Poverty and Inflation Crush Americans as Trump Sends Billions to War and Israel
In a Nutshell
Stephen Semler reveals the Iran war launched in June 2025 began with record-low public support and has cost American taxpayers over $100 billion in direct costs plus $2,000 per family in inflation-driven living expenses. He documents how the $1.1 trillion defense budget flows primarily to weapons contractors who recycle profits into political influence, while the Pentagon has never passed a financial audit and Congress refuses to enforce accountability. The analysis concludes that war spending and aid to Israel—totaling $350+ billion since the 1950s—are directly undermining American living standards and contradicting "America First" priorities.
These notes were generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies.
Stephen Simon is recognized as one of the most prominent figures for tracking actual spending and budget data rather than relying on opinions, theories, or general coverage of national rise and fall.
According to weekly surveys conducted by The Economist and YouGov asking Americans whether the Iran war was the right or wrong decision, net support began at negative 13% when the war started. This means opposition exceeded support by 13 percentage points from the very beginning. Most Americans opposed the war from day one. This is unusual because wars typically begin with fireworks, flags, and high public support as an emotional release.
World War II began with 95% support. The Iraq War in 2003 started with approximately plus 40% net support. The Afghanistan War started at an even higher percentage. All wars become less popular over time, but the Iran war is the only one since World War II to begin with negative net support. Current data shows net support at negative 35%.
The Iran war ranks as the most unpopular war in American history based on polling data. Even among people who still support the war as the right decision, about half want it to end as soon as possible. They acknowledge the decision but insist it should have ended yesterday.
The Trump administration made minimal effort to promote the war publicly. There was no long preparation or gradual release of information to build public support, unlike the Bush administration's approach before the Iraq War. While military assets were built up for one to two months, there was no coordinated effort to persuade the American people.
The United States launched attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities on June 21, 2025. Trump and Netanyahu met in early January, and after a February briefing with Netanyahu, Trump decided to wage war. The United States entered a state of war with Iran within two weeks.
Presidents have tremendous freedom to wage wars without congressional approval by finding legal justifications to circumvent the legal requirement for Congress to declare war. Congress shows little interest in holding the president accountable or restricting war decisions. No institutional opposition exists from Congress, including from the opposition party.
Chuck Schumer did not demand a congressional declaration of war on Iran despite the United States being at war since February 28. Democrats refuse to confront budgets that enable wars, preferring symbolic non-binding votes instead. They will speak against war but vote for budgets that fund it.
The current defense budget stands at $1.1 trillion for fiscal year 2026. This includes the base budget plus approximately $150 billion in military funding from the "Big Beautiful" reconciliation bill passed in July 2025. Military spending represents more than half of discretionary spending that Congress votes on annually.
The $1.1 trillion defense budget consumes more than half of discretionary spending. The rest consists of entitlements or mandatory spending that continues automatically through trust funds regardless of government operations. When including all mandatory resources, military spending amounts to about one-third of total American government spending.
Despite the $1.1 trillion budget, the United States cannot deliver aircraft carriers near the Iranian coast, secure shipping passage through the strait, keep the Red Sea open, or defeat the Houthis. No African country has a GDP of $1.1 trillion, raising questions about the budget's effectiveness and allocation.
More than half the annual military budget goes to for-profit contractors. Major defense executives at companies like Boeing, Lockheed, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin earn $20-30 million annually, with most revenue coming from American taxpayers. These are public companies allowed to profit like private entities while receiving the majority of their funding from government contracts.
Defense contractors recycle revenues back into the political system through campaign contributions and funding of Washington think tanks. Companies like CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies) produce reports on war costs, particularly ammunition expenses, that create demand for additional weapons purchases. The real profit comes from ongoing purchases like ammunition and maintenance rather than initial equipment sales.
Washington's national security approach treats political problems as technocratic or technological challenges awaiting solutions. The United States faces interceptor missile shortages due to consumption during the Iran-Iraq War, creating media and political pressure. The obvious solution would be ending the war, but instead the focus remains on increasing production capacity from 650 to 750 Patriot interceptor missiles annually by fiscal year 2027.
Lockheed Martin receives 73% of its income from government contracts and sales mediated by the US government to foreign countries. When combining direct government contracts with government-mediated deals, approximately 97% of Lockheed Martin's revenues depend on US government policy. This represents a state-run economy rather than a free market system.
Analysis of congressional voting records shows that members receiving more money from arms companies and military contractors are three to five times more likely to vote for increased military spending. This pattern holds across annual military budget votes, with defense industry donations correlating directly with support for spending increases.
Arms companies distribute assets across congressional districts to maximize political support. Shipbuilding occurs in Maine and Mississippi, ammunition production in Tennessee, and space programs in California. This "political engineering" ensures each district has a stake in defense spending, making it difficult to cut programs.
The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), which John McCain called the "poor quality little ship," had a long problematic history with technical flaws including cracks in aluminum structures. Despite these issues, pressure groups organized campaigns using maps and spreadsheets showing employment numbers in congressional districts to maintain funding for the program.
Cozy Earth sheets are designed to keep users cool and rested throughout the night by preventing high body temperature and kicking off the quilt at 2 in the morning. High temperature at night results in miserable sleep, which Cozy Earth claims to solve. The discount code "Tucker" provides up to 20% off at cozyearth.com. Customers are instructed to mention they heard about Cozy Earth on the program when making payment.
A former insider described their role as a small cog in the machine who gained sufficient understanding of how the system works. When asked whether people in the defense industry believed their weapons production would make the world a better place, the response was that toward the end of their tenure, many convinced themselves of their moral standing. They would gesture that their statements weren't directed at the questioner as much as they were confirming to themselves that they were good enough, smart enough, and that people loved them.
There was a sense of entitlement and an ethical aspect that was strange to witness. People would state that the world needs 2,000-pound bombs and that taxpayers should help fund F-35 aircraft despite their many problems. The insider trained under the best and gained credibility from having insider experience monitoring the defense budget.
The defense budget of $1.1 trillion is much higher than remembered. In 2021, the military budget was $741 billion. Nominal numbers are used because this is how Congress remembers things, though adjusted for inflation the numbers are much higher. During the Biden administration, the budget increased from around $850 billion. It also increased during Trump's era and was first increased under Obama, then decreased. Since 2015 or 2016, the military budget has increased every year, even after calculating inflation.
Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex devouring the country. He was concerned about the war machine transforming into a conscious entity where a group of interests would not necessarily practice corruption in traditional ways, but would create conditions where Congress works in its own isolated world, separated from other interests. When profit interests are mixed with decisions relating specifically to war, peace, and security for the people, there is a major problem.
Even when not achieving announced goals, the measure of performance should be by the standards that were set. The United States has the greatest army in the world but has not accomplished its stated objectives. Officials in the Trump administration, such as Pete Hegseth, will argue that Congress prevents winning wars. The United States has not achieved even the military targets that were set.
Iran is still capable of showcasing its strength through its borders despite having a GDP equivalent to Kentucky or Illinois. Iran still controls the Strait of Hormuz mostly and can display power beyond its borders. The question of how much one would pay to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is described as a lie and a false question. The war increases Iran's interest in possessing nuclear weapons. By the end of current conflicts, Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, leaving negotiators with reduced ability to negotiate disarmament agreements.
The war fought in June 2025 was justified by claims about Iran's nuclear weapons capability, but those watching carefully knew it had nothing to do with nuclear weapons or regime change. Iran did not have a nuclear program close to producing a weapon, lacked delivery means, and had no intercontinental ballistic missiles. The reliance is on a show war where people are expected to be impressed by force and violence rather than measuring success by political results.
War is described as a betrayal of Trump's campaign promises. From a material perspective, it makes lives worse as consumers pay higher prices for fuel and other goods due to inflation from war. Taxpayers bear the bill for wars managed by Trump. The banking system makes managing small companies more difficult than it should be, with traditional banks taking weeks for routine paperwork.
Cardiff is designed for small business owners and independent operators who move at a fast pace. Cardiff has lent more than $12 billion to small companies nationwide, surpassing delays imposed by major banks. With Cardiff, there is no long wait. Companies operating at least a year ago generating revenues of no less than $20,000 per month (revenue, not profits) can obtain funding up to $500,000 the same day. The application takes 3 minutes online with no impact on credit rating. Approval and funding can be obtained before the end of the workday. The link is cardiff.co/tucker.
Direct war costs are budget expenditures for immediate war that the United States bears. Indirect war costs indicate costs borne by the economy. A Moody's analysis found that the average family paid $2,000 additional dollars as a result of war, mostly due to inflation and high fuel costs. The Pentagon refused to provide honest numbers regarding current war costs, offering only questionable overall numbers and a summary table that overlooked many things, including replacement costs for bases and transportation costs within the Pentagon budget for military operations.
Independent analysts estimated Iran's war costs at $72 billion for the first 60 days, including operations, replacement of consumed ammunition, damage to American military bases, and military aid to Israel. The Trump administration requested an additional $87 billion in funding, literally extra money beyond the main budget approved annually by Congress, mostly allocated to expenses related to the Iran war. According to the Cato Institute, the number concluded included another $72 billion for war-related costs. For the next 120-day estimate, the total reached $103 billion. NBC and Wired reports indicated Pentagon estimates put war costs at approximately $100 billion.
The Congressional Budget Office issued a report on Iran war costs reaching $38 billion, described as shockingly low. This became the official approved assessment because the CBO is a non-partisan technocracy tasked with evaluating legislation costs. When reviewing this report, basic factual errors were found. The report included losses of 24 MQ-9 Reaper drones up to August 1st, covering 5 months. This number came from a Congressional Research Service report published in May based on a CBS report from an unnamed American official on April 1st regarding American war losses.
The Congressional Budget Office used a 5-week estimate as a 5-month estimate for lost aircraft. The Air Force inventory showed 189 MQ-9 drones planned for fiscal year 2026 in June 2025, reduced to 165 the following year, explaining the 24 aircraft difference. However, in May, an Air Force general testified that the MQ-9 fleet dropped to 135 due to war casualties, indicating an error rate of up to 100% in this category alone.
The Congressional Budget Office worked with similar resource limitations because the Pentagon refused to cooperate with their estimates. The Pentagon refused to present requested figures. Through people spoken with in Congress, responses indicated the Pentagon does this all the time, and that things have gotten worse than ever before in terms of obstructing other agencies' access to information. Congress is in a state of complete submission with no self-respect to exercise its authority.
The Pentagon has never passed a financial audit. Federal agencies were requested in the mid-1990s to pass audits capable of producing accurate financial details. In the private sector, CEOs of companies not providing accurate financial records go to prison. The only enforcement mechanism is legislative power from Congress, and if not exercised, it fades away.
The Congressional Budget Office report did not include equipment losses such as an MH-60 helicopter that crashed in the Arabian Sea as part of Iran's war operations in early July. The crash made headlines with crew member deaths and search operations covered by independent media and the New York Times. The CBO did not allocate costs for bases that became irreparable and were abandoned in the Middle East. The State Department spent approximately $80 million on evacuations and suffered $100 million in damages to diplomatic facilities as a result of the war.
The Congressional Budget Office calculates war costs based on specific funding, measuring how much the Pentagon spent above its normal operating budget rather than actual war spending. The problem lies in the normal operating budget choice. The CBO wrote off huge cost amounts because they were already included in the Defense Department budget. The amount in the Defense Department budget is the historical amount of $1.1 trillion, the largest since 1945, surpassing by approximately $90 billion the average amount the United States spent on its military annually from 1942 to 1945 after inflation adjustment.
Current spending exceeds what was spent during World War II on average from 1942 to 1945 in inflation-adjusted dollars. World War II spending had enormous effects on the economy, converting the American economy for generations. The proposed budget for next year suggested by Trump is $1.5 trillion. Costs were passed very quickly with bipartisan support.
Christianity began thousands of years ago in what is called the Holy Land, but some today would like Christianity to disappear there. The Israeli settler movement is described as extreme, violent, and very hostile to Christianity, supported at the highest levels in both US and Israeli governments. American taxpayers literally pay for Israeli settlers to kill Christians and Americans and attack them. The Senate voted against details of the murder of nine Americans in the West Bank.
The "People's Project" struggles to end these atrocities. The weak people project is a Christian movement focused on Jesus, seeking to build a safe home for Christian children in the Holy Land where they will not be attacked and killed by Israeli terrorists supported by the US State Department. A Catholic priest in the last entirely Christian town in the West Bank has a plan to build a children's center called "The Kingdom of Children" - a place for children to play, make friends, learn the Bible, and grow in their Christian faith. Support through savewestbankchristians.com will help create this place where Christian children can prosper in the cradle of their faith.
Even excluding propaganda about World War II, current military spending of $1.1 trillion achieves insignificant results compared to what was achieved with those dollars between 1942 and 1945.
Members of Congress openly admitted during World War II that the amounts being spent were wasteful, but justified it as essential for the war effort. They stated that after the war ended, all approved funds would be canceled, allowing agencies to spend or not spend the money. There was a repeal law that provided the method to cancel funds for project progress, and there was one huge law after World War II to get that money back.
The difference now is that this has become normal. This is reflected in the Congressional Budget Office estimates through adopting this basis. The budget office may have been restrained by meeting expectations for financing the latest financial figures. If it happens to be the biggest military budget since World War II, so be it. The estimates are separate from reality because they are more interested in adhering to their budget model, which is disconnected from reality.
Spending this large amount of money in an agency that undergoes rigorous scrutiny has no clear sign of what is absolutely received. It is not like paying for an army the size of the World War II army, because the current army has fewer individuals in terms of numbers. The quality is clearly lower in some aspects. The budget pays for many things that people do not even know exist, and depending on the order, it is a great place to hide money intentionally or unintentionally.
The Pentagon has not passed any financial audit. It was effectively forced to conduct audits over the past seven or eight years, and every year it claims it has made progress. They claim they are capable of justifying a higher percentage of their assets and budget resources compared to the previous year, but the number of assets they are unable to justify increases every year because their budget is increasing. Even if they score progress in terms of percentage of the budget they can justify, the actual resources they cannot provide appropriate documentation for continues to increase.
The last time a US general went to prison for corruption has never been heard of. A president of a weapons manufacturing company going to prison for corruption has also never been heard of. It is rather strange that with $1.1 trillion flowing annually through the system, it produces extremely embarrassing results. The failure is so clear that they literally say they will use nuclear weapons because there is no other exit.
There is no pressure. Making a decision to wage war seems like there is nothing that stops that. If Congress is genuinely interested in forcing the Pentagon to pass a financial audit, they must threaten to take its budget very seriously. The budget needs to be reduced to have fewer things to follow.
Legislation similar to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for the private sector should be presented, where executives who submit non-financial records go to prison. There should be a Sarbanes-Oxley Act for the Pentagon or other companies, or simply enforcing federal laws to combat corruption equally distributed to everyone. Reform begins with ending corruption.
When the new President of El Salvador took the reins of power and transferred the country from a state of war that lasted 40 years and tried to make it a modern and peaceful state, the first thing he did was send his employees, including his government ministers, to prison on charges of corruption. When they committed corruption, he told them he would arrest them.
Costs of war that are not directly related to parliamentary allocations are off-budget. This includes things that are budget-related but long-term, like veterans' care. Every American soldier who is killed or injured with incapacity creates a domino effect in costs. The states should compensate veterans in an appropriate manner, but this cost is not being talked about immediately.
The best source for this is Harvard University professor Linda Bilmes. She and economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote a very moving book about the cost of the Iraq war titled "The War of the Three Trillions of Dollars." This book had a significant impact on thinking and methodology. The book explains how the costs of a single injury only lead to decades of successive costs.
All American veterans who receive disability benefits receive them. Every person who served in the US military does not still receive money from the Department of Veterans Affairs. This is a very high cost. It is a fact that every person almost known who served in the US military receives these benefits. It is not being discussed, and it is also difficult to predict.
According to the official narrative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Timothy McVeigh was the lone terrorist responsible for transporting and detonating the bomb that killed 168 people in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, in April of 1995. This is clearly not true. Witness testimonies differ very much from the government's narrative for the past 30 years.
Over 100 people connected directly to this issue were spoken to. Top lawyers explained that McVeigh himself changed his tune over and over again to match the government narrative. He failed the lie detection test about whether he had partners in the conspiracy. One partner is a man called "John Doe II." Dozens of people saw this man. He was real 30 years ago.
The Iraq War amounted to 3 trillion dollars at that stage, assessed in 2008, and it has grown since then. The "Cost of War" project at Brown University is doing a great job. The cost of post-9/11 wars reaches several trillions of dollars, more than 3 trillion. It ranges from 6 to 7 trillions. The cost of these things is escalating very rapidly.
These are budget costs. Some people measure the cost on consumers. The cost discussed is the cost on taxpayers, not costs on consumers. It is a hit as much as double. What could the country have done with this much money? It might not collapse. Good airports could be obtained. The possibilities are endless.
Whenever a project proposal is made, regardless of what it does, if it promised to make the world better, it should have a huge amount of research and analysis, costs, and everything that supports it. It must survive and pass through Congress through a lot of political effort. That rarely happens.
But if in the arms industry, what it promises is the absence of disaster, it should happen for national security reasons. There is not enough attention or investigation whether these purchases and this money actually do what it says. Because it prevents a disaster from occurring instead of causing it.
If the weapons system that was said to protect against the Iran war was destroyed, it could not be said it cost something because it is already in the budget. If the Pentagon or a member of Congress receives money from weapons manufacturers, or if there are payments to research centers for conducting research on intellectual perspectives on the issues, there is a tremendous incentive to scare the population at all times to arouse fear in order to obtain compliance and money.
The distinctive feature in the last elections is also about security, but not the security they sell—that brand of commercial national security that is believed to be verified through the use of military force. The security that people feel is similar to standing on uneven terrain. They are one financial mistake away from a single incident. They walk on a rope stretched over the precipice in terms of their financial security and food security.
When people say they are worried about the cost of living, it is the first issue among American voters. Based on the Economist and YouGov polls about the issue, Americans started questioning about inflation and prices, or in other words, the cost of living in July 2022. Based on approximately weekly polls at 116 weeks out of 117 that preceded the 2024 elections, this was the most important issue: inflation and prices. If the monthly total of inflation, prices, and cost of living was the first case for Americans since July 2022, and it is still the same, this is a bad sign for the Trump administration.
Republicans will lose in 2026 and will be punished in the same way Democrats were punished in 2024 because the two main issues that have the biggest political impact and more prominence among the audience are the costs of living and economic security. This is not national security; it is the actual daily security that people experience from major non-military threats.
Living costs and also the costs of war factor in because people see the Biden administration is more interested in helping Israel, arming them, and waging wars on her behalf, and sending money to Ukraine for that war, compared to focusing on treatment of the cost of living crisis inside. This will be a key factor in the 2026 elections. There is no difference between the two administrations in these two cases.
The United States sent Israel 352 billion dollars as aid since its founding in the 1950s. Until the year 2025, this excludes the 4 billion that was approved this year for the year 2026. This includes the 3.3 billion allocated through the budget of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, called foreign military financing. This is the program. It is basically a gift card for Israel and other countries to spend on American weapons.
Israel is the only one allowed to spend part of the money to buy weapons in her favor using American taxpayers' dollars. The government provides the funds for Israel, and Israel uses them to buy weapons from American manufacturers or Israelis, and it is said this is beneficial for the American economy.
If interested in creating job opportunities through public funds and citizens' taxes, and wanting to get the best return for money, something should be done aside from spending on the military. It is the worse possible way to create job opportunities. The benefits argument often appears with military spending.
In 1985, the American weapons industry employed 3.1 million people. In 2021, the weapons industry employed 1.1 million people—a decrease of two million people in workers in the sector related to the arms industry. Despite this decrease of two million jobs, the military budget increased by $290 billion in real value from 1985 to 2021.
The main concern for arms companies is profit. When that is their main concern, they are interested in reducing the workforce as much as possible while maintaining sufficient presence in electoral circles so they can claim they create job opportunities. But it is only up to reduction measures of these costs to promote profits and technological progress that influenced all sectors.
In relation to employment in the arms industry, the relationship between military spending and economic benefits is very weak. The relationship seems in reverse. If the argument about creating jobs appears, that means their argument related to national security is not strong.
The total US aid to Israel reaches approximately 360 billion dollars within this range. Military aid constitutes the majority of those 352 billion or 360 billion. Military aid refers to a limited collection of goods and services provided to another country—training and equipment in most cases. It does not literally include assistance to a country militarily.
Since October 2023, the United States has launched an estimated 609 interceptor missiles for the sole purpose of defense of Israeli lands from ballistic missiles and Houthi missiles. More than 200 THAAD missiles were launched. These are expensive missiles. Then more than 100 of the Standard missiles, which include the Standard 3 missile, then the Standard 6 rocket that works at low altitudes. Four types of interceptor missiles have been used since October 23 in defense of Israel.
The Standard 3 missile costs $31 million for every missile in fiscal year 2027. This interceptor missile costs approximately $30 million and is called SM3, and it is the only one the United States owns to do space-based interceptions of ballistic missiles.
When a ballistic missile is launched, it passes through the payment phase which takes from one to five minutes, then it leaves the atmosphere for the land, and travels in space for about 20 minutes. Then it falls quickly within a minute or two. This is called the final stage. The middle part is called the middle path. The biggest opportunities are during the middle path because it takes about 20 minutes. It is the longest of the three stages.
The problem is that a technologically advanced rocket is needed that is capable of accessing outer space to intercept the missile there. In external space, the ballistic missile is capable of launching fake targets, chips, and balloons, because without atmospheric resistance from the earth, it moves all in a cloud of wreckage that follows the same path as the missile, which makes it extremely difficult to distinguish the real rocket from illusory goals.
The United States launched during the war in June 2025 approximately 80% of these missiles that cost $30 million for one rocket. That was all during the June 2025 war.
The United States launched 80 SM-3 missiles in defense of Israel during the June 2025 war. More than 150,000 THAAD missiles were also launched to defend Israel during that conflict. From October 2023 until September 2026, the total number of US missiles launched in defense of Israel reached 609. The speaker received no messages of thanks or expressions of gratitude for these deployments.
JD Vance appeared shocked when informed of the scale of American support for Israel. The Washington Post reported that more than 200 missiles and more than 100 standard missiles were launched, representing approximately two-thirds of all interceptor missiles deployed to defend Israel. This figure includes Israeli interceptor missiles as well. The United States bore approximately two-thirds of the missile defense burden for Israel during the war, projected to reach 70% by 2026.
The United States provides $500 million in annual aid for missile defense to Israel for purchasing interceptor missiles. Since its establishment, the United States has provided Israel with $350 billion in cumulative aid, representing the largest cumulative amount given to any single country. Israel has no oil or gas reserves.
The speaker identified three primary costs: arming Israel, the missile defense aid discussed above, and direct defense of Israel through interceptor missiles. The speaker noted the need to also calculate costs for intercepting Iranian drones, missiles, and Houthi attacks. The war on behalf of Israel would not have occurred without Israel's influence on the US government.
Marco Rubio stated that the United States followed Israel into the conflict. House Speaker Mike Johnson made similar statements. The speaker emphasized that supporting Israel is not in America's interest and contradicts the "America First" principle, which the speaker believes has not been implemented.
The speaker argued that "America First" represents the essence of democracy, where leaders serve the citizens who own the country. A king who rules on behalf of another kingdom betrays his subjects. The legitimate way to govern is to serve the interests of one's own people, whether a country, family, army, or business.
The speaker questioned whether Americans are experiencing actual repression, noting that the United States has not fought wars to liberate oppressed peoples in Iran, Russia, Vietnam, or Somalia. The American people are being oppressed in multiple ways. The speaker identified the main political conflict as being between workers on one side and war profiteers and conflict advocates on the other.
The speaker described the pattern of kings bankrupting their countries through wars leading to their overthrow, noting that this is how empires are destroyed. The speaker believes more people have become aware of this pattern in the last two years, particularly since COVID.
Before COVID, conversations at airports focused on celebrity news and People magazine. Now people are forced to confront real issues. The speaker noted that young people see no real hope, only a dying empire led by bad people.
A May 2026 New York Times/Ipsos poll asked whether people support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose additional aid to Israel. Results showed 19% somewhat support and 38% strongly oppose. Among non-voters in 2024, 50% strongly opposed additional aid to Israel. The question covered both military and economic aid.
The speaker compared Gaza to Schrödinger's cat in politics, noting that critics simultaneously claim Gaza was not important enough to affect 2024 election outcomes while also claiming that those who didn't vote due to Gaza got what they deserved. The speaker believes the atrocities in Gaza and collective genocide have become established facts.
The speaker identified the intersection between war costs and living costs, noting that the only legislation Joe Biden promoted from the Oval Office was a foreign aid bill that included aid for Israel, Ukraine, and Pacific/Taiwan aid. Infrastructure bills and the "Build Back Better" plan did not receive similar promotion.
The speaker hopes many people recognize the problem as systemic rather than partisan, affecting both parties. The speaker is working on data to determine whether polls indicate this recognition.
The speaker noted that if Kamala Harris had been elected, war with Iran would still have occurred. In an October 2024 interview, Harris identified Iran as the biggest threat to America, despite polls showing only 4-5% of Americans considered Iran their primary threat. The political and national security establishment was heading toward war regardless.
The speaker felt confident naming US policy as "Israel first" only after October 2023, noting the absence of conditions on aid and the level of direct intervention through missile defense. The speaker worked in television for 30 years without criticizing Israel on camera until October 7th.
The speaker described how American politicians changed after the October 7th attacks, comparing it to going "crazy suddenly." The speaker noted seeing Israeli flags at the 2024 Republican convention and realized the extent of support was impossible to ignore given the $350 billion in aid.
The speaker believes the main driver of changing public opinion toward Israel is ethical, and that opposition to American policy toward Israel would be larger if people knew the true costs and if the government investigated atrocities committed with American weapons.
The speaker recommended the Wikipedia entry on Gaza since October 7th as shocking and impossible to dismiss as Israeli propaganda or leftist Third World propaganda, noting it contains numerous warnings at the top due to controversy.
The speaker admitted initially ignoring Gaza events, telling themselves it was not their business and that Israel had mistreated Palestinians before. The speaker mentioned a turning point involving churches and Christian communities being affected, though the transcript ends before completing this thought.
The speaker recounted privately discussing the bombing of Christian churches with Evangelicals, who responded by telling him to "Shut up." The speaker emphasized that these were Christian churches belonging to their own sect and faith, questioning how they could not feel connected to the destruction. The response was complete denial, with people covering their ears and repeatedly saying "No, no, no, no, no!" The speaker was subsequently hated for raising this issue.
During a speech at a theater about a different topic, the speaker received a question from someone in the audience and asked those present if they knew about the church bombings. People responded by removing him from the stage. This was presented as a true story that changed his perspective on the matter.
The speaker described how relief services from Catholic organizations and other Christian religious groups began their analysis through research and in-depth study. After spending time in the Middle East and contacting people he knew, he realized "Oh my God, this is the worst thing" and acknowledged that he had completely ignored the issue for about a year, which he was not proud of.
The speaker highlighted attacks on Christian centers in southern Lebanon and attacks on all people in Lebanon as one of the most significant causes for unrest. He described Israel's use of war paid for by Trump as a cover for seizing southern Lebanon, specifically south of the river, calling it one of the worst developments, followed by the bombing of Beirut.
The speaker plans to investigate land seizure for a project, believing the end result relates to land acquisition. He intends to teach himself to use satellite images or Google Maps to compare land occupied by Israel before October 23rd with 1967 boundaries, measuring the shift in occupied land size not just in Gaza but also in the West Bank, southern Syria, and southern Lebanon.
The speaker identified the Ministry of Health in Gaza as providing the best and most reliable casualty numbers. He noted that American media decided from the beginning that these were managed by Hamas, but clarified these are civilians, not military personnel. International organizations and even Israeli intelligence agencies use these Ministry of Health numbers for verification.
The speaker recommended several sources for information:
- Karim Maqdisi and his brothers, who have a podcast called "Street Maqdisi" - Maqdisi is from Jerusalem and a university professor at the American University in Beirut
- UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese
- Noura Erakat, a law professor at Rutgers University
He mentioned these are just a few names that come to mind among many people doing good work on this issue.
The speaker described thinking about Gaza every day for approximately the past three years, not out of strange obsession but because ignoring the matter would be worse than keeping it at the forefront of interests. He stated you cannot erase what you have seen.
Steven Semler was thanked for his time, particularly regarding the numbers discussed. The best place to follow his work is through his mailing list on Substack called "Polygraph," which can be found at stevensemler.com. This serves as the main means for publication where subscribers hear about everything he does.
Keep Tucker Carlson in your library
Save the videos and channels worth coming back to, and find them again in one place.
