Obama's Comments on the Ilhan Omar Situation Are Absolutely Insane

 Former President Barack Obama is lashing out against President Donald Trump for the decision to criminally investigate Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar over her immigration status.

"It is a basic principle of American democracy that the government can’t selectively target individuals simply because of their political beliefs or what they say," Obama said on social media. "But that’s exactly what the Trump Administration is doing to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota."

Seemingly lost on Obama when he released that statement was the litany of activities his administration took to target conservatives and the Trump campaign when he was in power.

While progressives attempt to pretend that the only scandal from the Obama era was his choice to wear a tan suit, in reality, the administration made the decision to turn the power of government against its political enemies. The IRS targeted conservative groups over their tax exempt status so ruthlessly that the agency eventually was forced to release an apology. People inside the Obama administration manufactured the false Russia collusion hoax and Steele Dossier, which led to an FBI official pleading guilty to inserting fake information into emails in order to gain a surveillance warrant against the Trump campaign.

“The fact that any president, or any administration, is willing to engage in such transparent efforts to intimidate someone should outrage all Americans,” Obama continued.

Meanwhile, Democrats are openly admitting that they intend to use their power to intimidate young conservatives against working for the Trump administration due to the potential legal repercussions.

NATO Has Become a One-Way Street

Our on-and-off relationship with our European allies and friends is in another low spot. There’s a lot of developments that have been going on that I don’t think they quite appreciate have created a loss of confidence in the United States about the reliability of our NATO allies.

And this transcends the earlier existential problem that all of our NATO allies, 32, had over 20 years promised but reified that and ratified it the last 15 years, they would spend 2% of GDP on defense. And as you remember, in 2016, after the election, and Donald Trump, remarked as he was going to enter office in 2017 that all but six of them had not met their requirements.

And after all this bullying, all this acrimony, now almost all of them, I think with one exception, have made the 2%. But now we’re into another series of crises.

The former head of German intelligence was just found out in his retirement, I think he’s 80, that he was a traitor, and that he had been selling or trafficking in secrets that involved German and NATO security to existential enemies like China and maybe Russia.

That creates a lack of confidence in the security that we have with the Germans.

And Britain, remember, we have a dual-use base, an RAF and a U.S. Air Force base in the United Kingdom, and the idea, of course, is forward deployment. So if we would get into a crisis with China, with Russia, over Ukraine, almost anywhere in the world, we would have maybe 11 of our $320 million B-1 bombers that have capability to carry nuclear weapons and huge payloads, but they would be based and safe in this air base that was patrolled by our allies, the British.

Now we learn that some terrorists had a dry run where they got very close to this base and were in the process of filming it and doing reconnaissance work.

And we learned two things from the British government, Prime Minister [Andy] Burnham. Number one, they were trained by or in the service to Iran, the greatest terrorist threat in the world.

And number two, they were let out on bail.

How can you say that—the most dangerous terrorists that we’ve seen in the U.K. that are actually scouting out ways to destroy an American bomber fleet is from Iran, or at least influenced by Iran or hired by Iran, but then let them out on bail?

And then we get to the recent argument from our allies that they want nothing to do with the Iran war.

They understand that the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s oil and the oil of the Gulf are critical to their oil needs, and they understand that the wealth of the Gulf States is essential for them to export commodities. And they understand the principle that Iran is a dangerous country.

And for 50 years, they have said in a course with us that it should not and will not be nuclear, although neither they nor the American presidents, seven of them, have done anything about it.

So we go and try to stop that threat. France then immediately says that this was not an approved U.N. war, and they cannot use French airspace to use American assets, not NATO assets, American assets, in, over their airspace. The U.K. says you cannot use the Diego Garcia base, which is critical in the Indian Ocean, for operations in the Middle East, long-distance operation.

Italy says you cannot use your dual-use base with us in Sicily to land aircraft to go after Iran. Spain says you’re not gonna use our base. You’re not even getting near our airspace.

Switzerland and Austria are neutral, but they’re pro-U.S., and if their push came to shove, they wouldn’t be able to avoid a European continental war, and they would seek protection from whom? Probably us. They said nobody gets near our airspace.

None of these European countries said we will help the U.S. Navy patrol the Strait of Hormuz to ensure that it’s open and global commerce is uninterrupted. Okay.

And of course, we have our Canadian friends who said last year we may or may not have met our 2%, but for the last 15 years, we won’t spend 2%.

But of course, we expect to be, under the nuclear umbrella of, as we have been, of the United States, and we expect if there was ever an existential threat to the North American continent, you would not distinguish Canadian from American interest, even though we’re not armed and not capable with 79 45-year-old jets, given your 4,000 or 5,000.

So I could go on, but you get the impression that it’s again a reminder that it’s a one-way street. Remember the argument that our European friends are using to us. They are saying, “You’re a NATO power, and you’re pledged to protect the North American, space.” Of course, we’ve never… Only once after 9/11, and that was sort of symbolic.

Some NATO planes helped us after 9/11 to make sure there were not terrorists in our skies. But generally, the threats that face Europe are not going to threaten the United States, and the threats that face the United States, we don’t count on NATO partners, volunteering to go to Taiwan or to protect us from a Chinese missile.

So it’s a one-way street. And so we have made the argument that in the Mediterranean and the Middle East, which are the backyards of Europe, it’s essential that Iran not get a nuclear weapon for their protection and ours, and we are willing to handle that problem. We’re not asking NATO, we’re not asking individual countries to bomb, Iran or to send weapons.

None of that. All we ask is, “Can we use our NATO assets, the use of our bases, and your airspace to cut the travel time, the distance, from our bases, to Iran, and we don’t have to come all the way from the United States?”

And they said, “No. You cannot do that.” And so we are saying, “Well, Ukraine is threatened by Russia, but Russia’s army does not threaten us.”

There’s no way in the world that the Russian army is ever going to run the United States. It is going to overrun Ukraine maybe, maybe the Baltic states, maybe some of the Scandinavian states, maybe the European states. But it’s not gonna ever endanger us.

We have a strategic problem with Russia, and we handle that on our own with our nuclear deterrent: submarines, land base, and bombers.

So let’s get this straight, Europe. You are saying to us that when we have a shared threat and it’s in your neighborhood, and it’s of interest to us that you will not help, but you’re not gonna go beyond that, but you will not even lend your airspace to help us.

And at the same time, you’re saying, as the NATO big guy in the alliance, that you expect us to guarantee your safety and to arm the Ukrainians to the teeth and to deter the Russians from invading further and closer into Europe, even though we know, according to your logic, they’re not threatening us at all.

Now, the truth of the matter is, if Ukraine is overrun and Russia goes into the Baltic states or Europe, we will probably come, as is our obligations under NATO. But the Europeans are making that harder and harder to sell to the American people because it’s a one-way street. When we need you to protect Europe, you better be there.

When you need us not to protect us from a nuclear weapon from Iran, not to join us in battle, just to let us use your airspace, you can’t even do that. And we had to be uncouth and crude and scream and yell to make you protect yourself with a meager 2% investment of GDP in defense. I know what you’re gonna say to us.

We have open borders. We’re overrun with immigrants. We made bad decisions about our green energy. We warred on fossil fuels. We have certain culture that has a 1.3 continental-wide fertility rate that’s unsustainable.

We have immigrant populations that do not want to assimilate. And we have a socialist paradigm that is not sustainable, so we can’t help you. You can’t help.

At least you could say, “This is not working. This is not working, and we want to make reforms in our economy, our energy, our immigration, so we can free up capital to fulfill our partnership, and we want it 50/50. When you need us, we’re there, and when we need you, you’re there.” And if it doesn’t happen that way, then the NATO paradigm is not sustainable.

It will not work for the Europeans to deny us just the use of the airspace to deal with a common threat and then expect us to risk our key cities in any potential nuclear standoff with Russia, because that’s what would happen. To protect the integrity of Europe, if we couldn’t do it with traditional forces, it would ultimately be a standoff to use American deterrence to protect Europe, and that would entail our danger to protect your continent.

And so, yes, we can be crude. Yes, we can yell and scream, but ultimately, this remains an asymmetrical and thus unsustainable relationship.

 

Why Gas Prices Stay High Even When America Drills Its Own Oil

 

person 1: “Could you explain, person 2, why the media and government doesn’t remove the smoke and mirrors from this issue, which is the gas prices? The internet tells me that no oil from the Strait of Hormuz comes to America, yet our petroleum prices skyrocketed when we attacked Iran.

“President Donald Trump declared America energy independent, yet the world market still controls our prices. Why can the Iranians pay 30 cents a liter for gasoline, a year prior to the attack on Iran, and the poor people of Venezuela pay nine cents a gallon for gasoline? What gives?”

I’m not sure about that, those prices.

I hope he’s right on that.

person 2: Well, there’s a multifaceted—And again, I’m just hearing this for the first time. But as a general rule Westerners in Europe and the former British Commonwealth, New Zealand, they are maddened by the Green New Deal type of Al Gore thinking.

So in their way of thinking, they tax gas, and they let it go to as high as possible. I’ve gone to Europe every summer, until I got ill, for 22 years, at least once or twice, sometimes three times, and it was about $8 or $9 a gallon, and that was deliberate. They did not subsidize. It’s just the opposite in the so-called Third World of Africa, Asia, not so much Africa, but Latin America, Venezuela, and places that have oil, but especially in the Arab countries and Iran.

When you have an autocratic government, the last thing you wanna do when you’re exporting oil is to have people paying a lot for gas,because that’ll make them furious. So what they do is they subsidize the price of gas. The government comes in, and they take barrels out of the national petroleum company, and they refine it at a market loss.

Not really a loss to them. The reader has a very good point because they control everything, the oil, the refinery, but they want the people to be happy.

Now, his other point is we produce around, I think we’re getting up to 14 million barrels, and we import four from Canada. That’s 18, and we’re in the 20-something, depending how many barrels we consume.

And if we wanted to, we could buy the Canadian oil, and we could stop all exports to Japan, all natural gas and oil, to the degree it goes to Europe, and just consume our own oil and control the price.

But we’re a free market economy, so you’d have to tell a Texas petroleum guy, a fracker that was spending a lot of money, and he’s right there in Texas, and you’ve got a big European, or Japanese oil tanker right on the harbor at Houston, and you’re gonna say, “You’re an American and that cost you about $40 or $45 to pump, so I want you to sell it to the U.S. government to be refined or private for no more than $55.”

And what would he say? He’s gonna say, “I don’t know what the price is gonna be. It’s gonna collapse when the war’s over, and I’m gonna lose a lot of money ’cause I’m gonna keep pumping, and it might get down to $45. So I gotta make the money where I can.”

So we allow that. And so what I’m getting at is all the private companies that produce oil in the United States at enormous amounts, and the more oil we import from Canada could be—It is basically valued at, right now I think it’s $88 a barrel. But their costs to produce it are probably around $40. So they’re making a huge profit. They could make a profit, and we could have $4—right now it’s $4.50 nationwide or something. They could make a profit, and they could sell the oil for a price and the refinery that it would be about $3 a gallon, $2.50 a gallon, but that’s not how we operate with anything, food or anything.

And you know, when you had plums and Japan was offering for, I remember, Fuyu apple pears like $80 for 20 pounds, and the price here was for 20 pounds was $20, and everybody was trying to get this new crop over to Japan so you could get $80. And that drove up the price here because there were fewer of this, at that time, a boutique exotic everybody wanted.

They don’t care that much now for Asian pears. We had about 10 acres of them. But I wish that the oil companies would give the consumer a break-

person 1: Yeah.

person 2: And take a little bit less profit. Trump is trying now to—He’s had it with [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy. He told Zelenskyy do not hit the diesel refineries, that make diesel fuel, because if you do, Russia supplies ships diesel fuel, refined diesel fuel to China, to Asia, and that keeps the world price down, and we don’t have enough refineries.

So, but they know that, and Russia’s making a killing, so Zelenskyy didn’t listen to him. He just kept hitting, and that is driving diesel prices up.

person 1: Yeah.

person 2: So Trump said today … I disagree with that, by the way, that he’s a terrible president, he wants him gone. Well, he’s right in the middle of a war, existential war, you know.

You don’t, you don’t quite say that. But I can see why he’s frustrated. And Zelenskyy wants it both ways. He said I want another $140 billion we’ve given them over the last four years, five years, but I’m not gonna listen to you. And Trump is saying you’re gonna lose me the midterms, along with Iran, so I don’t want you …

Just hold off until the midterm. Do not hit there. So he bought diesel fuel the other day from Putin.

person 1: Yeah.

person 2: And the other thing Zelenskyy doesn’t understand, the American Never Trump and Left don’t understand: Trump doesn’t have any particular empathy for Putin or Russia. No. He got out of the missile deal.

He destroyed the Wagner Group. He told the Germans not to do the Nord Stream pipeline. He taxed the oligarchs. But he does believe in Kissinger triangulation.

He wants to turn Russia with its 7,000 nuclear weapons, and its oil, against China and vice versa to get leverage. Yeah. And he can’t do that as long as the Ukraine war is on, because [Vladimir] Putin is the bad guy, and you can’t reward a guy that’s …

The other thing that people don’t realize very quickly about that war.

And I’ve tried. I said at the conference, “But everybody said Putin, it was a terrible mistake.” It was. And Putin has lost a million and a half casualties. Yes. And he’s incompetent. Yes. And he’s destroyed the economy. Yes.

But what they don’t say is he has 20% of Ukraine. And with Crimea, I think he’s got six or seven million people that speak Russian, and his birth rate is one point three.

So in a very sick way, the way he thinks, I’ve lost maybe a million people, but I’ve gained six [million] soon to be transferred into loyal Russian citizens. And that’s why that one of the reasons he did that is his birth rate is so low, and so he’s only got a 144 million people with this vast…

And at one time, Ukraine was 41 million people. Had he been able to take Kiev, he would have had 185 million Russians, plus the Ukrainian bred. That’s why he was trying to do that. Yeah. And I’m glad he stopped. I wish Ukraine… But I said to a Ukrainian person, the other day, an expert in the Ukrainian war, I should say.

I said, “My gosh, they’ve lost 10 million people. They had 31 million.” And he said, “Where did you get that figure?” I thought, “Well, I read it, and I prepped for the comment.” He goes, “It’s not ten million. It’s twelve to fourteen million.” I thought he was saying I was exaggerating.

person 1: Wow.

person 2: He said they’re below 30 million or 28 million.

The Problem With America’s Military Arsenal

 

We’re in the eighth month of an on-and-off war, as we all know, with Iran, and since 2022, we have been watching Ukraine and Russia fight, and we have been supplying Ukraine. And one of the problems with these multifront wars, and we have been conducting operations against Iran as well as helping Israel supply its forces against the Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah.

Part of the problem is that in Ukraine, in Iran, in the Middle East, we have now, because of the use, cut our inventories of Patriot missiles by about 25% or 30%. And remember, we export them all over the Western world, and our Hellfire and Tomahawk missile inventories are cut by 50%.

And the problem is even greater than the erosion of our safety net because if we would have a problem with Taiwan or elsewhere in the world, we would be in trouble.

But the Patriot missile costs about $4 million and $4 million-plus, per missile. The Hellfire is shot by a plane, about $150,000, $200,000. The Tomahawk is about $3 million to $4 million.

So what I’m getting at is our enemies, whether in Iran or the enemies that are trying to squeeze Israel or the Russians that we supply Ukraine to fight, they are using cheaper drones, and some of them are only $5,000 or $6,000.

So in a cost-benefit analysis, we’re spending 10, 20, 30 times more to knock them down. And I know that we’re gonna—we’re in an evolutionary spiral where we can update electronic warfare, jamming, lasers. That’s all coming.

But right now, we have kind of a problem, and our Reaper, our really premium Reaper drones and remnants of the Predator drones, we’ve lost about 25% of those.

Those are several million dollars.

This year, Ukraine will produce, when 2026 is over, a million drones. We’re really trying to ramp up production, and we’ll probably only do 50,000 at most. And we are galvanizing, but even next year, we don’t think we could make more than 300,000.

Look elsewhere what we have, though.

We have 11 of the best, biggest carriers in the world, but they cost $13 billion just to produce them, not even to maintain and run them. We have the wonderful B-2, the most stealthy bomber in the world with the biggest payload, but it’s $2 billion, and we only have about 20 of them.

The B-1 dates from the Reagan era. It’s a wonderful bomber, but it costs $315 million each, and we only have about 45. And when you get the slightest threat that Iranian agents may be sending drones into an RAF U.S. base in the UK, and we can’t defend it, we have to take all 11 and send them back home, or we might lose $3 billion of inventory.

The F-35 is a wonderful plane. They’re $90 million apiece. We only have 400 of them. The best plane in some ways, the interceptor F-22, is $140 million each, and we only have 195. How could you have more at that cost?

What I’m getting at is this is not how we won in Korea, but especially in World War II. The idea was we were not going to…

When we rearmed, and we started the war with number 19 in size of our army and almost virtually no air force to speak of except some B-17s and out-of-date fighters. We had a good Navy, but the idea was we were not going to try to match the Germans or the Japanese necessarily, in the quality of each particular plane.

We were not going to build a Panther or Tiger tank that was indomitable as far as the power of its gun, and the armor, but would be produced in very limited, at 5,000 or 6,000 Panthers to a little over 2,000 Tigers. We were going to do something different. We were gonna produce 50,000 Sherman tanks.

Pretty good tanks. 10 hours on the road, one hour maintenance. Not like the Tiger or Panther, one hour maintenance, one hour on the road. Easy to maintain. Very crew adaptable. If they were hit, you could drop out on the bottom through a trapdoor. Three out of five of destroyed Sherman crewmen escaped with their lives.

We created 300,000 aircraft. 300,000, DC-3s, bombers, fighters. 35,000. 35,000 B-17s, B-24s and B-29 heavy bombers. One an hour at the Willow Run plant run under the auspices of the Ford family. 9,000 warships, if you count smaller landing craft. 140 aircraft, not 11, 140 of fleet, light and escort.

And how did that happen? Well, we enlisted, kind of like Donald Trump is doing with our own war production renaissance, where he’s bringing in techies, like Elon Musk or the Anduril people or the AI people, but who are often of the opposite political persuasion.

But World War II, we brought in the GM CEO, William Knudsen.

We brought in the aluminum king, Henry Kaiser. We brought in Henry Ford, the car baron. And we said, basically, we’re in trouble, and we may not be able to have the craftsmanship right now of a Japanese Zero or a Bf 109, or we may not have a V-1 pretty soon. But we can outproduce these people with very good weapons so that when we’re on the battlefield, there’s five, six, 10 Sherman tanks for one or two of the German tanks.

And they’re gonna run, and they’re not gonna break down. And you can pull the engine, the transmission in a few hours, not two days. And we’re gonna produce a greater GDP than all the belligerents in the world. Our Navy is gonna have more ships than all the ships in the world. Both happened by 1945.

So in other words, we’re not gonna make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Now, does that have lessons? Because obviously we won World War II within four years. I think it does.

And I think we’re starting to see that a little bit in the Department of War today. There is an emphasis that while a Northrop, a General Dynamics, a Lockheed, a Raytheon with their huge budgets and their expensive, I guess what the word would be, exquisite platforms are necessary, they have to be complemented by quantity.

So we don’t use $4 million missiles to shoot down a $5,000 Yemeni drone whose sole intention is to exhaust our inventories until they’re down at 10%, and then they will really unload on us. So what we all need to do as American citizens is support this reform effort, and it’s going to be multidimensional.

We don’t want just the type of lobbyist or insider Washington relationships as far as procurement and the Pentagon from former employees, all of that stuff. We need to get everybody involved and say, “Each company, according to your station, think of ways where you can combat drones or missiles or rockets or shoot things down inexpensively and create a lot of these platforms and weapons,” because we are reaching a very critical and dangerous period that we have to get through.

We have the existential threats of China. We have the traditional threat of Russia in a land war with our NATO allies. We have Iran and its effort to get a bomb and this standoff we’re dealing with. We have the enemies that surrounded Israel that are our enemies in an unstable …

And one thing we need is not just a few platforms or a few weapon systems that can be easily taken out and then exhaust our inventories, but we need really good weapons, if sometimes the best here, but maybe not always the best in the world.

One thing is we have more of them than the enemy, and we do the swarming, not our enemies.

The Lie Behind the Gaza Genocide Accusations

 

We’re at the third anniversary week, just last week, of the Oct. 7, 2023 massacres. Remember what happened? About 4,000 terrorists from Gaza, Hamas terrorists, accompanied by 2,000 opportunistic Gazan civilians, swarmed into Israel in a pre-planned assault. They penetrated 17 miles. They would have gone a lot further had the IDF and armed civilians not beaten them back. They killed almost 1,000 of the terrorists and their accompaniment.

But the question I have is: Why is Gaza now in rubble? We hear about genocide, we hear about settler colonialism, we hear about apartheid, but why is Gaza in rubble? And I think I can answer that in two ways. What happened before Oct. 7, and what happened after.

Let’s go first to what happened after. The Israeli government on Oct. 8, and subsequently for the next 20 days, asked Hamas, such as it is, to do two things: turn over the 251 hostages and turn over the architects and those who participated in the murder. They waited 20 days before invading Gaza. In those 20 days, the Gazans sent about 8,500 rockets into Israel’s civilian centers. These were not aimed at military targets or even dual-use targets. They were aimed at civilian targets.

So for 20 days, while Israel waited for them to give back the hostages before they invaded, give back the architects of this terror, they refused both counts, and they sent about 8,500 rockets. They would altogether send 13,000 rockets, we forget that, at Israel. So that’s number one and two.

And next, they exposed civilians at the entries and exits into the tunnels below Gaza. There was almost 500 miles in this labyrinth, and to get in and out, you had to go through a hospital, a mosque, or a school, or in some cases private homes. The Hamas terrorists, the people responsible for killing everybody, were hiding in this labyrinth quite safe while they were exposing their own civilians to retaliation for the crimes that they had committed.

Can you imagine during the Blitz, for example, if British civil defense people who were manning the barricades and were afraid of bombing went down into the subway and they denied the use of the subway to British civilians? That would be unheard of. But that’s exactly what Hamas did.

So number three, there were about 2,000 to 3,000 civilians that either planned all along to go into Israel to be opportunistic killers, looters, thieves, and rapists. And they participated in the mutilation and the desecration and the hostage taking. We know that. We had about a couple of hundred people who were captured. We had their GoPro cameras. We had security cameras in the kibbutzes.

And by the way, of the 6,000 who participated, the Israeli government has taken out about 4,000. The next 2,000 must know that they are marked people, and they will not be here very long.

Another reason. Why, when they brought back hostages and corpses and they paraded them in the streets of Gaza, were they not only met by a mob that was cheering, but the mob actually tried to spit, hit, club those hostages who were alive and mutilate the bodies of those who were dead and brought back as trophies?

In other words, the civilians, think of this, the civilians of Gaza that we say were innocent had to be stopped from further atrocities by the people who created the atrocities, the Hamas terrorists.

Let’s ask another reason why Gaza is in rubble, and in the context of before Oct. 7.

In September 2005, all Israelis were out of Gaza. There was not one Jew, there was not one Israeli inside Gaza. American philanthropic organizations and donors bought key infrastructure, especially greenhouses, and the Israelis turned them over to the Gazans, who immediately looted them and destroyed them against their own self-interest. They were very lucrative businesses, and they could have been using them.

So my point is, there were no Jews in Gaza. This is 22 years ago, or 18 years ago by the time of the October massacres. So Gazans and Hamas terrorists wanted to kill Israelis even though no Israelis were in Gaza. And they had not been there for about 18 years on Oct. 7.

And the West, mainly the United States and Europe and the U.N., had given Gaza in that period from 2005 to the date of the massacres about $40 billion. Did they build a Dubai-like resort? Did Hamas have regular elections? Did they have a constitution that encouraged the equality of the sexes, that allowed religious freedom, that called for protection of individual civil liberties? No.

Did they take their 25 miles or so of pristine Mediterranean beaches and turn it into a Dubai? No. What did they do? First thing they did is they murdered any contestant to the election. They held the election in 2006. They got elected, and then they canceled the election. And then for the next 18 years, they killed anybody who questioned this Hamas theocratic terrorist clique that ruled Gaza.

Let me emphasize again, they diverted $40 billion and built a tunnel labyrinth for one reason, to protect the terrorists and to expose their own civilians to retaliation when they committed their next planned atrocity.

Think of the argument. They are essentially telling the world we expect the Israelis to be more humane about our own civilians than we are. Therefore, we are putting our entries and exits in places where civilians will be there, in schools, mosques, and hospitals, because we think the Israelis are so humanitarian they won’t bomb those places and we will be safe.

In other words, We don’t care if they get killed, but we want to save ourselves and we think the Israelis will treat our civilians better than we do who are exposing them.

Let me just sum up.

After Oct. 7, they had 20 days to come to an agreement and turn over the perpetrators and give back the hostages. They refused. Instead, they answered that with rockets aimed at Israeli civilians. When the Israelis went in there to get the perpetrators, they hid in tunnels, committed terrorist acts, sent thousands more rockets into Israel, deliberately at civilian areas, and put their civilians as human shields to ensure there would be civilian casualties even as the Israelis were dropping leaflets and texting individual apartment dwellers to get out and not be collateral damage.

Before Oct. 7, Israel had completely evacuated Gaza for 18 years. They had allowed an election. They were supplying, I should say, about 20% to 50% of the food, water, sewage treatment, chemicals, fuel, and power to Gaza.

Gaza had a border with Egypt. Did Egypt want to let Gazans in there, and did they want to help? No. They wanted nothing to do with them. Nothing to do with them.

They had an election, then they canceled all elections, and they tormented and terrorized their own people. And we are supposed to believe now that Israel created a genocide when the population of Gaza, when they left in 2005, was what? It’s about 1.3 million. And what was it on Oct. 7? About 2.4 million.

Nations or countries that want to commit genocide do not pull all of their military and civilians out of the area that is targeted and then see it increase by one million people in a mere 20 years.

The charge is absurd. The whole situation is absurd. And what’s most absurd, Westerners still parrot this word genocide, which applies to a lot of places in the world that they omit, but it surely doesn’t apply to what Israel did after Oct. 7.