Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election.
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent.
Coverage that is possible.
If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. We have an amazing show for everybody today, extra amazing because Crystal is back.
It's great to see you. Crystal. What do we have today?
It is great to be back.
Thank you so much, Soccer by the way for covering for me and the team, and Ryan and everybody you've filled in. We have a lot to get to this morning, though. As Soccer covered for you yesterday, three US service members are dead after a suicide drone attack in Jordan. What are they even doing there? What does that mean for broader conflagrations in the Middle East? A lot to talk about there. We're also following the US cut funding for a critical un AID agency dedicated to Palestinians.
This of course comes.
As ICJ ruled that Israel is plausibly committing genocide in the Gaza strip. Break that down for you. Nancy Pelosi floating a wild new Russia Gate conspiracy. Got to hear this one to believe it, truly astonishing. The mayor of Dearborn, Michigan is actually going to join us, so he refused to meet with Biden campaign officials, this in spite of the fact that he is a longtime Democrat, over Biden's
unconditional support for Israel. So we're going to talk to him about that and how he is thinking about the general election matchup likely between Biden and Trump. Taylor Swift Ai nudes causing a whole frucus all the way up to the White House, massive debate about what to do about this, if anything should be done about this, et cetera.
So we'll talk about that.
And Soccer is looking at the political divide between young men and young women, which seems to only be widening.
Yes, that's right, Crystal.
Before we do get to that, though, we want to say thank you also to our premium subscribers helping us for gearing up for election season. We've got the discount going on right now. We have our RFK Junior focus group, which will be coming to everybody next week. We're really
excited to bring everybody that. Actually, it turns out while the delay was not something that we wanted due to the snow that you know, there's quite a lot of relevance with RFK Junior right now, and we're going to have a lot to cover tomorrow as well, lots of domestic stories, the border situation, all that we wanted to make sure we cover our bases with foreign policy today just because of the tragic death of those service members and unfortunately Crystal even worse calls for war with Iran
pervading the bipartisan consensus here in Washington.
Yeah, that's exactly right.
So let's start with that news, which is certainly the top story of the day with potentially massive and terrifying implications. Was put this up on the screen, as I said, three US troops killed an up to thirty four injured in Jordan. This due to a so called suicide drone strike that the Biden administration is linking to these Iranian backed militias. I can read you from a little bit this story. Biden's response, he says, have no doubt we will hold all those responsible to account at a time
and in a manner of our choosing. Around's mission to the UNS and a statement that Tehran was not involved in the attack. Aron had no connection, had nothing to do with the attack on the US base according to that mission. They added, there is a conflict between US forces and resistance groups in the region which reciprocate retaliatory attacks.
We could go ahead and put up on.
The screen a map so that you get a sense of where exactly these attacks were happening. You can see they're right on the border here of Jordan and Syria. Apparently this facility that was targeted is referred to as Tower twenty two, very very close to that Jordan Syria border. I mean, there's so much to say about this. First of all, you know, anytime our service members are attacked in this region, I'm sure plenty of Americans are going,
what are they even doing in this region? Like, why are they even to be sitting ducks for these types of attacks? Number two, Sadly, this was entirely predictable result of Biden's policy vis A VI Israel since October seventh, And we can put this up on the screen this map. You know, you guys haven't heard that much about these
in the news, even though you should have. There have been well over one hundred and fifty of these types of attacks, and tragically, it was only a matter of time before one of the attacks broke through and claimed the lives of US service members. So there is no doubt in my mind this is very likely linked directly to the Biden administration's policy viz a vi Israel.
Part of how we know.
That is because during the time when there was a brief cease fire, these attacks completely stopped, and so it once again raises the quest uestion of what the hell are we doing here? Even if you don't care about the moral outrage of what is happening in Gaza, the Biden policy has put our service members at risk and is directly in contravention of our own national security interests. And to me, that's what is really underscored by these unbelievably tragic deaths and avoidable deaths.
In the end, Yeah, I'm really outraged by this because it was so predictable. We're sitting here for weeks just saying listen, it's on a matter of time.
It only takes one.
It only takes this and then we see, you know, tit for tat, We go up, we go up, something gets fired at a ship and now you know, this is a really horrible situation because these guys, by all accounts, were literally sleeping, so it was in the middle of the night and a suicide drone appears to have attacked their barracks. Because we also saw that the number of wounded rose significantly from yesterday. It now stands at thirty four,
but very likely to go even higher. Unfortunately, many of the men who were wounded actually remain in critical condition and had to be airlifted out of Jordan to a nearby hospital. That also reminds us of why are three thousand American soldiers or service members in Jordan in the first place. The ostensible purpose of this base is part of the anti Isis mission.
I mean, when's the last time that.
We heard anything about what was going on with US operations in Syria and in Isis. Don't forget that belies the fact that there are a number of US troops in Syria, again with no authorization from Congress, and they have been there now for years in near permanent installations. There's a bigger defense question Tier two really about the use of these suicide drones and US air defense systems.
There had long been promises and both to the troops and others, that we had adequate force protection for our service members who are so forward deployed in Syria and elsewhere, saying we had all of these advanced air defense systems that were in place to make sure that something like
this would happen. Obviously completely failed in this regard, and now three of our service members are dead and more than three dozen nearly have been wounded, some critically who have been injured, and who knows what the prognosis remains for them. It is a bigger, major strategic question about what are our service members doing here. Don't forget either, Crystal.
In the initial statement, President Biden blamed Iranian backed groups in Iraq and in Syria, so it raises questions there about what exact groups that these.
Are, whether they're in Iraq. Don't forget this.
If we're going to respond quote hard and heavy or whatever it is that the Lindsey Graham and all those want us to do, there is a very dangerous and diplomatic talk going on right now.
With Iraq.
Many of the Iraqis do not want us to stay there that our troops. The Biden administration is fighting to make sure that our troops can remain inside of the country. Ostensibly for this anti isis mission more likely to do with forward posture against Iran. Regardless, this is going to affect that if there is some sort of major retaliation inside of Iraq, which very likely could invite domestic political push on top of who the hell knows what goes
on in Syria. But what scares me more than anything is the total unwillingness to, you know, just throw caution to the wind right now amongst the Washington establishment, and you see direct calls, bipartisan calls right now to strike Iranian territory, not to wipe out or even retaliate against these Iraqi and Syrian groups would directly go to the source. And that's what we're seeing from all across the Aisle immediately in the aftermath of the attack.
Yeah, so we could put some of that up on the screen. The Republicans largely jumped in most aggressively. Of course, many of these same people use any and every excuse to push for war with Iran. You've got Senator John Cornyn target Tehran, Lindsey Graham, hit Iran, now hit them hard. Tom Cotton my statement following the Iran backed attacks in Jordan that killed treas u As service members and injured twenty five the TLDR, there is also war with Iran.
Tim Scott.
Enough is enough by Aen administration's appeasement of Iran must end.
Time for clear and decisive action.
Chuck Grassley will present Biden finally take decisive action against Iran. So, I mean, first of all, I think it's important to say a couple things about this, like, obviously this is psychotic, the idea that we should just jump into a full scale war with Iran.
You know, it's not something that the American people want.
It is a disastrous, absolutely insane idea that goes almost without saying. I also think it's worth noting, you know, the media always it's almost like a verbal tick. They use this phrase like Iran backed militias, and it is true. Obviously they're they're linked, they're funded, there's you know, affiliations there, but you can get the impression that they're just acting one hundred percent as puppets of Iran. And they're just doing like whatever their actions are, they're directed, you know,
directly from Tehran, and that is not the case. You know, these groups have their own impetus, they have their own motivations, they have their own goals, They're capable of planning their own attacks. So when Iran says it wasn't us, maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't. But I just want people to understand that these groups are not Iran. They are linked to Iran, yes, but that doesn't mean that they
are directly taking their orders from Tehran. The most critical piece here, I think, Sager, is you see once again the way that the logic of escalation only ever goes
in one direction. It has never been more clear that the reason these attacks are happening is directly because of our unconditional support for Israel, because of the fact that we have been a primary you know, we've been a primary blockade to any sort of ceasefire or longer truce, and when there was a brief ceasefire, these attacks stopped. So all of this trouble in the Middle East, the
Red Sea, the Hoofies. You know, we had two Navy seals who also are dead because of our actions in the Middle East, they didn't come under direct buyer, but as a result of our operations in the Red Sea, they too are dead. All of this is happening because of our policy visa the Israel.
So instead though, of.
Reassessing that policy and saying there's a very clear answer and solution to all of these problems, which by the way, would also be in the best interests of humanity in the Gaza strip, instead it's always we have to escalate, we have to hit them harder, we have to escalate to de escalate, et.
Cetera, et cetera.
It's what the media pushes, it's what the political class pushes, and it always only goes in one direction.
The logic is also nonsensical.
I mean, we are currently funding to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars the war in Ukraine, which is killed probably between three to three hundred and fifty thousand Russian soldiers. So by this logic, let's say that Russia where to use this logic, what could they say? They're like, well, the US backed, you know, US linked
Ukrainian government is killing our soldiers with their weapons. Actually, the link is probably even more direct because the Pentagon quite literally runs the Ukrainian military ops and in a similar situation, we can't control everything the Ukrainian military does, or maybe we can, but let's say that we can't in that at least in that instance. As we have seen them conduct attacks deep inside of Russian territory elsewhere, terrorist attacks, assassinations inside of Moscow, what does that mean?
Under that logic, they could bomb us, They could nuke us. That's what they're and that's what the most belligerent people inside of the Russian government are saying. They're like, how can we do this? We're not going after the source. Think about the logic of that. That means then that we would be liable for every single one of our allied governments that we supply with weapons for direct retaliation
against US. And in fact, that appears to be the exact logic that these Iranian backed groups and the who THEIS and others have been using to attack the US military vis a vis it's a support for Israel. So I again would just urge people, and everybody loves to talk about Reagan, and let's let's take a step back and think about what happened after the Bay Route bombing. Against You know, number of our US service members were killed there under his administration. You know what he did,
He pulled out. He said, at the end of the day, it's not worth it. And there were a lot more people who were killed in that attack in the nineteen eighties than they were today. People, do you know, forget some of the strategic actual fortitude that Reagan occasionally did have in his foreign policy because he understood and assessed that if I were to get into a deeper conflict here,
it would not be in our direct interest. We had a direct guiding foreign policy at that time, which was confrontation with the Soviet Union and with rollback, and he determined that this was going to draw away from that goal. And he had the fortitude to be able to understand that, even in America's height of its military power, that we cannot just simply have projection of force everywhere. And we're a lot weaker today than they were in the nineteen eighties.
And yet here in Washington, that is an anathema. You know, even Reagan's greatest defenders they kind of like like to write off what happened in Lebanon. But in this particular case, I would say let us call upon the wisdom of Reagan understood that just because US service members have been killed in this instance, it does not require us to put even more in harm's way and to pour even more you know, basically chasing throwing bad money after good money.
You can actually understand the root of the conflict, where things are going, and very quickly surmise that what's happening in Israel and Gaza is the center of gravity in this conflict and now directly has pulled American service members. The other thing that we forgot to mention Crystal is yet right that the two US Navy Seals were killed. But Michael Tracy actually reminded us this morning, don't forget five Americans were also killed in a training exercise that
was directly linked to what was happening. And you know, we can't forget their deaths either. They would not have been in that area and conducting these kinds of training operations. This was one of our most advanced elite area units, presumably either training for hostage rescue or for some sort of you know, conflict or in the region, and they died in a nighttime exercise, right, you know, very very nearby. So we have ten now basically who can be ascribed
to this. We have at least five who have been directly killed now in combat, and we cannot forget that and just use that as an excuse.
To ratchet up operations.
And I just love, you know, these GOP politicians like, all right, we struck Tehran. Now, what what you think everything's just going to go away? I mean, what's going to happen?
You know? Way more?
And we just saw our air defense systems just just failed in Jordan. Don't forget the Patriots did not shoot down all those blistic missiles inside of Iraq. You are consigning dozens, perhaps even hundreds more Americans to their death in the immediate term as a result of this policy, and nobody even talks about it.
Yeah, so a few other things I want to say about this. I mean, first of all, just keep in mind that some of these psychos, even immediately after October seventh, they were ourd aging for war with Iran and beating the war drums. They will use literally any excuse, whether it's this or anything else, to call for direct war
with Iran. Number two, it's also worthy being in mind that a broader Middle East conflagration that we are directly involved in very much serves the interests of Netanyahu specifically, who, as we've discussed at nauseum, is you know, on a very shortly politically domestically, he's basically hated almost universally in Israel.
At this point, the only chance he has of holding on to his grip on power is to extend the war as long as possible, to expand the war in order to try to claim more military victories, since, if we're being honest, their war on Hamas has been basically a failure. I mean, they haven't gotten the top leadership they have. There was a Wall Street Journal report that they have something like eighty percent of even the tunnel
network in the Gaza Strip is still intact. The number of fighters that they've been able to take out is woefully you know, small compared to the total number of Hamas fighters that are there in the Gaza Strip. All they've been able to do is effectively, you know, destroy civil life and make life a living hell for every one of the two point two million human beings who live in the Gaza Strip. So he needs military victories.
That's why they're looking towards Lebanon. That's why they're looking towards this broader war because not only his interests, but as a fantastic Haretz analysis went through and the interest of everyone who was in power on October seventh and oversaw these security and intelligence failures that led to this you know, horrific attack going forward and the failed response, all of their political heads are on the chopping block.
So every one of them has, even the so called moderates that are part of this coalition, have an interest in keeping this thing going and expanding it and drawing us directly into it. It's always important to keep in mind the motivations that these key players have as we move forward. And you know, the last thing I'll say before we move on to Trump's statement is sadly, just as this attack and the deaths of these US service members were both predictable and preventable, if we continue in
this direction, there will be more deaths. I mean the number of attacks that have already occurred. There was a previous incident, an attack on barracks in Iraq that we were incredibly fortunate that basically like the munition didn't explode, and so those service members got off with relatively minor injuries, which, by the way, you know, the US government has been dramatically downplaying, Oh, it's just a little traumatic brain injury, don't worry about it, as if that's no big deal.
But we are incredibly fortunate up to this point that
there weren't more lives lost of US service members. So sadly, there's just no doubt even if we continue in this direction of unconditional support for Israel and this little tit for tat without going directly at Iran, there will almost certainly be more US service members who lose ose their lives as a result of Joe Biden not wanting to stand up to Israel and fully, fully, unconditionally backing what they are doing in the Gaza strip, shipping the bombs,
expediting the bombs, providing them with diplomatic cover, et cetera. Let me go ahead and put up on the screen. Trump's reaction, of course, he's jumping on this and taking full advantage as he possibly can politically. In a very Trumpian statement, this is like it was a three part thread on True's social This was the second part, which was sort of the most interesting or critical. He says three years ago Iran was weak, broke, and totally under control.
Thanks to my maximum pressure policy. The Iranian regime could barely scrape two dollars together to fund their terrorist proxies. Then Joe Biden came in and gave around billions of dollars, which the regime has used to spread bloodshed and carnage around the Middle East. This attack would never have happened if I was president, not even a chance. Just like the Iranian back to Maas attack on Israel would never have happened, The war in Ukraine would never have happened,
and we would right now have peace throughout the world. Instead, we are on the brink of World War three. Talk about alternative facts and alternative history. I mean very likely Trump's policy versus visa the Israel would be basically identical to Joe Biden, perhaps without the moral hand ringing, the feckless moral hanging hand ringing that you get occasionally from
the Biden administration. So the idea that we wouldn't be still facing these attacks from various militias in the region, I think is pretty fanciable.
I will at least give Trump this.
He didn't call for war with Iron, so I'm going to call it a net benefit for me, so like, at least he hasn't come to that. And I've seen Vivik Ramaswami, Tucker Carlson, others issue very forceful criticism of some of the people who are calling for it. I will say, politically, I've always said this, It is the greatest talking point in the world for him to just be like, it didn't happen under me, and it's happening
under Biden. So you can definitely be assured that that will be that will be featured in debates, campaign commercials.
And others for a return to normalcy.
Even if it may not be true, even if what he would have done, you know, if he were in the White House or not, but he can have the statement of, well, it would never.
Have happened if I was still the president.
So anyway, Yeah, I wanted to fly that in particular because electorally, let's say that foreign policy does become a deciding factor in the election, or instead of foreign policy, think of it like the withdrawal from Afghanistan. The withrawal from Afghanistan. Nobody really voted on the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Nobody would even particularly say that's the number one reason.
But there was a feeling of chaos, malaise, and things being out of control under Biden that led to the initial approval rating that he had over fifty percent dip below. So with this, I could see Trump trying to make this as part of an overwhelming of an overall case. The problem is, of course, if he's like, well, return to normal, is that he can't himself be trying to instill chaos. But there is you know, it could be a potent talking point if Biden finds himself deep.
Enough listen Biden's support for Israel.
As we're going to talk to the mayor of Dearborn, who's a Democrat who wouldn't even meet with his campaign team because he's disgusted over biden support for what he describes and what the UN has the ICJ has now said is plausibly a genocide that we are very much complicit in. So I just saw a poll that came out. Biden's approval rating among eighteen to twenty nine year olds is twenty seven percent. Twenty seven percent. So already this
is an electoral disaster. I mean, that's the least of our concerns, right now, but it's already an electoral disaster. You continue with the escalations, you continue allowing you as service members to be killed in their beds in the Middle East, in countries that the American people don't even know we still have service members in. Yeah, it's absolutely,
it's absolutely a disaster. The last thing before we move on to what's going on with UNRWA eight suspension, I just want to give people the numbers so you understand when I say this is directly linked to the policy with Israel. These attacks are directly correlated to it, because we can see in the numbers. This was highlighted by front of the show doctor Tree de Parsi, who said there were about sixty attacks by these type of milicias against US troops between January twenty twenty one and March
twenty twenty three. So that's over basically a two year period after the Gaza War. Just since October seventh, there have been more than one hundred and sixty attacks, except during these six days when there was a ceasefire in Gaza, then the attacks completely stopped. We know what the answer is to bring safety insecurity to our service members in
the region. Not to mention to you know, to deal with the humanity of people in Gaza, by the way, also the ultimate long term security of citizens of Israel. We know what the answer is, but our insane foreign policy, completely unmoored from reality, leads them to take actions that
they don't even think are going to succeed. You know, That's what the other thing I keep thinking about is our Like we have them admitting Biden admitting that he knew the you know, Red Sea attacks on the Houthi residy, you knew they weren't going to work, but they were going to continue anyway.
It's like, then what the hell are we doing?
We had Tony Blinken admitting there's no military solution to Hamas, Then what the hell are we supporting?
And it's the same thing. It doesn't need a logic.
They just escalate because they think that's the thing that people expect them to do. And we've got psychos like Lindsay Graham and co. Out there pushing them to go to war with Iran. It is an unbelievably dangerous situation, absolutely right, All right, let's go ahead and move on
to another huge story here. So on the very day that the ICJ ruled Israel is plausibly committing a genocide eating the Gaza strip and you know, compelled them to take actions to end those assaults, which are contributing to the potential genocide conditions on that very day, and that
timing is not an accident. Israel released intelligence to the US that twelve employees of the UNRWA, that's a UN refugee agency that deals with Palestinian aid were involved in some way in the October seventh attacks.
Let's put this up on the screen.
This allegation, the details of which have not been released to the public, by the way, And you know, maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but we certainly know the Israeli government has been caught lying many times in the past, including in the context.
Of October seventh.
Those allegations have led eight countries and the US SO nine countries total to stop funding that critical UN AID agency in Gaza. The numbers I saw, there's something like thirteen thousand UNRWA staffers in Gaza. Twelve of them are accused of being somehow involved in October seventh.
Put this next one up on the screen.
Action.
Those who were accused.
Have actually already been fired by the UNRWA. In addition, I think two of the dozen who were accused or actually have actually already been killed, but the others have been let go. And so at the very moment, Sager, when the ICJ is saying, you have to allow in more humanitarian aid, Gazans are starving, you have to end
the conditions that could be contributing to a genocide. On that very day, the response from the US is to cut the funding to the most essential aid organization in the Gaza strip, thereby further denying Palestinian's access to the basics of life that they are required, all because of the allegations against a tiny, tiny, tiny, minuscule.
Fraction of the staffers there who are on the ground.
Yeah, Israel and the UNRWA have always had a let's say, a bad relationship, especially most recently between the UN and the Human rights organization.
Their general allegation is about those twelve.
There was also an interesting new piece It literally just broke this morning, so I was just reading it right now, Crystal from the Wall Street Journal, where they estimate the Israeli shared with the Journal and claim that about ten percent of its Gaza staff quote have ties to Islamist militant groups. The thing is, though, is that as I began reading a much of this came down to like guilt by association.
They shay that.
Twelve hundred to twelve of the twelve hundred thousand employees quote have links, and by links they just say that they have close relatives who belong to the militant groups.
This is part of the problem that I have.
With a lot of this is that look, look, you can if these twelve people were involved in the attack, obviously horrible, you should be fired, et cetera. But in general, there seems to be like a lack of reality about who was governing the Gaza Strip.
It's obviously Hamas.
Also, guys, you can't be a member of a rival part in the Gaza Strip under the Hamas leadership and not be targeted for death. It's kind of the same thing that we could have said whenever we invited Iraq and we're like, oh, well, they were belonging.
To the Bath Party.
It's like, yeah, but you had to belong to the Bath Party if you wanted to do the most basics of civil government. Now know this is again according to it is really intelligence estimate and more, I think it's probably almost certainly.
An attempt, you know, to try and to.
Cut off because the UNRWA has been such a vocal and potent critic of Israel, and anytime you can try and to diminish the organization, especially in the eyes of the West. The bigger problem that I see here is that we just seem to be taking the Israeli's word for it themselves, because the US and its statement did not immediately say whether it had its own intelligence to
that effect. Furthermore, as I said, with this Wall Street Journal report, it is relying entirely on Israeli military estimates, which certainly could be true, but they need to declassify the intelligence share it with the world. I mean, you're going to be going after the people who are the only ones who are actually delivering humanitarian aid, well, then you need to provide some evidence, you know, really to
that effect. So this is actually a very tried and true strategy that we saw during the Iraq War and more, and we're seeing the Israelies play it out here again. And obviously it's to their domestic political benefit, Like let's not forget that.
Yeah, So I think there's a few things going on here. First of all, there's that high level like philosophical conflict between Israel and the un RWA. The full name of that agency is the United Nations Relief and Works Agency
for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. And so their contention is basically like, by allowing Palestinians who were you know, kicked off their land and multi generations of Palestinians to continue to see themselves as refugees, it keeps them from integrating into the surrounding communities and basically like giving up their you know, claim to any sort of a state. So that's the especially on the right, the philosophical opposition
to the UNRWA. That's so they're always looking for a way to you know, attack them, undercut them, et cetera. There's also the level of again it's not an accident that these allegations were put out there and the US funding cut on the very day of the ICJ ruling. It's a classic distraction tactic as well, and you know,
the US news media immediately took it up. You know, the the ICJ ruling, which is incredibly consequential, you know, which basically sided with South Africa on every piece but did stop short of calling directly for a ceasefire, although it did say, hey, you've got to stop doing the things that are creating the conditions that could plausibly be
a jedocide. That incredibly consequential ruling got buried in the Western press by these allegations about the the UNRWA, and it also fits, you know, hand and glove with a strategy they use. It's a meme at this point of like anyone who disagrees with them or that they don't like is hamas. You know, the UN is hamas, the hospital workers are hamas, the schools are hamas, the premature
babies that were left to die or apparently hamas. So anyone that South Africa was they they at the ICJ argue South Africa's basically Hamas are doing Hamas is bidding. So that is their you know, their strategy. And listen again, I don't I don't put it totally out of the question that with a large agency of thirteen thousand people that there aren't a few that had some hand in October se.
I don't put that out of the question.
That's right.
The answer to that isn't if that is indeed what happened, which we should not take these relies at their word on anything, but if that is indeed something that happened, okay, you fire them, You weed out.
The bad apples, and you move forward.
Because the mission of the UNRWA has never been more critical than right now, when you have half of all people in the Gaza Strip starving, when you have eighty percent going regularly with on a single meal a day, you have effectively the entire population completely displaced, living in squalor, communicable diseases spreading like wildfire, no sanitation, no clean drinking water, no basic medical supplies. Okay, their mission has never been
more critical. And so again to see the response of the US on the day when this spicyj says they may be committing a genocide and pointing routinely to the humanitarian conditions. This is really at the center of that ruling, pointing routinely to the humanitarian conditions facing Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, and our response is, let's make those humanitarian conditions even worse because of some allegations that the Israelis
have put in front of us. I mean, it's just it's outrageous, it's absolutely outrageous.
There's no other word for it.
Yeah, so you flagged one of our producers an interesting segment that came from within the Israeli government that kind of specifically talks about targeting you in OURDWA.
Only days ago, so earlier this month, just on January fourth, a former Israeli official was basically testifying in front of the Panesse and we can put this up on the screen. I'll just paraphrase what she's saying here in Hebrew. But she directly targets the un RWA and says it will be impossible to win the war if the un r WA is not destroyed. And her point is basically sort
of like what I was saying. Oh, well, they they create and propagate this idea that leads to the creation of more and more terrorists.
Well, what is that idea?
The idea is that Palestinians have a legitimate rights and legitimate rights to statehood. Whereas you know, people like this and many others ideologically believe that even the sort of like theoretical concept of the UNRWA leads Palestinians to continue to hold out hope that they want to see them lose.
They want to see them abandon that hope. And so it's very noteworthy that you have just earlier this month, not very long ago, this official testifying before the parliament, before the Israeli Parliament, saying we have to destroy the UNRWA, and then lo and behold, they roll out these allegations that lead to the US and a bunch of other countries cutting the funding and very much threatening the future
survival of the UNRWA. Again, Saga at a time when its mission has never been more vital and never been more critical.
There's also been some major domestic turmoil inside of Israel where there's a group of protesters who are actually blocking any humanitarian aid from entering the Gaza strip.
Let's put this up there on the screen.
This is from the tides of Israel, they say, for a second day in a row, protesters are blocking aid reaching Gaza from Israel, including some families of hostages at the Karamshalo and border crossing, urging the government to not allow any supplies in until captives held by the terrorists are freed. So it's interesting to me, Crystal, because there are ceasefire protesters in Israel who I've watched get cracked.
Down upon almost immediately.
But these protesters who have been blocking eight have been very much allowed. And I think it obviously fits with the general orientation of the Netanyahu government and of the different ways in which they're pulled, where if you're against the war, or even really if you're against a war strategy, not even against the war itself, then they are very willing to crack down, to use the state, to throw
you in jail and to break it up. But if you are I wouldn't even say pro war, but if you were like pro the aims of the right wing government, which does certainly advance them, then they allow it to happen. It's one of the most classic examples of like using the laws selectively that we watch happen domestically. And it is clear too about which message that they want to allow to propagate inside of their media for their domestic populous.
Yeah, that's that's absolutely correct.
So some of the family members of hostages were involved in these protests to cut off aid. Others, as I know you guys covered last week, stormed the knethe and are furious because it has become incredibly apparent and undeniable that the aims of the war are inconsistent with the aims of bringing the hostages home. I mean, it's just sort of basic logic that if you're bombing the hell out of a place, you're putting all the people who are there at risk.
The only time they have.
Had any success at bringing hostages back was during that brief ceasefire, those six days of a brief ceasefire.
That was the only time.
And in fact, you know, of course, they murdered some of their own hostages because they thought they were Palestinians in spite of the fact that they were, you know, trying to surrender and had their shirts off to show they weren't a threat, et cetera, et cetera. So the capability of having the intelligence or the ability or the wherewithal or whatever to go in and militarily get these hostages out, that has not worked whatsoever. So you know, that continues to be a pressure point for the net
Yahoo government. I'm sure you saw Soccar. There's some new supposed potential hostage deal and there's a potential two month long ceasefire that is being in some stages of negotiation. We'll see whether that comes to fruition or not. But I think part of the reason why that would even be on the table is certainly because of the domestic
upset within Israel. I also think that the ICJ ruling I do think that is putting pressure on the Israeli government because they, you know, could become a pariahs state the way that South Africa did. This is the first time that the word genocide by any sort of international body has even been, you know, associated with Israel. What's soever, you have seen the way that some of their comments
have been, at times moderated. We're hearing less, for example, about all the ethnic cleansing plans, although we're starting to hear more about it as they see that the US is going to back them no matter what. But also critically, some of the countries that they were reportedly going to, like the Congo to say, hey, will you take in these Palestine refugees, they're now saying absolutely not, because they don't want to aid and abt what has been deemed
plausibly genocide by an international body. So those are some of the pressure points that are leading to maybe some sort of renewed deal with regard to the hostages and some temporary cessation of their assault on Gaza.
With regard to the.
Response from the US to the ICJ's ruling, I mean, it's just they continue to completely gaslight about what the International Court of Justice is even said. Let's take a listen to this is John Kirby, who has you know, really won some awards here in terms of his shameless level of propaganda getting asked about that ruling and the US response.
Let's take a listen to some of that.
Our disagreement over founding claim of the allegation causes any permanent damage to the bilateral.
Relationship with South Africa.
We just happened to disagree on that point, but we're also going to keep working to on that relationship as we do many others.
So you fundamentally believe the US.
They claim that the US is supporting a genocidal state, that is not going to impact.
Relations I don't believe I heard that from South Africa. South Africa filed a case based on allegations that they believe genocide was being conducted by Israel in Gaza. I don't believe it was directed at US at all. We simply have said consistently we find that that that claim is unfounded. And you know, the court also did not find Israel guilty of GENI side.
The court did not find Israel guilty of genocide, he says there, which is incredible gaslighting because they were not ruling on the merits at this point, something he surely knows that decision will take years of evaluating the evidence. However, in that ruling, which I read every word of, they basically cited with South Africa on every critical claim, including citing some specific language of pop Israeli officials, including President Hertzog,
as being potential incitement to genocide. And so, you know, even though the US is not directly named in this case at the ICJ, it's very clear our direct complicity, which creates was just put it mildly some challenges for US officials and certainly for you know, propaganda spinmasters like John Kirby in terms of how we approach it, because this is an administration soccer as you know, that has loved to talk.
A big game about the quote unquote.
International rules of you know, international rules based order when it serves their interests and when it goes against the baddy countries like Russia that we don't like. But suddenly we see not that this was any surprise, and not that we've been consistent in the past, but there is a giant Israel shaped exception to any sort of international rules based order as backed by the United States of America.
Yeah, I mean they push it against Putin. They're like, oh, we want to make them an international para, and now all of that is completely out the window. It is embarrassing for them almost certainly. And you're right, you know, in terms of the way that they parse the language they want. They want international institutions to be convenient for their foreign policy whenever it aligns, but then disregard it. It's like, guys, that's not how it's supposed to work.
Like you either agree or not, especially in this case because the US is party to the ICJ. But yeah, Ryan did a great job, by the way of breaking it down for everybody with the PARSI, the actual thing. I encourage people to go watch that if you're interested in the details. Any last thoughts on the ICJ, Crystal before we go on to Pelosi.
Yeah, the last thing I'll say is one, it's interesting the way that the US media spun the ICJ ruling, because I think you and I both to be curious your thoughts as well. When we first we're reading the US media reports before we actually could read the text of the ruling, I was like, and I tried to, you know, sort of like have it both ways. Kind of a win for Israel, it's kind of a win for South Africa. They're clearly, you know, politically trying to
maintain their legitimacy. When I actually read through the text, of course I wanted to see them go further and call for a full and complete cease fire. But it was a much more dramatic loss for Israel then I would have thought based on the US media reports, because as I said, you know, as they go through plane by claim from South Africa. I mean, first of all, on all the technical legal matters, do they have standing, is there a dispute, etc.
They agree with.
South Africa in terms of concern for the humanitarian situation and buying Israel's bs about oh, we're shipping in plenty of eid, etc.
They don't buy that.
And then as I mentioned, you know, they cite specific comments from yo of Galot, the Defense minister, the ones about you know, it's a siege, we're dealing with human animals, will treat them as such those comments from him, they cite the words of Israeli President Isaac Hertzog saying there are no uninvolved civilians, and they cite another Israeli minister in a post that he put on Twitter that hadn't even really come to my attention before, but also spoke
to the sort of complete siege conditions that they were subjecting all Palestinians in the Gaza strip too. So as you go through, it seems very much that they gave a lot more credence to the South African side and for them to say, yes, we do believe plausibly that these conditions could be contributing to Jenis. I saw one analysis that said it would be difficult for them to call for a ceasefire because they have no power over
Hamasmas is a state actor. They're not party to the ICJ and the Genocide Convention, so all they can do is compel Israeli actions, and they're telling them to stop all of the things that are creating these conditions a plausible genocide. So it does go a bit further than I initially thought based on the media reports.
And the other thing is Netanyahu is clearly.
Furious about the ruling and attacked in all the ways you would think s anti Semitic, blah blah blah. But also you know, as they move forward, if they continue to prosecute this war in this fashion, they do find themselves at risk of it'll take a while years down the road, but actually having been found to be committing genocide. The last thing that Saga I found incredibly significant is just how nearly unanimous it was. There is no way in hell I thought the America and judge was going
to go along with a ruling like this. No way in hell. You even had the Israeli ad hoc judge that they chose going along with pieces of this ruling. And there was just one judge from your GODA, which I don't know what was going on with her, but who objected to the whole thing. Everybody else was pretty much unanimous. So that's the other reason I thought this was actually quite significant, because I figured they just played politics.
I figured they'd find some technical loophole. Like I said, there's no way I thought the American judge would go along with the ruling saying yes, they're plausibly committing genocide. But that's exactly what we saw, so it actually is kind of astonishing.
Yeah, I actually agree with that.
I actually thought that the ruling was good because what the ruling did is it said that war is acceptable. We are not going to call on the ability to not wage war. What we're saying is that the way you are waging war is contravening to the articles that we have under the ICJ, and they cite specific instances, and they also were like, you can continue to conduct war.
It falls in line with the general theory of you have a right to self defense, you have a right to go after people who have attacked you, but that there are lines within that the general conduct of nations
that are party to the ICJ. And then let's even take the ICG out of it and just see the general Western consensus whenever you have a war, advanced Western style military that's going after a paramilitary group, a terrorist organization, or insurgent group in the way that you could even compare how different Israel's military response has been from the way that the United States conductive self during the counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq, in Afghanistan. Just the level of care
for humanitarian for civilians and others. I'm not going to say we're perfect, but I think you can compare the two and say that they're dramatically different. My point only just being there, that what the ICJ ruling said is you have a right to conduct war, you have a right to defend yourself. The way that you have done this, combined with the statements of many of your gubinatorial ministers, has been such that it seems you plausibly could be
committing ethnic cleansing and or genocide. And so if you want to avoid such charges, you should change the way that you conduct the war. So in that, I again, look, I generally believe international law and all that is fake because, as you said, how can they enforce it. Also, HAMAS is a non governmental organized it's a non state actor. It literally is not party to any of this, So
any of it doesn't matter per se. But if we understand it just in the way that Western militaries behave and have behaved in the post World War two era and such the ICJ Geneva Conventions and all of those were agreed upon amongst each other about this is kind of the way that we can conduct war. Yes, total war is a different story, like we were used to be in and if we ever find ourselves in such a one such again, then the probably won't be abiding this.
But within this general framework, this is how we act and sow the US you know, held the Russian military, for example, to this standard whenever they're conducting war in Ukraine. Then we can see clearly this is outside of that realm. So within that I thought it was actually quite a good ruling. And I also think to bolster what you said, Crystal, is that this is going to dramatically increase pressure for that CEASEPOT because in Netanyahu and the rest of the
Israeli public are not stupid. They are a small country. They rely upon the behest of international trade. And if you reduce the amount of international trade that you're able to conduct, and you know, you've got all these great technology companies in Tel Aviv and all that, you've got to sell it to somebody, You've got to license it to somebody. That's largely the backbone of the entire Israeli economy, on top of all of the imports that make Tel
Aviv and Israel function as a nation state. If you reduce that even by fifteen percent, imagine, imagine if the US economy contracted by fifteen percent, or our imports went down by fIF it'd be a catastrophe for the way that we live our overall life. I think it will
dramatically increase pressure for a two months cease fire. I talked about a bit with last time with Ryan two and I was like, look, I think you know, at this stage in the game, especially given the inability for them so far to achieve their military aims and others, if the guns stopped firing for two months, it is very likely they are not turning on in the same way. Again, I'm not going to say there will be no military action,
but the same way that they conduct themselves. Just given the amount of international pressure, other this sigh of relief from the West and others, and the eventual pressure that would build up to that point, it's extraordinarily unlikely that they can continue. But maybe that's why they don't want to agree. They just want to muscle through and just keep going. I'm not sure what they're going to do.
I don't need I'm not sure either. Just a couple more points on that. I thought Ryan made a really good point about the no enforcement mechanism piece, which is true, which We've said a number of times, which is accurate. But I mean, it's the same thing as our Supreme Court doesn't have an enforcement mechanism, which is kind of a live issue right now with what's.
Going on at the border.
But the reason it has power is because people give
it credence and power. And so that's the whole idea of legitimacy of the ICJ and these other international bodies is do people pay attention to the rulings, do they abide by them, or do they thumb their nose, Because yeah, if the whole with the US and our European allies and Israel thumbs our nose and says, okay, you think that they're plausibly committing genocide and you've compelled them, you know, to do all these certain things to prevent those conditions
and also, by the way, to go after some of these ministers who are inciting genocide. If we just say no, then yeah, there's no enforcement mechanism, there's no legitimacy. It's the exact same thing with our Supreme Court. The thing that gives it legitimacy is that we all agree it has legitimacy and we pay attention to its rulings, So I think it's important to keep that in mind with regard to the quote unquote lack of enforcement mechanism. There's going to be a UN Security Council likely vote on
this this week. We'll see what the US does. But you know, everybody should be incredibly discouraged by the fact that our immediate reaction was to cut the very aid that the ICJ says should be increasing. Our response was, how about we cut the funding and actually decrease the amount of humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in this moment of apps crisis. And then the last thing that all well,
two other things. Russia was sort of set up. They had sort of planned the contingency plan for if we become a pariah state, We'll have our economy and our government set up to be able to deal with that, and you know, alternative world powers, including you know, a close relationship with China, to be able to cope with that. And so it hasn't been painless, but they've been able to get through it. Israel is not set up like that.
Israel is incredibly dependent on foreign direct investment, on you know, capital flowing into the country. They're very dependent on this global tech sector, which is really, you know, both a source of like economic prosperity and also incredible national pride. So they are not prepared economically to be that Paria state. And the last thing I will say on this is, you know, the US we pick and choose when we
feel like listening to international law when we don't. You know, we have been complete hit pocrits on this basically since the beginning. We just decide when and how we're going to pay attention to this. But Europe has approached this in a more consistent way, and so it will be a much more difficult thing for the EU and the constituent European nations to go against what the ICJ is saying here and what they continue to say going forward,
because this isn't over. They will also be assessing whether Israel is meeting their obligations that have now been set forth by the International Court of Justice. So and the e use a huge trading partner for as one of their top trading partners for Israel. So the stakes, you know, the stakes do exist. It's not nothing. And I think you could already see in some Israeli actions the way that this has mattered.
An absolutely stunning moment on CNN when CNN's Dana Bash had on former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to ask her about cesfire protesters, in which Pelosi intimated that these ceasefire protesters are actually doing the bidding of Vladimir Putin.
Here's what she had to say.
They're in front of my house all the time, so I have a feeling for what feelings they have. But we have to think about what we're doing, and what we have to do is try to stop the suffering and gossip. This is women and children. People don't have a place to go, so let's address that. But for them to call for a ceasefire is mister Putin's message. Mister Putin's message, Make no mistake. This is directly connected to what he would like to see. Same thing with Ukraine.
It's about Putin's message. I think some of these some of these protesters are spontaneous and organic and sincere. Some I think are connected to Russia. And I say that having looked at this for a long time now as you.
Can you think some of these protests are Russian plants?
Say they're plants. I think some financing should be investigated, and I want to ask the FBI to investigate that. But apart from that, let's just say it's all spontaneous and sincere. Let's say it's all spontaneous and sincere. Young people care about the right to choose. They care about LGBTQ issues, they care about preserving the planet, they care about gun violence prevention, that's what they tell us. They care about our democracy and the freedoms that are contained
in some of what I said. So they're going to have to make a decision.
Okay, there's a lot to go into there. First of all, it's pretty wild to say that they are Russian fact. Second though, notice immediately what she calls for, I want the FBI to investigate that. So this is like nineteen sixties level calls. And what's crazy to me is that this is not an immediate national scandal. I'm curious what you think, Crystal. I mean, I don't know if a brain is so broken that you can always just go
back to putin. But she does seem to believe this, like Russia Gate has so rotted her brain that, you know, the Russia example, the Russia is the first thing that she can reach for. FBI you know, investigating Americans seems to be the second thing that she wants to reach for here. But I mean, this is truly stunning. This is one of the most powerful Democrats in the entire country.
I mean, she's certainly old enough to go back to those co Intel pro days, so I guess she's just reaching back into her history from the old bagatrix. But not that that ever really fully stopped. No, it's stunning that this woman, who continues to be an incredibly powerful individual, one of the most powerful people in the country, would call for the FBI to investigate ceasefire protesters, the vast majority of whom, by the way, are the Democratic Parties base.
I mean, the Democratic Party base is wildly at odds with where Biden and Pelosi are on this issue. I mean, among twenty twenty Biden voters, I think we may even have this fifty percent actually think that Israel is committing
a genocide, and another thirty percent aren't too sure. You got eighty percent of people who voted for Joe Biden who say, you know, either they are committing a genocide or they may be committing a genocide against Palestinine civilians and Joe Biden obviously has backed them with that one hundred and ten percent expediting the weapons shipments. So it is very rare to see an issue where the elite of the party are so dramatically at odds and directly
antagonistic with their own voting base of support. So that's one thing I would say in terms of where this comes from. I mean, I think that these Democrats, that the top leadership are so out of touch that they just can't fathom that young people actually genuinely, wildly disagree with their policy and are intelligent enough to have formulated their own opinions outside of the Democratic Party media propaganda machine,
and they do not agree with what you're doing. And it didn't take Vladimir Putin or Russian financing or anything else for them to come to this position. It wasn't the TikTok algorithms. It's not because they're Russian plants. It's because they think you are aiding and embetting a genocide and they.
Got a little bit of a problem with that.
The other thing that I would say, Socer that I found very noteworthy at the beginning of her comments. You probably took note of this as well, is that The first thing out of her mouth is like, yeah, they're outside of my house all the time. And I do think that's where some of the like personal animus and the rub comes from, because it's again it's at odds with her own self conception, and she sees herself as
this like liberal feminist trail blazer. She thinks that young people should be yes queening her, and if they're not, it's not because of something she did or something the Democratic Party did. It must be some problem with them, or it must not be truly reflective of how they really feel about her or really feel about these policy issues.
So what does she go for?
She goes for, you know, the easiest sugar high the biggest source of derangement of the Democratic Party over the course of these past eight years or so, the Russiagate conspiracy, to try to conceptualize how these young people could possibly disagree with her Liberal Queen Nancy Pelosi.
Yeah, no, I mean, there's there's just so much egotism behind the comments. But it also just reminds me of something that really was normalized under the Russigate era, where you could just plausibly say that people American citizens are committing treason and receive virtually no pushback. Even think about Dane to Bash there, she's like, oh, you think that they're Russian backed, It's not like, hold on a second, what single scrap of evidence do you have to back
that up? And it goes back to, for example, you know, Hillary Clinton accusing Tulsea Gabbert of being a Russian asset and all these things. These just became normalized such that it's like you were literally saying that people are committing treason or they are agents of foreign governments, these are prosecutable crimes, and then beyond the rhetoric of that, you're actually arguing for the FBI to immediately come in and
step in to investigate said Americans. Says this has been so normalized now from the Russia Gate era and then extended during the whole January sixth investigation such that it extends to everybody. It's like a blanket security threat really from the top, where the former House Speaker, most powerful Democrat in the entire country can just go on national television and the host just doesn't even seem like she needs to follow up beyond just reiterating the claim just
to make sure that she said it. I was actually more stunned by that, even more, not just the comment, but by the casualness which was greed by the same She should know better to just let that fly.
Yeah.
Absolutely, And to your point about no evidence, you know, she loves to do the same. And remember Adam Schiff was like the king of doing this during the height of the Russia Gate era, where he would intimate that he has some special knowledge about what's going on because he's been read in by the intel community, or he has some secret information that he can just hint at but he can't really fully put out to the public.
And she pulls that same trick here.
She says like something to the fact that, well, I've been looking into this for a long time, and based on what I've seen, we need to investigate the financing. I'm going to ask for the FBI to investigate the financing. She offers nothing in the way of evidence or support. It's just an appeal to this potential secret knowledge that she may have. I guess because the protesters show up at her house, Senate irritates her that they disagree with
her on this policy. The other thing that I just have to say is I find it so incredibly patronizing and deeply offensive when she says calling for a ceasefire is quote mister Putin's message, because again, it takes all the agency away from the by the way overwhelming majority of Americans, not just Democrats, but Americans who want a ceasefire because in spite of all the media propaganda, they still see some of these images of children under the
rubble and babies dying and getting bombed, and they say, this is horrible, and I want it to stop. To think that that can only come from some sort of nefarious place. I just find it so deeply insulting and offensive that you could even formulate those words.
Yeah, no, I think you're right.
That's a perfect transition actually to the dearborn Michigan mayor, mister Abdullahamood, who's actually on standby waiting to join us.
Let's get to it.
Joining us now is the mayor of dearborn Michigan, of du Lahamoud, mister Mayor, thank you so much for joining us.
We really appreciate it.
Thank you so much for having.
Me absolutely so you came to our attention recently. Let's put this up there on the screen where you have canceled with a Biden campaign manager meeting over the unconditional
support by the President for Israel. Given that you are the mayor of one of the most prominent Arab American towns you know in the United States with a large population, we wanted you to join us and to tell us a little bit about your decision not to meet with the Biden campaign and some of the electoral politics that inform that you know.
From our perspective, we believe just that that this is actually not a moment for electoral politics. If we want to talk about Palestinians and what's unfolding in Araza. This is not an issue of campaigning and poll numbers. This is an issue that is before us through a lens of humanity. And so if we want to have a conversation about changing course for this White House administration, about how they move forward, I don't have that conversation with
campaign staffers. I have that conversation with policy makers.
I see.
So you would be open, for example, to speaking with the President or his advisors directly.
It was more the idea that they would.
Reach out from a campaign and electoral perspective that you found. I don't know if you'd say offensive, how would you describe that?
I mean, this is day one thirteen or one fourteen now, and up until this point, there has not been a single member of the administration that's made it out to the city of Deerborn to have a conversation about what's happening. And so for us, it's extremely dehumanizing that the first time this actually occurs is when you send out your campaign manager. Yes, we would be open to have a conversation with any individual that wants to have a constructive
dialogue about how to move things forward. But if you want to have a photo op, if you want to say that you listened or spoke to the Air American community just to have that talking point, that's not a conversation that we're going to give in on or a conversation we want to.
Be a part of.
Yeah, Mayor, we've watched with some interest around the dynamics within this. As you said, you know you didn't want this to be part of electoral politics. Almost certainly why that they reached out to you with some previous data, for example, we can put up here on the screen shows just how critical the Arab American vote was in the state of Michigan for twenty twenty. What would you say then to President Biden? You know electoral politics can be downstream than of policy.
What would you say if you were.
To be able to meet with him about the concerns that you have in amongst your constituents.
You know, I think immediately I would say is we have set up very low bar as a community. We want to backup president that does not support a genocide. You want a backup president who believes in a value principle that I hope all Americans believe in. There's no justification for the killing of any innocent man, woman, or child.
That is a very simple statement.
And if you oppose that statement or disagree with that statement, we're trying to add an asterisk to that statement or a qualifier that says more about your moral compass than it says about anything else. And so that that's what I would tell the president were you here. We want to have meaningful dialogue. We want to immediately demand a cease fire to end the onslaught and the killing of innocent men, women, and children, But we have to have
a constructive pathy moving forward. The argument of the lesser of two evils, the idea that Trump is will destroy American democracy. That is a question that needs to be put back into the hands and the lapse of the current president. What will you do to avoid the American democracy from being threatened by a Trump reelection?
How are you navigating that question? And what are you hearing from your constituents, Because as you know, and you've probably been told directly, basically, the Biden camp thinks they'll get over it when they think about Trump.
On the other side, you know, is their other.
Choice on the ticket, who's called for a Muslim ban and would probably also be fully backing the jedocide. They'll come to their senses in their view, and they'll vote for Joe Biden. Once again, what are you hearing from your constituents about how they're navigating that question. How are you thinking about that question with your own moral compass.
You know, we have residents who have had loved ones buried under the rubble and their residential towers after being bombed by Israeli fighter jets. We've had loved ones who have lost twelve plus family members. That is not something you ever forget about now, and not in a matter of a few hundred days before an election season something
that you just move past. You know, I've run for office four times now, previously as Air representative and now as mayor, and each time the question falls on the candidate, what will they do to earn the vote and the
trust of the constituency that they're trying to represent. That's not a question you put back on the community of how dare you potentially allow somebody to threaten our democracy back into office, the candidate has to win over the residents of the country they're trying to serve, and really that that question to be put back to the president.
You know, people have tried to come to us and say this is, you know, strictly an American issue or a Muslim American issue, and I also disagree with that notion. Over eighty percent of Democrats believe a ceasefire is a right pathway forward. Hack the majority of Republicans believe that
a ceasefire is a right path forward. And so I think it's time for the White House and for our Congression leaders to hear what Americans are asking for and to deliver on the promise of being decent human beings and bringing decency back to that White House.
Let me ask you this, mister Mayor.
The undertone of a lot of what you're saying is that some people are not necessarily going to vote for Biden just because he tells me to say so. So we had an organizer for the Ceasefire of New Hampshire here on the show and we asked him explicitly.
He said, okay, like what is the goal of this.
Is it just to send a message to President Biden or is it actually threatened, you know, his ability to potentially get reelected? And he said, solely, it was just trying to get a message to President Biden who he remains and who he supports. So where do you stand kind of in that heuristic of looking at this issue.
You know, our primary elections are in about, you know, less than thirty days, and we are you know, I am not at this point committed to voting for Joe Biden. I'm not committed to voting for President Joe Biden in November. I think what you're going to see is a majority of my community, majority of Deerbynites, set this presidential election out. And more than just a presidential election, it's also the US Senate.
We don't have a front running candidate who's.
Also called for a ceasefire, and so I think what the Democrat's risk is not only losing the White House but also flipping the US Senate back to Republican stronghold.
And so for us, that's what's that risk.
And if you believe that being attached to Benjamin Natanya, who's right wing government, is worth that sacrifice, then by all means, move forward and you'll see the consequences in.
November mayor what would you need to see from this president for him to earn your support?
You know, it's hard to even come up with the list of things of what would it take to earn support. I think for me, it's what would it take for even for us to begin to have a dialogue along that pathway. And the immediate thing again is to call for the ceasefire. You know, we can't continually read about nearly two hundred people being murdered each and every single day that we wake up for dearborn, for us, this
is very much real. These are our parents' villages that are being bombed, our Palish villages that are being ethnically cleansed, our family members that are buried under the rebel.
And So for us, we need decency.
We need to be dignified and respected for the human beings that we are, and not only political calculations that are taking into account whenever elections come around.
Wow, finally, Mayor, we covered a moment ago Nancy Pelosi's comments basically saying that the ceasefire protesters are being funded by Russia, that this is Vladimir Putin's message. What is your response to that.
The Democratic leadership is in disarray.
I cannot believe that in a moment in twenty twenty four and twenty twenty three, the word ceasefire has become the most controversial term, and somehow Vladimir Putin is actually the one who wants to lead with diplomatic efforts. That the idea that our Pope would renewed calls for a ceasefire might potentially be a Russian operative. But I think this is an opportunity for us to really have a conversation about what's happening with the Democratic Party because we have to hold them account.
We really appreciate you taking the time, sir, and we appreciate what you had to say today.
Thank you, thank you so much for.
We had to fit something fun into this show and what do we have. We have a story here about Taylor Swift. No, this is not going to be about the Swifty Super Bowl, although I'm sure that we'll have a lot of commentary to save on that front for the future. This is about a craze which has swept the media, elevated all the way to the White House, and is a genuinely divisive issue where I'm not even sure where either Chris or I stand.
So I'm fun it's going to be fun to discuss it.
There have been AI deep fake nude images of Taylor Swift and many other celebrities that have been circulating online. Now it's not necessarily something new, it's something that's actually existed for a long time, and yet there has somehow now been a streisand effect such that some of the most senior leaders both in ai and in the nation are now being asked about this as if it's some sort of national security issue bubbled to the surface whenever
Lesser holds. NBC News sat down with the Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella to ask him specifically what he was going to do about this and what guardrails are in place for AIU that's such so called deep fake nude images and others do not circulate as we get closer to some even more advanced AI technology.
Here's what they had to say.
The Internet is exploding with fake and I emphasize fake sexually explicit images of Taylor Swift. What does that tell you about this technology? And whether we could ever get the toothpaste back in the tube.
I'd tak two things.
One is, again I go back to I think what's our responsibility, which is all of the guardrails that we need to place around the technology so that there's more safe content that's being produced. And there's a lot to be done there and a lot being done there, and we can do especially when you have law and law enforcement and tech platforms that can come together. I think we can govern a lot more than we think we give ourselves creditable.
Does it set alarm bell off in terms of what can be done? You're Microsoft, You've got a high social corporate responsibility. There are other players in this game who may not have that same benefit.
I think, first of all, absolutely, this is alarming and terrible, and so therefore yes we have to add.
So Chris, Okay, I'm curious what you think, because this has become now a national issue such that even though White House is being asked about this, Okay, let's put this up there on the screen. They were specifically asked they said there as what are you going to do about it? Should Congress take legislative action to address fake abusive images online? We are alarmed by the circulation of the false images, Karige Jean Pierre told reporters, So I
have to try and separate this where I think. Look, I think it's terrible that it happens to anybody, and yet for some reason it becomes a national issue legislatively, it seems like you should probably be dealt with, like
with deep fakes. But also there seems to be some sort of weird strisand effit going on here where I didn't even know that these existed until I start seeing the NBC News Lester Whole interview, then the White House getting asked about this, now Congress having deliberative action, and then we'll get to what Twitter has done in their response.
But anyway, your reaction.
Yeah, I mean, I don't know.
I have to say I feel a little bit complicated about it.
I guess in terms of Taylor Swift.
I actually have the least sympathy for her because I sort of feel like, you know, not that I think this is great. I don't think it's good at all.
I think it's bad. I think it's invasive. I can understand how she feels about it, but I do sort of feel like when you're a famous person, you kind of expect you're going to get some kind of shit like this, and you know, you get all the benefits of fame and fortune and you know, the eyeballs on you and success and stardom and all that stuff, which is really nice in which many people would love to have,
and it does come with some downsides. And again I'm not like normalizing or saying that that's fine, but.
I feel more I feel more.
Like she can deal with it when it's Taylor Swift and she's got a legal team and they're going to go after whoever created this and whatever. The bigger questions for me are actually around quote unquote normal people who aren't famous, because it's not like the generation of these images is going to be solely confined to Taylor Swift or other you know, stars and icons.
You know what if it's an underage.
Girl that these fake AI nudes are being created up. I was a little bit the last week dealing with my child's health issue, which by the way, she's doing much better, thank you for all the well wishes, so I didn't actually look up the photos, but I am told they are very clearly fake. But I think that's another piece of this is, you know, it seems to me,
not only with this, but with other deep fakes. It's really really important that we have a way of knowing what's real and what's not real, both because of these instances where there's you know, deep like invasion of privacy and sort of intended humiliation, but also issue you know, instances where there's an intent to deceive in some sort of significant way. You know, it could be with regard to news that's occurring or what's going on, etcetera. We've
seen a bunch of those as well. So I wouldn't say that, you know, this is just like all who cares is Taylor Swift like wave your hand. I do think it raises some real issues that we've already been confronting about the AI era and how to regulate that and how to deal with that without stifling creativity without going down the path of censorship, et cetera, without you know, without like shutting down innovation and without shutting down free speech.
I think it raises and heightens some of those questions. But do I particularly see it as like a crisis because it happened Taylor Swift.
No, that's that's That's kind of what I wanted to get to because I'm getting really annoyed because everyone's acting as if this is the worst you know. By the way, I like Taylor Swift. I tried to get tickets to the Aras tour, just so everybody knows. I was sitting there with the waiting line and all of that. I'm a fan, Okay, So like, let's be very clear that said I can recognize like a moral panic whenever I see one. And given what Twitter did, let's put this
up there. By the way, thank you Elon for ins to do this. Twitter or x blocked Taylor Swift searches after those fake AI videos were going viral. They literally did not allow you for a period of time to search the name Taylor Swift in the search bar so
you could find this. This is particularly dumb because this happened at the exact same time as the Chiefs game yesterday, when many people, probably teenage girls, were searching it because they wanted to see her kiss Travis Kelcey or to hunk what's the lady's name, Mahomes whatever, Okay, Brittany, I think that's it, Brittany Mahomes.
They wanted to see their reaction in the box. Okay. So it's like.
You have now created Now people are gonna be like, hey, why can't I searched Taylor swib And now, as you said too, the victim here, or potential actual victims that we should really be worried about, are teenagers. We've seen a rise in teenage boys in particular killing themselves through some sort of like ensnarement, entrapment, things where people will entice them for new images. We covered it here on the show before. We've talked about you teenage girls. Normal women,
that's actually the real victims. You know, in many cases of some of these revenge are normal women, are people with jobs and others who are either facing being fired, like teachers and others who are facing reputational damage, and they don't have the legal team, the police resources, NBC News and the CEO of Microsoft on their side.
Most people just don't care about them at all.
So anyway, I think that there was a major stris and effect going on here, and there is also a I'm just gonna say this again as somebody who likes Taylor, I am so annoyed by the NFL and even the New York Times and others just blatantly putting her name in headlines to get engagement.
So let me give you a perfect example.
The front page of the New York Times political section right now is inside Biden's anti Trump battle plan and where Taylor Swift fits in. Come on, I sorry, I looked into it. Taylor is in the tenth graph graph by the way means paragraph, and reporters speak it. They barely have a throwaway mentioned. They're like, yeah, we would love to get her endorsement.
And she's in that.
It's like stop all right, like everyone is. And but there's a whole right wing backlash as well. They're like they're trying to turn Tailor into a Biden plant and all of this, which may be true now this article has now come out. But my point is just like they're the amount of engagement farming that's going on off. This woman's name is driving me nuts. So it's a very long way say I'm rooting for the forty nine ers.
I'm pro rock perty. I'm sorry that we need a total and complete shutdown of this shit for until we can figure out.
What that is going on.
I haven't dug in enough to really understand why there's been so much upset about like Taylor's affiliation with the cheese and white people are so like it's it became such a thing. I just haven't done enough research. I haven't cared enough to even understand what the energy is about.
I don't watch football, but poor my friends who do. Here's what it is. They love the NFL. They love football.
They're getting very annoyed because basically, whenever there's a Chiefs game, every time Travis Kelsey scores a touchdown or does something good, they just pan the box to Taylor Swift.
It's like the Taylor Cam.
And there has been a massive influx of people who are now watching and engaging with the NFL purely for Taylor Swift content and or memes. These are people who genuinely love the game. They would be watching anyways. I understand it to a certain extent that said, if you're the NFL, who cares, you know your NFL, you're good for them.
Yeah.
Well, but then there's some there are some allegations. Some people are saying that the NFL is actively rooting and intervening to try and rig it.
So that the Chiefs would win the Super Bowl because they know.
There's actually a new study that just came out yesterday that Taylor Swift has added three hundred and thirty million dollars in brand equity to the NFL and to ratings just in the Times since she's began dating Travis Kelsey.
That's how powerful the brand is.
Kelsey himself, I believe he's not one of the most followed people in the entire NFL on Instagram.
It's tough too, because you know, most people don't even know.
Most people don't even know, like he's actually incredibly good at his positions, but one of the all time greats. Then him and his brother, you know, monetizing this and he's appearing in Fiser commercial. So I do get why it's annoying if you're in the NFL. I get why it is annoying.
If you love the game and you just love the game for its sake.
See the attention and getting new fans in and whatever. To me, and that's only like, Okay, you're expanding the love of the sport or whatever when you get into I definitely don't put it past them to basically have the Reps throwing the games as much as they can for the Chiefs to keep the tailor gravy train going. That's that's another matter. So I could see that point.
But I also think, to me, part of this is Taylor Swift occupies this strange place in our political landscape because for a long time, and she came up, you know, she's initially like this country music pop star, and for a long time she was completely silent on politics, partly because she was extremely young, right, so she's just like and in country music especially just like let's just not
talk about it. And then there was this whole fantasy on the right that maybe she was like secretly Republican, secretly like really conservative or even old.
Right.
Remember when there was some like all right message board that thought they named her cat or something.
Like crazy like that, because because she.
Has that kind of like you know, trad look, and she didn't wear super skimpy clothes, and so there was this whole invented fantasy that perhaps secretly she's the conservative. And then during one of the elections, she came out against one of the senators who was running in Tennessee, Marsha Blackburn. She came out for the Democrat, and it kind of was like her political coming out as just like the most basic resistance liberal that you could possibly imagine.
And so I think the crushed.
Hopes that had been placed on Taylor also add to the upset of her involvement in, you know, any sort of cultural thing that some people on the right may be involved with, because it seems like most of the anti Taylor energy is coming from the right.
If I'm not mistaken, it is now because she did endorse Biden and there's some photo of her holding like Biden cookies. I will say, if she does endorse Biden and she appears with them, she's going to fulfill these people's wildest dreams, because a lot of them have been saying they're like, she's a Biden plant, and all I think, I mean.
That's not a secret, Like she is just a basic Democrat, a basic since liberal democrat.
I don't think that's a surprise anyone.
Absolutely right.
In fact, I think her genuine appeal is that she's like as normal as it gets. And I don't mean in terms of like fame or whatever. I mean in terms of her like tastes others. She's one of the most classic millennials. She still uses Gandalf references just to everyone be as clear a more a recent interview that she did with Time magazine. So anyway, we've given you as much Taylor news as we said, as you know, much the chagrin of our crew, one of whom is
a diehard Chiefs fan. I'm going for the forty nine ers now. I can't handle the tailor. I can't handle a tailor media cycle from the Super Bowl. I just can't.
And you won't be able to shake it off. I will got to be some trouble for.
You, Soccer.
It'll be some of my wildest dreams.
There you go, all right, Tcager, what do you look at at?
Well?
Several years ago, I was having dinner with some of my friends almost immediately after Trump was elected in twenty sixteen, Washington was still in haze and people couldn't quite believe what had happened. We did, however, have enough data to see some pretty profound shifts in the American electorate, and someone asked the table what strategy that they would pursue to make sure the GOP won every election going forward.
Because I had just looked at the gender voting numbers for Trump, noting especially his increase slight at that time strength amongst black and Hispanic men, I just joked the GOP should just become a party of non college educated men.
Over the years, I'm reminded more and more of that.
Comment, because so much data is now showing that genuine might be the best long term strategy they have, not just for the GOP, but really for right wing movements across the world. I couldn't even get this data out of my head when pursuing some new ones compiled by the Financial Times. It shows a global realignment of young men across the world far more conservative than their female
peers and becoming so. Consider that in the US, in the UK, and Germany there is now a nearly twenty percent spread between gen Z men and women in conservative versus liberal identification. In other developed countries like South Korea, for reference, the split is even more pronounced as those of You can see. Data not included in the chart, though, shows that the same holds true in places like Poland, Tunisia, and China. So, in other words, it's a global trend,
encompassing the West and the east. All of this makes sense in the flat and cultural environment that we live in today. Trump was not just America's president. He was a global figure on which politics and culture bifurcated. The key catalyst identified by the Financial Times is the twenty seventeen Me Too movement for global politics. It's worth actually ta that out and considering the major effect that male
realignment is having on politics in the US. In the twenty twenty election, for example, Trump increased his vote share of every single demographic group in the country except with one college educated white men. He won much larger percentages of votes with Latino men and black men, so much so he's actually able to switch large swats of counties
in South Texas and of course turn the tide in Florida. Now, don't get me wrong, he still lost a majority of Latino male vote and the black mail vote, but as Democratic strategists will admit, privately winning the black vote by seventy five points as opposed to ninety points is actually a make or break in the entire electoral college. Now,
let's actually start to look to the future. Combine gen Z data from the Financial Times with some important social trends, that we see a picture of some actually bad politics ahead. I've said at nauseum the single best predictor of how you voted in twenty twenty is whether you have a four year college degree or not. In the past, college degrees were equally ish split amongst genders, but the future
data tells us that is not the case. Over the last five years, female enrollment in college has either spiked or stayed the same, while male college enrollment has plummeted. There are a variety of factors behind why. Perhaps the main one is that men just feel increasingly unwelcome in college educated, politically correct environments. The problem for our future politics is that the four year college degree is not just an education, It is mostly a cultural finishing school.
People who go to college have vastly different priorities and interest in those who do not.
Neither is better, it's just different.
As female college entrollment is now trending in the direction of a two to one ratio. You can see how this is going to split electorally. On the other side of the spectrum, you have many men who are eschewing college and who are pursuing a very different tract economically. This is where policy fights and others could manifest themselves in the future. For example, already today women outnumber men
amongst a college educated workforce. This is predominantly white collar, meaning their concerns over worker protection rights and general conception of economic life is going to be vastly different than those who are in the trades, in the service industry or those who run a small business. Perhaps even more importantly,
I really fear for our culture demographic trends. Already today, the vast majority of young men are single, with younger women who are deciding to simply date men who are older than them for a variety of reasons, most likely economic ones. The more our economy, culture, and politics are splitting amongst gender lines, the more we drive each other
apart at a most human of levels. Couple that actually with a loneliness crisis amongst men, and I'm foreseeing a future of single angry men who are driving one party and single angry women in another that's not not really a future that I want to live in more and more though it seems to be very likely.
I'm curious what you think, christ.
And if you want to hear my reaction to Sager's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot Com.
Okay, we really enjoyed the show today, Christal.
I believe you're going to be remote tomorrow as well as your kids continue to recuperate, but they are doing the men and we've gotten a lot of well wishes for you, so we want to.
Thank everybody for that.
Yeah.
Absolutely, I really appreciate did those well wishes. As you said, Soccer, we are on the end. Everybody's going to be good, so that's the most important thing. And I will be remote tomorrow, but we will have a regular show and we will see you the guys then all right, we'll see you later.