questions that came up was, Wait a minute, so now the United States government just has the power to go around and blow up what any ship it wants, whatever ship it wants, and just declare afterwards, yeah, it was filled with drugs and drug dealers, so don't worry, and everyone's gonna be like, oh, thank you for saving us from the big bad drug dealers.
That sounds a lot like the war on terror to me.
Where George Bush and then Barack Obama went around for years just saying, yeah, we can bomb and drone whoever we want, whatever country we want, nine different countries, ten different countries, bomb wedding parties because oh, don't worry, we killed a bunch of civilians, including the wedding party itself, but there was someone there who had ties to a terrorist group.
We don't have to show any evidence, either before or after.
We just claim the right to go around droning whoever we want.
And the name of the war on terror, and now that's what's gonna happen in the name of the war on drugs.
We know we killed so many innocent people as part of the war on terror.
Even though, like now, the Bush administration would say, oh no, we we killed militants and terrorists, and everybody would say, Yeah, we killed terrorists, all right.
And then the Obama administration would do the same, and Democrats would respond in the same way.
That's all this is, it's just a repeat of that.
J.D. Vance, uh, as he often does, takes the lead in uh advocating most vehemently, whatever the most radical and controversial Trump positions are, because obviously he's trying to position himself to be the heir to the MAGA movement, And this is what will endear him, he thinks, to MAGA members.
He was the lead in bombing Yemen, cheered that, even though privately he expressed reservations.
Once it was underway, he cheered that, cheered the involvement of the United States and Israel and Gaza, cheered the bombing of Iran, cheered all this as well.
Here on September 6th, J.D. Vance said killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military.
Which is odd because it took Trump eight months, nine months to do that.
We've been using our military for all sorts of other things, having nothing to do with drugs and cartel members.
We've been bombing a lot of other countries.
But it turns out this is the highest and best use of our military, killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens.
Now, obviously, nobody has any clue whether or not these were drugs destined for the United States.
As I said, Marco Rubio said it was going to Trinidad.
But J.D. Vance says it.
We trust our leaders.
We don't need any evidence.
Their pronouncements have proven true so long that we just kill whoever you want and let us know afterward why, and we'll nod our head and cheer.
So in response, uh a Democratic Party supporter, uh, one of the Krasenstein twins, uh, Brian Krasenstein, said this quote, killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process is called a war crime.
Remember, we're not at war with Venezuela.
These are not soldiers, nobody claims they're in the military.
And then in response, J.D. Vance said this.
I don't give a shit what you call it.
So it's potentially a war crime, just go around killing other countries' civilians.
Might also have some legal and constitutional problems in the United States because the president's supposed to have congressional authorization to go around bombing countries and new countries.
And JD Vance, his answer is I don't give a shit what you call it.
We're gonna just kill whoever we want.
We don't care what you call it.
We don't care about your process, we don't care about anything else.
And of course, he's trying to be deliberately cavalier.
J.D. Vance, let's remember, went to uh Yale Law School.
So JD Vance understands the legal issues at play.
Never before did he have this attitude that he doesn't give a shit what the law says.
Remember, he was vehemently anti-Trump, even suggesting that Trump was America's Hitler, until he decided to run for the Senate in Ohio, and Peter Thiel knew that he couldn't win.
He had worked, of course, closely with Peter Thiel.
Uh and Peter Thiel called up Trump, and J.D. Vance adapted himself and got Trump's endorsement, and then was chosen quickly thereafter by Trump to be the vice president.
So this is not how J.D. Vance speaks.
This is a performance for MAGA people with 2028 mine.
Here's another uh tweet he posted, September 6th.
He said, Democrats, let's let's send your kids to die in Russia.
Republicans, actually, let's protect our people from the scum of the earth.
All right, there's so many things here that are worth noting.
First of all, Democrats are saying, let's go send your kids to die in Russia.
I don't remember any Democrats advocating that we send the U.S. military to go fight in Russia.
There were European leaders who were saying that.
I don't remember any Democrats saying that.
I've been a very vocal and vehement and longtime critic of the Democrat support for U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine, but it's been primarily financial.
I should also add that there's basically been no change in U.S. government policy from Biden to Trump with respect to the war in Ukraine.
We're still funding it, we're still arming it.
We haven't cut off funding, we haven't cut off arms.
Maybe there's a few less programs that are going to the Ukrainians, but fundamentally we're still fueling and arming that war, which of course brings with it the very real possibility of conflict with Russia.
So I don't know where J.D. Vance is getting off attributing this to Democrats.
Let's remember as well that the Biden War policy had the support of the vast, vast majority of the people, the Republicans in Congress, as well as every Democrat.
So that's one thing.
It's just a false description of what the war in Ukraine is, pretending only Democrats support it, whereas the vast majority of Republicans in Congress and the Senate have always and still do support it.
If anything, many of them, like Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubia before he became Secretary of State, and Mike Waltz before he became National Security Advisor, and then now when he got promoted to ambassador to the UN, their criticism of Biden was not that Biden was too involved in Ukraine, but that Biden wasn't doing enough to get involved in Ukraine.
There were a lot of Republicans criticizing Biden for not doing enough.
So this whole dichotomy is preposterous.
And again, J.D. Vance knows it.
J.D. Vance is a lot of things.
One thing he's not is dumb.
He's not dumb.
He's actually quite smart.
This is all, this is like Kamala Harris's performance.
It's like watching a politician that you know somewhere inside of them has or had some beliefs at one point.
And it's just been so drowned out by ambition and this willingness to morph into whatever they need to be to be politically more powerful.
And I say this as somebody who's defended J.D. Vance.
I say this as somebody who wanted to like J.D. Vance.
As I said in that Kuwait group that Pete Hagseth and Mike Waltz leaked to Jeffrey Goldberg planning the bombing of Ukraine, remember of Yemen.
Remember it was J.D. Vance that expressed skepticism, tried to put it off.
And that's the kind of thing that gave me hope that okay, J.D. Vance seems to be the voice in the Republican Party that will be the voice of restraint when it comes to the use of military force and getting ourselves involved in wars.
But he can't diverge from Trump.
That would be the death knell.
He knows he can't run in 2028 if Trump is opposed to him.
And so he can't diverge from Trump, but he also doesn't have to come out and take the lead in trying to be like Trump when he's not anything like Trump in terms of how he speaks or how he thinks this is all contrived.
And so that's the first part.
And then the second part is Republicans, the view of so the philosophy of Republicans, apparently, is as J.D. Vance put it, let's actually protect our people from the scum of the earth.
Who decides who the scum of the earth is?
This is for Trump and J.D. Vance.
They just look at a map and they're like, here's some scum of the earth.
Let's go get rid of them.
Oh, look, here's some scum of the earth in a boat, let's go blow that boat up.
And notice we don't actually ever do it against anybody powerful.
You know, we bombed, we blow up a speed boat from Venezuela because we know we can.
Or we kill a bunch of Houthis because we know we can.
Remember all the stuff about China drowning the U.S. and fentanyl?
I thought that's where the drug crisis was coming from, from China.
How come we're not bombing any ships from China?
You know why.
Because China can actually fight back.
This is all theatrical.
This is to distract you.
And this is not actually how a constitutional republic functions.
We use our military to go around the world killing the quote scum of the earth.
Again, J.D. Vance doesn't believe that.
He doesn't know that.
This is not how he speaks.
This is never how he's spoken.
And good luck, J.D. Vance, if you think that your political future is going to be propelled rather than impeded by role-playing this way.
I don't think that's going to work.
Rand Paul, who, whatever else you want to say about him, is never role-playing.
He's somebody who will stand up and say what he wants, and it doesn't matter how much it angers MAGA, even though he needs MAGA voters in Kentucky, just like Thomas Massey doesn't care.
He's going to say the things consistently that he's defended throughout his whole career.
Rand Paul and Ron Paul were both vehement critics of the war on terror under Bush and Obama, precisely because it was exactly what J.D. Vance said there.
Oh, yeah, we just are protect our people.
We go around killing the scum of the earth.
We just call them terrorists, we blow them up, and that's the end of that.
And Rand Paul criticized then, and he's going to criticize it now to his massive credit.
There aren't a lot of people in Congress like Ron Paul, like Rand Paul.
And this is what he said the same day that J.D. Vance gave his little performance, his little tough guy performance.
Oh yeah, JD Vance was in the Marines.
He said, JD, I don't give a shit, Vance, says killing people he accuses of a crime is, quote, the highest and best use of the military.
Did he ever read to kill a mockingbird?
Did he ever wonder what might happen if the accused were immediately executed without trial or representation?
What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial.
Now, I realize that among a lot of Trump supporters, this seems dumb and weak and boring.
It's like due process, so annoying.
Why can't the government just kill everybody that it doesn't like?
Why does it have to show evidence that they've done something to deserve it?
It's so wrong that the government should have to present any evidence that people actually that they've just evaporated from the earth actually deserved it.
Now, again, in a war, obviously you don't do process doesn't exist on the battlefield.
You kill soldiers in front of you, but we're not at war with Venezuela.
And this was the problem with the war on terror as well, is we weren't killing people in uniform.
We were killing civilians and claiming they had some ties, and so often we just killed killed huge numbers of civilians and fed the anti-American hatred that feeds the terrorist machine that we claimed we were trying to dismantle.
What other country does that?
What other country claims right?
Yeah, we're just gonna go around the world, we're gonna uh eradicate whoever we think are the scum.
Who does that?
But again, a lot of MAGA people who I think they're so happy they don't have to wear that mask anymore of like anti-intervention, anti-war.
A lot of them never really were, they just kind of went along with it.
Especially the hardcore Israel ones who want the U.S. very active militarily in the world, so they keep protecting Israel.
This kind of non-interventionism is a huge threat to them.
So the MAGA people who are the most pro-Israel are the ones who are most afraid of the anti-interventionism that the MAGA movement claimed it stood for.
And then you have a lot of Trump supporters who just support whatever he does.
If yesterday he is opposed to the war in to the bombing of Yemen like he was when Biden was doing it, they cheer that.
Six months later, when Trump says, oh, we're gonna restart that bombing campaign in Yemen that I criticized and even escalated, they're gonna cheer that.
They just cheer the leaders' views.
That's not unique to MAGO or to Trump supporters.
That's how a lot of politics in countries work.
But the more sinister ones are actually doing this because they want to make sure that the anti-interventionism doesn't win out.
Here is one of Elon Musk's favorite uh right wing accountants, end wokeness.
And under responding to Rand Paul's call for due process, he says this post lost at the ballot box.
Which is odd because I don't remember Trump going around saying he wanted to bomb Yemen and kill Houthis.
I remember him saying he didn't.
I don't remember him saying he wanted to bomb Iran.
Or fund the war in Gaza, or invent some theory where the government gets just gets to blow out of the water whatever votes it wants.
Here's Julie Kelly, quote, I see Rand Paul as outraged about alleged lack of due process, just like he was over J Sixers, including his own constituents.
Oh, wait.
All right, now this is a common theme that I've seen often on, and I have a lot of respect for Julie Kelly's reporting.
Um I've had her on my show.
She's not just some sort of, you know, like rantor, like some of these other people we're gonna show you and have.
She's, I think, a very serious person.
And she was particularly uh devoted to the idea that the January 6th defendants were persecuted.
And I agree, I have spent a lot of time myself documenting how they were, that they were way overcharged, that they invented new interpretations of law to justify how they could possibly accuse nonviolent protesters of felony charges.
Some of the J6ers, the January Sixers, used violence.
The vast majority didn't.
And they found them away a way to charge them all with felonies.
And I've seen people saying, like, yeah, what about like, how could you so worried about due process now?
What about Kyle Rittenhouse?
People declared him guilty, or Daniel Perry, people declared him guilty.
Where was the due process then?
They all got due process.
I don't understand this argument.
Kyle Rittenhouse was charged with crimes.
We covered that trial.
I vehemently believe that Kyle Rittenhouse was not guilty after actually watching the trial, it went in very open-minded.
And he was acquitted by a jury.
Kyle Rittenhouse is a free, a free man.
He walks the streets freely because he had lawyers and due process.
They didn't just put him in prison based on the say-so of the government that he was a bad person.
They had to show evidence, and the evidence was found wanting under the due process provisions of how the United States government functions.
Same with Daniel Perry.
Daniel Perry, the former Marine who was white and who is white and strangled, put a black homeless person who was on the subway menacing people into a chokehold that ended up killing, resulting in his death, he was charged with crimes.
Daniel Perry was also acquitted by a jury.
He had lawyers, he was acquitted.
And the January 6th defendants, they all had the lawyers, they were all charged with crimes.
They all went to a court of law.
They either pled guilty or were found guilty.
They had the right of appeal.
A lot of them use that right of appeal.
And while I do believe that injustice was done in the court system, and a lot of times due process does result injustice, you can't say they didn't have due process.
I mean, they got lawyers, they had a trial, they went through the normal court system.
And yes, there were interpretations of law that were invented and manufactured for them.
I think it was a very corrupt process, but it was the normal due process.
And then at the end of the day, when the courts produce injustice and unjustly imprisoned people, the president under the Constitution has the right to pardon them, which is what Donald Trump did.
The system worked in all of these cases.
I don't know where these people are getting that idea from.
Like, hey, why Ron Paul Rand Paul, are you worried about these people getting blown up with no evidence for due process, but not worried about all these people who didn't get due process?
The people they're naming got due process.
That's the point.
Here's somebody called the Royal Surf who posted a cartoon that I think very much illustrates the absolute stupidity at the heart of this due process debate, but also the one going back to the war on terror.
This used to drive me insane.
This is the common mindset.
This is the reason why the founders put the due process clause into the Constitution, the guarantee.
And why due process in general is considered a very important check on government power, not just inside the United States, but in general.
So here he has some cartoon, it's Rand Paul on the ground, and there you see drug uh dead drug dealers and supposed to show Rand Paul crying over dead drug dealers.
This is what always used to happen when someone like myself or anybody, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, would object to the war on terror.
They would say, why are you defending terrorists?
If you'd said, hey, they just droned uh all these people, they're putting these people in Guantanamo with no charges for life.
They would say, Why are you defending terrorists?
These are terrorist scum.
We should kill them, we should put them in cages for life.
And it would drive me crazy, because the whole point of denying due process is that you don't actually know if they're guilty.
If the government doesn't have to present evidence.
So when people were objecting to Guantanamo, the idea wasn't, yes, they're terrorists, but why do they have to be in cages?
The idea was we don't know if they're terrorists because they haven't had due process, they haven't had any evidence presented against them, they haven't had a trial.
Or Obama would go around droning whatever he wanted, killing huge numbers of innocent people, and they would say, why are you crying about the terrorists?
The whole point of due process is you don't know someone is guilty until there's evidence presented by the government.
And I'm not suggesting that the same amount of due process is necessary to blow people up in the middle of the water as you would to convict somebody of a crime in the United States.
But the whole point of due process is that governments lie, governments err.
And so before you allow the government to just evaporate people, vaporize them, there should be some process to make sure that the government is doing this honestly, and that the people who are the victims of it deserve it.
And since when do we treat drug trafficking as a death penalty offense that you just blow somebody up without a trial?
Why can't they just be intradicted and brought to the United States and put into court and then sentenced to life in prison if they're guilty?
Here's Wall Street Mav, another right-wing account on X. Rand Paul and the left seem to be against blowing up narco boats in the Gulf of America because they have not gotten due process.
We tried arresting them for many years.
That doesn't deter the boats or shipments.
Blowing up boats will deter shipments.
Good luck recruiting crews.
How does that make any sense?
Why wouldn't interdicting the boats and bringing the people on the boats to the United States under DEA enforcement and charging them with international drug trafficking and then putting them in life in prison in an American prison?
Why wouldn't that deter people?
Life in prison doesn't deter people.
And what about the potential for abuse?
I mean, do you want AOC or Gavin Newsom to be able to go around just blowing boats out of the water whenever they want?
And then when people object and say, where did you get the power to just kill anybody around the world or blow people up whenever you want?
Who knows?
Maybe they'll say, oh, these are right-wing fascists, we're protecting the government from them.
And then a bunch of conservatives are going to come and say, this isn't constitutional, this is unconstitutional, these are war crimes.
And then AOC's vice president, or maybe AOC will be Gavin Newsom's vice president, will go on to Twitter and say, I don't give a shit what you call it.
These are scum that we blew up.
Are the people supporting this gonna be like, yeah, AOC blew up scum, right-wing fascists who are trying to come to the country to provoke violence against the democratic process or against racial minorities or whatever?
Don't you think they should be constrained?
Either by the need to get congressional approval to do this or by the need to present evidence.
Please stop believing the pretext for using military force.
The government gives you pretext, not the real reason.
How can you possibly believe this is about keeping drugs out of the United States when the government's own reports don't even mention Venezuela as a source of drugs coming to the United States?
That's how irrelevant they are.
Here from the Drug Enforcement Administration, a report on the uh annual cocaine report on where cocaine is coming from, 2024.
Quote, Colombia was identified as the primary source of USC's cocaine analyzed through CSP.
Approximately 84% of U.S. samples were classified as originating from Colombia coca.
The predominant sub-regional source of U.S. samples was southwestern Colombia, identified in approximately 42% of samples.
Cocaine from Peruvian cocoa was identified in approximately 4% of U.S. samples.
Venezuela is not even mentioned in this report.
As I said, for the longest time, we were told that the reason our country has a drug problem, the reason people are dying of fentanyl in our communities, is not because of Venezuela, but because of China.
Do you remember all that?
China and Mexico in particular.
Those were the two countries we were told was responsible for flooding American communities with fentanyl, not Venezuela.
Here is a document from here's a uh cabinet meeting of Donald Trump in this current administration, February of this year, where they were talking about both Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance were talking about fentanyl and where it was coming from.
We've lost millions of people due to fentanyl.
It comes mostly from China, but it comes through Mexico and it comes through Canada.
And I have to tell you that, you know, on April 2nd, I was going to do it on April 1st, but I'm a little bit superstitious, so I made it April 2nd.
The tariffs go on.
Not all of them, but a lot of them.
And I think you're going to see something that's going to be amazing.
Why wasn't Venezuela mentioned?
Trendaragua is like this evil scum in J.D. Vent's words, flooding the country with fentanyl and other drugs.
It wasn't even mentioned in government reports.
It wasn't mentioned by Donald Trump there.
China and Mexico were the countries mentioned.
A lack of due process has been kind of a hallmark of the Trump administration in general, and I've watched Trump supporters repeatedly cheer it.
And I just know from experience when I was denouncing Democrats for their censorship programs, and I was trying to get liberals to say, imagine if Donald Trump is president, imagine if J.D. Vance is president, Marco Rubio, they're going to have the censorship powers that you're now cheering for Biden to have.
They're going to get to coerce big tech to remove dissent from their policies.
And they just they would they people don't think this way.
So I know you say, you know, hey, uh Gavinusum or AOC or Gretchen Whitmer, whoever is going to get to deport students for their political views.
Or deport people based on accusations that they're somehow a danger to our country with no due process, no evidence presented.
But they're not going to be doing it deporting the people who criticize Israel.
They're going to be doing it if somebody expresses right-wing, what they consider fascist or racist views.
How is any Trump supporter supporting all these due process violations going to be heard to object?
Here from CNN, August 30th, 2025.
Judge says Trump effort to expand speedy deportions of migrants violates due process.
Here's Judge Giacobb in August of 2025, just a couple weeks ago, in a ruling against Trump administration, quote, "Unlike the group of people who have traditionally been subject to expedited removal, namely those detained at or near the border shortly after crossing, the group of people the government is now subjecting to expedited removal have long since entered our country.
That means they have a weighty liberty interest in remaining here and therefore must be afforded due process under the Fifth Amendment when it exponentially expands the population subject to expedited removal.
The government did not, however, in any way adopt its procedures to this new group in defending this skimpy process." The government makes a startling argument and then goes on to say why the Constitution does not permit that.
In other cases, the Supreme Court that we've shown you many times before has chided the U.S. government for taking people on a plane and dumping them in El Salvador and in Dungeon with no due process of any kind.
We've uh repeatedly shown you that all of all of those denials of due process, and again, this all comes from the war on terror.
This was a hallmark of the war on terror, one that made it so dangerous to civil liberties.
Here was the ACLU and the ACLU was still the ACLU in November of 2010, before it turned into a utterly vapid left-wing culture war activist group.
They sued the Obama administration, and the title was Obama Administration Claims the Unchecked Authority to Kill Americans outside of combat zones.
Quote, the Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have an unreviewable authority to kill Americans.
The executive branch is unilaterally determined to pose a threat.
The government filed a brief in the case in September claiming that the executive target the executive executives targeted killing authority is, quote, a political question that should not be subject to judicial review.
The government also asserted that, quote, the state secret privilege, contending that the case should be dismissed to avoid the disclosure of sensitive information.
This is when Obama killed uh Anwar al-Waki, who was an American citizen, and he was also a Muslim preacher, and the Obama administration claimed he was radicalizing people into terrorism, and therefore we have the right to kill him, even though he's an American citizen because he's in Yemen and we can't get him.
And they killed him, they killed his 16-year-old daughter, his 16-year-old son, who was actually born in in the United States, born in Colorado, was a citizen of the United States.
And if I were J.D. Vance, I would just say, yeah, these are scum.
We don't have to show you evidence.
I don't give a shit what you call that.
These are scum.
These are terrorists.
And anyone who objects, why are you crying about dead terrorists?
Do you see how that's the same rationale?
NBC News, January 2014, the U.S. investigating deadly drone strike.
Quote, the Obama administration is conducting an internal review of a strike aimed at Al-Qaeda that villagers say, quote, turned a wedding into a funeral.
A U.S. drone strike on December 12th in Yemen was targeted at an Al-Qaeda militant, but local villagers say hit a wedding party instead, killing 12 and injuring 14 others.
Now the Obama administration has opened an internal investigation into the strike.
U.S. officials tell NBC News, quote, given that there are claims of civilian casualties, we are reviewing it, said one U.S. official who demanded anonymity.
This was what the war in terror was over and over and over and over.
The government's saying, hey, don't worry, we're s we're just killing the scum.
We're keeping you safe from the scum.
Trust us.
When we kill people and we call them terrorists, we call them uh militants or radicals or whatever.
Don't question us, don't ask for evidence.
And I'll tell you one difference, the only difference I can think of, is that at least in the Bush Obama war and terror case, they actually had congressional authority to use military force against terrorism.
Now, that was a 2001 authorization to use military force.
It was very narrowly defined to authorize the government to target with military force Al Qaeda and any other groups found to have been involved in the planning and implementation of 9-11.
And they would just keep expanding it and say, oh, this allows us to go after ISIS, even though ISIS didn't even exist in at the time it was enacted.
No one thinks ISIS had a role in 9-11.
Countless other groups, we would just bomb and claim, but at least there was some pretense of congressional authorization.
Where's the congressional authorization allowing the US government to start targeting drug traffickers?
Just blowing ships out instead of arresting the people on them.
So there's no constitutional basis, there's no legal basis.
You don't know that there are drug dealers, let alone quote unquote scum harming Americans, unless there's evidence presented.
Marco Rubio again said the ship was going to Trinidad, not to the United States.
And if you're somebody who just insists that the government ought to be believed, no water no matter what it says, even when it comes to killing from the air, vaporizing people's lives out of existence, then that is the defining mentality of an authoritarian, and that is what J.D. Vance is advocating, and what Rand Paul, to his great credit, is vehemently objecting to, as he always has, regardless of whether the president is a Democrat or a Republican.
Are privacy concerns keeping you up at night?
Sam Altman recently announced that Chat GPT can now reference all your past conversations.
Do you feel comfortable knowing that an AI platform chaired by a former intelligence official has access to all your intimate thoughts and dreams?
Luckily, there's a promising alternative, Venice AI.
Venice AI lets you use AI without handing over your sensitive information.
They utilize leading open source AI models to deliver tax code and image generation directly to your web browser.
And the interface looks stunning.
There's no downloads, no installations, and your conversation history is stored only in your browser, keeping your privacy much more intact.
With Venice AI, you can ask it to explore stimulating hypotheticals about future events or generate images without restrictions, upload PDFs for summaries, and even modify how Venice interacts with you.
And with our pro plan, you can do all this without any limitations.
I've been using Venice AI and I regard it as a game changer for privacy, but for other uses as well.
I can ask it anything without worrying about all of that being stored about me.
It's versatile, allowing me to switch between different modes and models and generate unique images.
If you want to use AI without fear of handing over your most intimate thoughts, you can get 20% off of a pro plan using my link, Venice.ai/slash Glenn.
Don't miss out on this opportunity.
Click the link in the description and use the code GLEN to get started today.
Thank you.
All right, one of the things I mentioned in the last segment is this propensity, very obviously propensity of the United States to use military force or go to war against countries that can't really fight back.
Or we want to go to war to a country we don't actually feel we want to engage directly.
We just finance it as a proxy war like we're still doing in Ukraine.
But we were told for a full decade now.
In fact, going back to the Obama administration, the Obama administration kept saying we need to pivot away from the Middle East and focus on the Pacific, because the biggest threat now is China.
And that's where we need to focus our military efforts.
And Obama really never managed that.
And then in Trump won and in Biden, there was a bipartisan consensus that the biggest threat posed to the United States by far is the growing military threat of China.
And both administrations, especially Biden, were very aggressive, surrounding all of the areas near China with all sorts of military assets, using our alliances with nearby countries, South Korea and Japan and the Philippines and Australia.
Do you in fact encircle China?
And we were told this was somehow necessary because China is this massive military threat, even though China has not fought a war in the last 46 years.
The last war they fought was 1979.
It was a one-month border war.
Now you obvious have to spend a lot of time counting the number of wars the United States has fought since then, but okay, we're told China is the military threat, even though they haven't fought a war in 45 years.
They certainly have been building up their military quite a bit.
And yet you see our focus continues to be on the Middle East, Trump bombed Yemen, Trump bombed Syria, Trump has bombed Iraq, Trump bombed Iran, Trump bombed Iran.
We're arming and funding the Israeli wars against Gaza and the West Bank.
And you don't really hear much about China.
In fact, when Trump talks about China, he talks about China with respect and admiration.
He loves President Xi.
There was a obviously some talk about tariffs and trade disputes, but in terms of military confrontations, if you watch the military parade that the Chinese had as part of that summit where India's President Modi and the Russian president uh Vladimir Putin went and very deliberately held hands, uh the isra the Indian Prime Minister.
Uh right the day next the day after China had a massive military parade.
And if you compare it to the military parade with the United States held that Trump wanted, it looked like the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals, with the Chinese being the Harlem Globetrotters.
It was an impressive display of weapons, many of which are extremely advanced and built specifically for the United States.
And as a result, you know, and this is what I was asking earlier.
If you're so concerned about drugs entering the United States, why aren't you telling Trump and J.D. Vance to go bomb Chinese boats or boats that China is using to drown our communities with fentanyls we've been told for so long?
Why is he bombing Venezuelan boats that, according to U.S. government documents, play no role?
And what we're now starting to see is that the Pentagon, which is now the Department of War, is moving away from prioritizing China and instead, as it describes it, prioritizing the American homeland instead.
Here's a political article, September 5th, Pentagon plan prioritizes homeland over the China threat.
Quote, a draft of the newest national defense strategy, which landed on Defense Secretary Pete Heggs' death last week.
He's now war secretary Pete Haggseth.
Places domestic and regional missions above countering adversaries such as Beijing and Moscow, according to three people, briefed on early versions of the report.
The move would mark a major shift from recent Democrat and Republican administrations, including President Trump's first term in office, when he referred to Beijing as America's greatest rival, and it would likely inflame China hawks and both parties who view the country's leadership as a danger to U.S. security.
Quote, this is going to be a major shift for the U.S. and its allies on multiple continents, said one of the people briefed on the draft document.
Quote, the old trusted U.S. promises are being questioned.
The report usually comes out at the start of each administration, and Hegseth could still make changes to the plan, but in many ways, the shift is already occurring.
The Pentagon has activated thousands of National Guard troops to support law enforcement in Los Angeles and Washington and dispatched multiple warships and F-35 fighter planes to the Caribbean to introduce the flow of drugs to the U.S. A U.S. military strike this week allegedly killed 11 suspected members of the Venezuelan Trendaragua gang in international waters, a major step in using the military to kill noncombatants.
The Pentagon has also established a multi multiple multi militarized zone across the southern border with Mexico that allows troops to detain civilians, a job normally reserved for law enforcement.
The new strategy would largely overturn the focus of the first Trump administration's 2018 national defense strategy, which placed deterring China at the forefront of the Pentagon's efforts.
Quote, it is increasingly clear that China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model.
The opening paragraphs of that document said, "Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon's policy chief, is leading the strategy.
He played a key role in writing the 2018 version during Trump's first tournament, has been a staunch supporter of a more isolationist American policy.
Despite his long track record as a China hawk, Colby aligned with Vice President J. Devance on the desire to disentangle the U.S. from foreign commitments.
A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment on the reviews.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
So it's still a draft, and it could be, you know, there are people who want the U.S. to be much more aggressive in confronting China who are running to politico to complain that there's a de-emphasis or deprioritization on confronting China.
But as the political article correctly observes, you can see it with your own eyes.
We're obsessed with Venezuela.
We're sending huge numbers of military assets to Venezuela.
We want to change the government of Venezuela.
We're using our military in the United States.
More and more.
And we are, to the extent there's military action overseas, still obsessed with the Middle East.
Where is this China focus coming from?
It clearly, quite clearly seems not to be there.
Now, I think one of the things that you see here is that precisely because there's a lot of disappointments in the Trump administration not confronting China, continuing to involve the U.S. with all these foreign entanglements in the Middle East.
Now this absurd attempt to once again foster regime change in Venezuela and then Cuba, Marco Rubio's long-term dream.
So dream of the United States going back decades.
Donald Trump is very good at giving his little followers these little morsels.
Like, hey, here's like a crumb of red meat for you to chomp and boast about on Twitter and feel vicariously strong.
And that's what he knew he was doing with this Venezuela stuff.
Donald Trump on True Social September 2nd.
Earlier this morning, on my orders, U.S. military forces conducted a kinetic strike against positively identified Trend Naragua narco terrorists in the Southcom area of responsibility.
TDA is a designated foreign terrorist organization operating under the control of Nicolas Maduro, responsible for mass murder, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and acts of violence and terror across the United States, the Western Hemisphere.
The strike occurred while the terrorists were at sea in international waters transporting the legal narcotics heading to the United States.
The strike resulted in 11 terrorists being killed in action.
No U.S. forces were harmed in the strike.
Please let the serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America, beware.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Okay, I don't know.
I know we're involved on these Mideast wars.
I know we're still financing the war in Ukraine.
I know Trump's now claiming we don't need to see the Epstein files because it's all a hoax.
It's all like made up by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
They somehow went in there and like wrote Trump's name and the like margins or the friends of Trump.
It's all a big hoax after hearing for four years from leading MAGA figures that it was the key to understanding the globalist order.
It's now just like a hoax.
We don't need to see any of it.
So it's like, hey, hear about how about this.
Here's a video of us killing 11 Venezuelans.
Who likes Venezuelans?
Communist terrorists.
Same thing he did in April.
When the U.S. evaporated, uh vaporized the lives of about 60 Yemenis, 60 Houthis standing in a circle.
Very, very similar to the tribal and prayer circles that they have stood in for centuries.
And Trump showed a really exciting video that made a lot of his supporters feel strong, where we just eradicated them out of existence.
Trump says these Houthis gathered gathered for instructions on an attack.
Oops, there will be no attack by these Houthis.
They will never sink our ships again.
Obviously, absolutely zero evidence that these people were plotting an attack on the U.S. Trump just said it.
Lots of people decide to believe it, feels good to believe it.
And there you see the people standing there.
These are the kinds of uh here's the video, they're all standing there.
None of them have any weapons.
This is the kind of circle that Houthis stands in, and they're just a bomb that comes from the sky, just like the one that blew up that uh tiny little speedboat.
And clearly every person who was standing there in an instant had their lives eradicated.
Did so much good for the people of Ohio and Michigan, Pennsylvania.
Incredible improvements in their lives, just like Trump promised to focus on.
But it lets his supporters feel like, yeah, yeah.
We bomb them.
Bomb, as JD Vincent, we bomb the scum.
Same with the Iran strike, we bombed Iran.
Uh we supposedly got rid of their military facilities.
Um this is the sort of thing that we're seeing more and more of.
And again, look, I think the question if I were a Trump supporter feeding on anti-China Ajaprop for so long, is like, what about China?
Like, yeah, great.
We killed like 60 Houthis.
And we blew up this tiny little shitty speed boat.
Great.
It's awesome.
J.D. Vance got to curse about it, played tough guy.
But like, what about China?
Weren't we told that they're the root of all evil?
Why are we doing nothing to confront them or to contain them in any way?
What happened to all that?
Including the fentanyl.
Is the fentanyl now coming from Venezuela?
Or is it still coming from China?
And what are we doing about that?
So aside from the fact that it's very dangerous, it's also very condescending to Trump supporters.
It really is just throwing them little little videos of just people being blown up.
And you're supposed to, I guess, feel good about it and feel like something has been accomplished.
This is just the sort of thing that leaders always do.
It's been done throughout the war on terror that never ended, but we kept killing the third uh highest ranking Al-Qaeda member.
I could show you eight articles where the Bush and Trump about an Obama administration is both claim they killed the third highest ranking al-Qaeda member.
And it's just the sort of thing that keep people distracted, keep people feeling like the government is doing something powerful and strong.
People need to see people be blowing up.
We want to hear that they're scum, that we killed scum.
It's like really it kind of makes you feel strong, vicariously watching it and cheering it, like shows you're you're really tough.
But I would submit that all the things that the MAGA movement claimed to be interested in are not even related to, let alone served by any of these random acts of violence.
It let Shady Vance prance around and other people play around.
Hexeth gets to call himself Secretary of War.
That's cool.
Way cooler than Secretary of Defense.
But in terms of substantive achievements or policy changes or improving the lives of the American people, this is all utter theater, utter show, and very dangerous and authoritarian show at that.
All right, Ben Shapiro, one of our absolute favorite pundits.
He has done so much, so much good to keep the United States devoted to and focused on what matters most, which is his beloved country of Israel.
He apparently has some new book out.
I don't know what the book is.
I don't care what the book is, I don't want to find out what the book is, but he's on a book tour to hulk this new book.
And he's making media rounds, and so he went on The Breakfast Club, which is a very popular uh radio and YouTube show uh for uh it has a it it caters to a primarily black audience, um though lots of people watch it, covers Democratic Party politics a lot, often with a critical eye.
Uh it's hosted by Charlemagne Legade and and two other co-hosts um who do pretty uh adversarial interviews, I would say, of Democratic Party leaders.
They always in the end tell everybody to go vote for Democrats, but which is why those democratic leaders go on the show.
As long as at the end you tell people, as long as at the end you tell everyone to go vote Democrat, no one cares if you criticize the Democrats along the way.
In fact, if you criticize Democrats along the way, and then tell everybody they still have to go vote for the Democrats once every two years because they're so much worse than the fascists or whatever, you're actually a more valuable asset to the Democratic Party than the people who just you know praise the Democratic Party every day.
Because the people who pay attention to those people are gonna vote Democrat anyway.
But the ones who lure you in by saying, I also hate the Democrats, I'm a huge critic of the Democratic Party, but then at the end, look, even though we hate the Democrats, you still it's crucial you go to the polls and vote Democrat to keep the fascists out, those are the people most valuable, and that's why you'll see Democratic politicians going on the shows of the people who do that, including the Breakfast Club.
But they do at least a decent job, certainly better than any MSNBC host, of adversarily criticizing or questioning the Democratic Party.
And here is uh and by the way, with Charlemagne Legaard, the host of the Breakfast Club, who in 2020 expressed doubts about whether he would vote for Joe Biden, and that's when Joe Biden notoriously said in response.
If you don't know, if you're not sure that you're voting for me instead of Trump, you ain't black.
So in any event, that's the program uh Ben Shapiro found himself on.
And the topic of reparations came up.
Reparations for black people.
Uh Tana Easy Coates in a cover story in 2016 rejuvenated or at least mainstreamed that debate, namely, does America owe African Americans, people of African descent who ended up in the United States because of slavery and then were oppressed because of Reconstruction and Jim Crow, does it owe the United States re does the United States owe them reparations?
And that topic came up, as did the billions of dollars the United States sends every year to Israel.
And Ben Shapiro, of course, went to defend that.
And he also tried to minimize the reparations that Jewish people got for the Holocaust, because Jewish people received enormous sums of money and still get enormous sums of money as reparations from the Holocaust, even though black people never have from slavery.
So that topic came up too.
And Ben Shapiro just told one lie after the next.
And there are five significant demonstrable lies in all of this that we not only want to show you because it's important when people go lie on a big platform to correct it, but also because I think a lot of people don't know these facts, and so it's important for us to learn them.
where the best people at any job get ahead.
Now, if you're talking about reparations for immediate past wrongs, I think it's a much easier conversation.
So I think that if you're in 1968, 1970, and you're talking about what can we do to rectify the problems of Jim Crow and make it right for the people who suffered under Jim Crow, I think that's a really live and interesting conversation and I think that it's totally worth having.
I think that on it on a sort of public policy level, reparative policies don't tend to be nearly as effective as as people want them to be, historically speaking.
In what way?
Jewish people that receive reparations.
You mean Holocaust reparations, for example, from Germany?
So I think that first of all, that there was like a gigantic fight, actually in Israel over whether Holocaust survivors should accept reparations from Germany.
There was a gigantic fight in Israel.
Gigantic over should we accept reparations?
Should we accept this money that we can get from Germany for the Holocaust?
It was such a gigantic fight.
Now, you'll be shocked to learn at the end of the day, the people who wanted the reparations who wanted that money, they won this gigantic debate.
And in fact, they're still winning it.
As we're going to show you, there's reparations still being I mean, billions of dollars in reparations still being paid.
But anyway, you know, Ben Ben Spear says, ah, I don't really believe in this kind of like retroactive justice to give people money for past wrongs, and Charlaming Lagan says, Yeah, but what about the Jews?
And Ben Shapiro said, ah, there was this like big fight.
Oh, yeah, such a big, big fight.
Do we want this money or not?
And people saying, like, you know what, yeah, we should get this money.
Shockingly, they won, and they're still winning.
Because the the idea was that that it's allowing them to expiate their their sins of the past and they shouldn't be allowed to expiate those sins, and it's allowing them to sort of buy off the the history for 50 grand or whatever it is.
Um, but that's okay.
Do you hear what he said there?
I just want so important.
He said, like, first of all, he he summ the whole the he says, like, I'm not in favor of these kind of policies.
And then Charlie was like, yeah, but what about the the reparations the Jews got?
And Ben Shapiro summarizes the debate against having them, but that wasn't those were that wasn't the argument that went out.
Not only did Jews get reparations, they're still demanding reparations.
There's still lawsuits all over the world.
It's what No Man uh Norman Finkelstein described in his book as the Holocaust industry.
People getting extremely rich, lawyers and just representing Jews and claiming reparations are due all over the world.
Billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars.
And do you see what that slime slimy Ben Shapiro did at the end after he described the side of the debate in Israel?
That believe me was not anywhere near as potent or or vehement as he claims.
But they lost and there were reparations.
Then he tried to say, yeah, the reparations were like, you know, 50,000, 50 grand or whatever.
Like, yeah, if you were in the Holocaust, you got 50 grand.
Like what does that really do?
That is such an unbelievable lie.
The reparations that Jews got after the Holocaust, and we're going to show you all this.
I just want to go through this video.
I just want to highlight and flag these lies for you.
Isn't the tens of billions of dollars, probably above a hundred billion dollars now?
It wasn't just like, oh yeah, this family, this couple got out of book involved or Auschwitz, and so they get 50 grand.
Like just start a, you know, buy a house or whatever, like a middle class house.
That was all.
It's all reparations or 50 grand.
Well, Ben Shapiro's like, yeah, did that really help?
Talking about billions and billions of dollars and transfers of wealth from Europe to Jews in Israel and and the diaspora.
But he's telling people who aren't familiar with the reparations program.
Yeah, this is 50 grand.
A lot of people didn't even want it, they got it, but it's not.
I mean, it's it's it's such a massive lie that it's amazing to watch.
That is not the reason why Israel has become successful economically, like just on a success level.
Uh the reality is that cutting people checks rarely makes them more successful from the government.
What usually makes people more successful is a is a determined attempt to become the things that the meritocracy demands of you.
Right.
So there were there were no long, you know, long scale.
The US foreign assistance Israel has helped financially though.
Well, I mean the U.S. Foreign Assistance for Israel Act.
Okay, so here's Ben Shapiro saying, like, yeah, you don't you don't really benefit from handouts.
You don't need handouts.
It's a meritocracy.
And like Israel, it's not the tens of billions of dollars in transfers of wealth or the generations of massive German support and European support for Israel that helped Israel.
No, no, it was just meritocracy.
And so then Sharmain says, Yeah, well, I think the billions of dollars the U.S. has been sending like for decades, that probably helps Israel.
And here's Ben Shapiro ready to say, no, no, no, that doesn't help Israel at all.
It's actually that's actually good for the U.S. Israel has helped financially though.
Well, I mean, the US foreign assistance for Israel actually is a bargain for the United States because Israel doesn't need the money.
That's fine.
The black community would gladly take it.
That's in it.
I'm always amazed.
That's one of the new things that they're trying.
I've heard this so many times.
You say, like, hey, you love to talk about Israel and it's like ability to fight all these people, and it shows the spirit of Israel, like the courage and the strength.
And then you say, no, actually, you know what?
You're being financed by and protected by the most powerful military in the richest country in the history of the world that finances your wars and pays for your wars.
And they're like, oh, yeah, we don't even need that.
Is it you don't?
Why then is there this massive Jewish lobby led by APAC that will not only publicly brand you an anti-Semite if you even question the transfer of this money to Israel, but will pour $15 million into any a congressional race, a single congressional race, to remove from Congress anybody who questions whether the U.S. should keep spending billions and billions of dollars, as Charlemagne says, look, we have problems in the black community in the United States.
If Israel doesn't need the money, give it to us and we'll we'll improve our own neighborhoods.
Ben Shapiro's like, ah, is there Israel doesn't even need the money?
Really?
Go on, go online tomorrow, do an experiment.
Go online and say, I think the United States should cut off Israel.
No more aid.
I heard from Ben Shapiro, they don't need it.
So why are we giving it to them?
No more aid.
Let's stop financing Israel's wars.
Let's stop sending them billions of count count the number of seconds until you're called an anti-Semite.
And if you have an influential platform until the ADL puts you on some list and tries to get you fired, or if you're a member of Congress until some pack forms that tries to remove it from Congress.
Can you believe that Ben Shapiro has the audacity to say Israel doesn't need this money, Israel doesn't even really want it, it really only benefits the US when there's this massive Israel lobby that makes it completely taboo to question the billions of dollars the United States shuffles to Israel every year.
It's like three billion dollars a year.
We should point out at this point that we spend, I think six billion dollars a year on our military bases in Japan, five billion dollars a year on our military bases in Germany.
Uh we spend an awful lot of money that that helps an awful lot of other countries.
Israel has to spend all of that money, by the way, in the United States on military product.
So all of the money that we send to Israel, we actually don't send money to Israel.
We send military product to Israel.
Okay.
So there were two claims there.
Number one, he said, oh, don't worry.
The amount of money the U.S. sends to Israel is it's just three billion dollars.
We spend five billion on military bases in Japan and Germany.
This is like a tiny little money.
In 2024 alone, the United States spent cent to Israel or authorized eight for aid to Israel, 18 billion dollars, or five times the amount that Ben Shapiro claimed on the show is what the United States sends to Israel.
Barack Obama on his way out, even though we're supposed to believe the Democratic Party and Obama are anti-Israel, Barack Obama signed a deal with Benjamin Netanyahu in 2016 that required the United States to send a minimum, a minimum of $3.8 billion every year to Israel.
A minimum.
It's $3.8 billion.
And that's the minimum.
Every time Israel has a war, every time Israel wants to bomb its neighbors, the United States sends billions of more, like it did in in 2024 and like it already has done in 2025.
To say nothing of the massive cost of deploying our own military to protect Israel.
We deploy our military To that region every time they want to have a war with the other countries, we use our missiles and ships and service members in harm's way to shoot down missiles to protect Israel.
And while it is true that of that $3.8 billion that Obama said the U.S. would send to Netanyahu into Israel every year, most of it has to be spent on American arms dealers.
Not all of it does.
A lot of it stays in Israel.
But even this, oh, you have to spend it on our arms dealers.
So basically what that means is under this 10, it's a it's a 10-year agreement, so it's gonna end in 2026.
Obviously, that number's gonna go up a lot every time there's a new agreement.
It's a 10-year member memorandum of understanding that Obama signed with Netanyahu's due to expire next year, 2026.
And Trump will be president.
So you can imagine what number that's gonna be.
But even now it's $3.8 billion.
Up when Men Shapiro says, oh, they have to buy it, buy you uh products from U.S. arms dealers, what that basically means is the American taxpayer gives a gift certificate to Israel.
And the gift certificate says here's a $3 billion gift certificate, and every year they get one.
That entitles you to anything you want at Raytheon or Boeing or general dynamics.
It is a huge giveaway to Israel.
And it's also a transfer of wealth from the American taxpayer to the military industrial complex to benefit Israel.
That's what this is.
That is made in the United States.
And so it actually is a subsidy to the American defense industry, and there is a deal with Israel where Israel does intelligence sharing and also develops its own tech and can't disseminate it to the world.
So, for example, the the helmets that our F-35 pilots use, those are Israeli developed helmets, like that we can see over the horizon, for example.
That's because Israel developed technological add-ons.
So the idea that this is sort of like a zero sum, the money goes out, you get nothing back.
That's actually not that's actually not true.
You make the argument that foreign aid entirely should be zeroed out.
Uh I think that that is not a particularly useful argument just because sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad.
Like I'm, by the way, in favor of assistance to Ukraine to prevent Russia from taking over Ukraine.
This represents a vanishing portion of our national budget, right?
If you're going to talk about like where the actual massive spending is going.
All right, so then there's that last part that I just want to flag that oh, we get so much intelligence sharing from Israel.
They're so generous.
They they collect intelligence about that part of the world and they give it to us.
So we get, it's like, it's almost like we're stealing from Israel.
I mean, we're only giving them $3 billion, and we're basically getting nothing from that.
We're getting like so much from them that it's almost like we're it's a theft.
That's what he was pitching.
All right, as for that claim that all we do is send $3 billion to Israel and aid, whereas we spend $5 billion in Japan or whatever here from AP, October 7, 2024.
U.S. spends a record $17.9 billion on military aid to Israel since last October 7th.
That's one year.
Quote, the $17.9 billion spent since October 7, 2023 in inflation adjusted dollars is by far the most military aid sent to Israel in one year.
The U.S. aid since the Gaza War started started includes military financing, arms sales, at least 4.4 billion in dark drawdowns from U.S. stockpiles and hand-me-downs of used equipment.
Much of the U.S. weapons delivered in the year were munitions from artillery shells to 2,000 pound bunker busters and precision guided bombs.
Expenditures range from $4 billion to replenish Israel's front iron dome and David's sting missile defense systems to cash for rifles and jet fuel, the study says.
The Biden administration has bolstered its military strength in the region since the war in Gaza started, aiming to deter and respond to any attacks on Israeli and military American forces.
So note, that amount of money that I just read you doesn't count all the fighter jets and all the aircraft carriers and all the other submarines and military assets Biden sent to the region.
And by the way, Fox News convinced a lot of conservatives that Biden is anti-Israel.
This is all under the Biden administration.
And then here's the last paragraph.
Quote, these additional operational cost operations cost At least $4.86 billion, the report said, not including beefed up U.S. military to aid to Egypt and other partners in the region.
That's another thing that never gets counted.
We give Egypt billions of dollars every year to keep that dictatorship in place.
Why?
Because Egypt does the bidding of Israel and the United States.
Same with Jordan.
That's all for Israel.
We pop up those dictatorships around Israel to protect Israel.
That's not even counted in the amount of money that we spend.
So Ben Japero's attempt to convince this audience, oh, it's just $3 billion like a drop in the bucket.
It's just a complete lie.
It's a total lie.
$3.8 billion is the minimum sent.
Every time Israel has a new war, we send billions more.
In the first year after October 7th alone, under the Biden administration, we sent $18 billion, plus all the other things that already have been counted under that, under that total.
Here from the Obama White House archives, September 14, 2016, this is when Obama signed that 10-year memorandum of understanding with Israel and Netanyahu.
Quote, under the new MOU with the with Israel, the Obama administration has made the largest single pledge of military assistance in U.S. history.
The total value of the new MOU, which covers fiscal year 2019 to 2028, is $38 billion, $3.8 billion per year.
It will succeed the current $30 billion MOU signed in 2007, which will expire at the end of fiscal year 2018.
It includes $33 billion in foreign military financing, FMF funds, and an unprecedented $5 billion commitment in missile defense assistance.
This funding will be dispersed in equal increments of $3.3 billion and $500 million in missile defense funding each year for the duration of the understanding.
That's $3.8 billion minimum every year to Israel.
This amount represents a significant increase over the current MOU by every measure and will enable Israel to acquire additional advanced military capabilities from the United States.
Now that is the deal that Obama, who everyone in the Republican Party will tell you hates Israel, was anti-Israel.
This is a deal that the Obama administration signed.
And by the way, in 2014, which was really the last time that Israel bombed Gaza relentlessly and intensively, they bombed Gaza every year.
They killed children every year.
But 2014 was the last massive attack.
The Obama administration was just feeding them the missiles that they were using.
They were demanding more and more missiles, and the Obama administration was just handing it over to them.
And remember, we have Dan Caldwell on, who was a top Pentagon official who got fired because of a fabricated leak investigation.
He was longtime ally of Pete Heggseth.
He worked for a few months inside the Trump administration.
And he was on our show talking about how one of the reasons why Trump had to end the bombing campaign in Yemen, and one of the reasons why both Israel and the U.S. were desperate to end the war in Iran was because the U.S. had very low stockpiles of a lot of these missiles that it was giving to Israel and to Ukraine.
We were low on munitions, we were low on these defensive uh missiles that take uh Iranian missiles and other missiles out of the air.
Both Israel and the United States stockpiles were dangerously low.
That's why that war needed to end so quickly.
So we also sacrificed our own military readiness in defense of Israel and in defense of Ukraine, too.
But Israel has gotten by far the most aid over the last 30 to 40 years.
Now it is true that Israel uses uh that money to buy weapons from U.S. arms dealers.
Like I said, it's basically a certificate the American people give to Israel to go shopping.
Here from CTEC, August of 2024, Israel's Air Force takes a quantum leap with $20 billion U.S. arms deal.
At the center of this deal, approved by this week by U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, is the potential purchase of 50 advanced F-15 AI aircraft from Boeing, allowing the Air Force to open two new fighter squadrons.
The Air Force has long been interested in these aircraft alongside expanding the fleet of Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets.
The Air Force is in advanced stages of developing a second F-35 squadron to be completed next year and has already ordered a third Squadron of 25 additional F 35s, together totaling about $3 billion with deliveries expected to begin in 2027.
The procurement of the new aircraft is not expected to have a significant impact on the defense budget or the state to budget as it will be based on U.S. aid, which amounts to $3.8 billion annually.
While the procurement of fighter jets and related components will not happen before 2029, Blinken's approval includes the sale of additional weapons systems to Israel worth about 1.5 billion dollars, many from general dynamics.
Remember the whole point about the military industrial complex, we have to stop drowning the military industrial complex with American resources.
That's all this is.
It's a transfer of wealth from the American worker to these arms dealers so that Israel can go shopping for free and build up its military that the United States worker pays for.
Here's as far as Ben Shapiro's point is concerned about, oh yeah, there was some like little few reparations.
People got like 50 grand or whatever after the war.
It's been tens of billions of dollars and it's still ongoing.
Hear from NPR in June of 2023, just two years ago.
Germany will pay more than $1.4 billion next year to survivors of Nazi atrocities.
Quote, the payment stemmed from annual negotiations between Germany's Federal Ministry of Finance and the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, an organization representing Jewish Holocaust survivors also known as the Claims Conference.
The funds are meant to help survivors live in dignity decades after they were persecuted and lost loved ones and property.
The compensation payment slated for 2024 eclipses the more than $1.2 billion Germany agreed to pay in 2023.
Restitution amounts have risen sharply since 2015, the German government notes, when the annual package was valued around 500 million euros.
The claims conference has been pursuing reparations from the German government since 1951, when it was founded by a coalition of Jewish organizations, and has secured more than $90 billion in payments.
Just leave aside for a moment whether you think that $90 billion, and I'm sure it's more when you count everything, is just as reparations for the Holocaust.
Ben Shapiro went on this program and they asked him, like, why do Jews get reparations for the Holocaust?
But we black people don't get reparations for anything that was done to us over centuries in the United States.
And Ben Shapiro said, ah, yeah, big debate in the Israel.
Do we even want the money?
Turns out you do want the money.
And he said, like, yeah, but you know, like how much does it really help?
50,000, you know, what?
50,000.
I don't even know how many Holocaust survivors are still alive.
It's 75 years, 80 years actually, since the end of World War II.
And Israel is still, and Jewish organization are still extracting billions of dollars in wealth from Germany every year.
Again, favor that or not, but Ben Shapiro going on the Breakfast Club and being like, yeah, we got $50,000, $50,000.
You know, how much does that really help?
When it was $90 billion.
It's just the sort of thing that, you know, and he packs it all together, these like one lie after the next.
And you do have to be very well steeped in each of these issues to really be able to identify these lives.
I don't know how much the Breakfast Club knows about Israeli reparations or the nature of U.S. aid to Israel.
It seems like not much because they couldn't really fact check him.
And the final issue was Ben Spear said, Oh, we get so much intelligence sharing.
I've talked about this before.
We published, you know, years worth of reporting from the Snowden Archive, hundreds of stories from around the world, so not every article, every story got as much attention as I think it should have.
Some got less.
And one of the ones that I think got less was when we published in 2014.
All the documents we had are the relevant documents on the U.S. Israeli intelligence relationship.
And as it turns out, here's a summary of the reporting I did in the Guardian.
I think I did this at the Intercept rather.
Yeah, I did it at the Intercept.
Uh About Israel and the threat it poses to the United States, because it is actually the top threat for spying and surveillance on the United States.
Israel is the country we give these billions and billions and billions of dollars to.
Newsweek, August 4th, 2014.
Israel is flagged as a top spy threat to the U.S. in News Snowden NSA document.
Quote, Israel was singled out in 2007 as top espionage threat against the United States government, including its intelligence services.
In a newly published NSA document obtained by fugitive leaker Edward Snowden, according to a news report Monday, the threats were listed in the NSA's 2007 strategic mission list, according to the document obtained by journalists slash activist Glenn Greenwald.
Go fuck yourself.
I forgot that that they did that by journalist slash activist Glenn Greenwald.
We had already won the Pulitzer by this point for our reporting, unlike the person writing this Newsweek article ever has or ever will.
But still, it was by journalists slash activist Glenn Greenwald.
I obtained this document.
I reported it, I showed the document, but I have a journalist slash activist.
Whatever.
It's newsweek.
In this new document, Israel was identified by the NSA as a security threat in several areas, including, quote, the threat of development of weapons of mass destruction and quote delivery methods, particularly ballistic and nuclear capable cruise missiles.
The NSA also flagged Israel's quote, WMD and missile proliferation activities and quote cruise missiles as threats.
And it talked about how Israel spies on the United States more aggressively, more effectively, more intrusively than essentially any country on earth.
So there's Ben Spiro saying, how we get so many benefits.
It's like a big bargain.
It's a big bargain for the US.
It's like we're ripping Israel off.
They give us so much.
We barely give them anything.
It's like three billion a year.
Yeah, the reparations are like 50,000 a couple.
It's like the reparations are 90 billion dollars.
They're still ongoing over generations.
It's infinitely more than $3 billion.
And rather than getting this great gift of intelligence sharing, we've actually turned Israel into, with American taxpayer money, the single greatest threat of surveillance and spying on the most sensitive secrets the United States government has.
Remember, we caught a spy working inside the United Government, Jonathan Pollard, who is spying for Israel.
One of the things that made Trump fire Mike Waltz as National Security was when he got caught going to Israel to plot the war in Iran behind Trump's back with Benjamin Netanyahu.
There's a lot of people spying for Israel in a lot of different ways.
And the NSA knows that unless Israel as in many ways the greatest threat, the greatest spying and surveillance threat to the sanctity of American secrets, our greatest ally.
There was a two minute, 30 second clip where Ben Shapiro managed to lie about every component of USA to Israel, the amount of aid that's given.
And.
What's required for it?
He lied about reparations to make it seem like Jews basically got nothing, no big deal.
So black people in the United States should just forget about it.
See, you get a little 10,000 check.
What's that going to do for you?
And about the intelligence relationship between the United States and Israel.
It's not that the United States gets these huge benefits.
Israel does spy on Palestinians and Lebanese and gives it to the United States, shares some of it.
But the real relationship is that Israel is a gigantic threat to steal American secrets and has been doing that for many decades.
And that's why when you that's why when you uh have a little bit of scrutiny, when you have somebody like Charlemagne, who's a very kind of on his toes uh perceptive host, you know, what do you mean?
Israel doesn't need it.
Then why do we give it?
Give it to give it to the black community.
Or, well, why are you telling us reparations aren't good?
You got reparations.
People, that's what people make people start wondering.
Like, wait a minute, what is this relationship in what conceivable sense does it make any sense.
All right, so that concludes the show for this evening.
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 on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all other major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow our show, it really helps spread the visibility of the program.
As a final reminder, as independent journalists, we do rely on the support of our viewers and members, which you can participate in by joining our locals community, which gives you access to a wide array of exclusive benefits, including exclusive video segments and interviews that we don't have time for this show, that we stream exclusively there as we did Friday night on the uh Venezuela United States situation.
But it also has unique benefits in terms of being able to submit questions to us throughout the week for the QA show that we do on Friday.
We always encourage our locals members to provide good questions throughout the week.
So Friday night we can have that interaction with our audience here.
We put professionalized written transcripts of every show we broadcast here.
We publish those on the locals community the next day.
And most of all, it's the community on which we really do 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 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.
