IN THIS REMARKABLE MUST-WATCH VIDEO:
Carlson frames the U.S.–Israel relationship as America’s “chief” (possibly only real) alliance, one that he says is rarely questioned publicly.
He proposes a thought experiment: what if the U.S. treated Qatar—or another country—as its closest ally instead of Israel, and why even raising that idea triggers intense backlash.
He argues “closest ally” should be judged by U.S. national interest (resources, strategic value, military utility), not sentiment or taboo.
He lists countries that might look strategically valuable on paper (e.g., Russia, Venezuela, Gulf monarchies), saying many are dismissed as “bad” largely on moralized narratives.
He claims Qatar is demonized in U.S. media, and says Americans are discouraged from seeing places for themselves rather than relying on curated clips.
He contrasts resources: Israel is claimed to have few natural resources and relies heavily on imports, while Qatar has enormous natural gas reserves and is a major LNG supplier.
He argues Qatar’s wealth and energy exports can directly benefit partners economically and strategically.
He claims Qatar is a major investor in the U.S. (citing enormous pledged/actual figures) and says foreign investment is portrayed as sinister without evidence of cultural “takeover.”
He portrays Qatar as socially conservative relative to Western culture, contrasting it with Tel Aviv and arguing Qatar’s values align more with U.S. social conservatives than critics admit.
He argues Israel is a net cost to the U.S. because of military aid and broader conflict “backstopping,” while Qatar is portrayed as a net contributor via investment and hosting U.S. forces.
He claims Israel provides little direct troop support in America’s wars, while the U.S. repeatedly bears major burdens tied to Israel’s regional conflicts.
He shifts to “morals/values,” arguing Qatar is smeared as uniquely immoral to prevent any rival to Israel’s privileged status in U.S. policy.
He claims Christians may be no less able to live in Qatar than in Israel, citing his assertion that there are more Christians in Qatar and multiple churches there.
He argues Israel’s dependence on U.S. support is “existential” for Israel, but says U.S. interests for 350 million Americans should still be weighed.
On war and diplomacy, he claims Israel frequently uses force while Qatar often acts as a venue/mediator for negotiations, portraying Qatar as more oriented toward de-escalation.
He makes a central allegation that Israel bombed Qatar in September and that Donald Trump responded with an executive order pledging to treat attacks on Qatar as threats to U.S. security, implying Trump sided with Qatar over Israel.
He then pivots to U.S. domestic politics, criticizing efforts to shut down debate by branding dissenters “Islamists” or reframing foreign policy as a religious obligation.
He attacks Senator Ted Cruz’s argument that “the Bible is crystal clear” Christians must support Israel, saying Cruz can’t cite or explain the theology and uses it to end debate.
He argues the last broad public justification—Israel as uniquely moral—has collapsed, and he describes Israel’s conduct in Gaza as deliberate mass killing of civilians and children, not accidental “collateral damage.”
He recounts visiting (in Qatar) Gazan child refugees with severe injuries and says the experience convinced him the U.S. should not fund or excuse the campaign—and condemns U.S. figures who mock or justify civilian deaths as “collective guilt.”
He closes by interviewing UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who claims Gaza meets the legal definition of genocide and says she was sanctioned by the U.S.; Carlson presents this as proof that criticism is punished while profiteers and officials are protected.
It’s interesting that the word “conservative” does not appear in any translation of the Bible. Yet somehow being “conservative” is upheld by many almost as a virtue in and of itself without question. This was even the case in the Bible. Of course there were social conservatives in the Bible, but they weren’t called that. In the New Testament, they might be called Pharisees and Sadducees.
Who killed Jesus Christ? It was a group of Pharisees and Sadducees that pressured Pontius Pilate to kill him. In other words, it was the social conservatives of that time who demanded the crucifixion of Jesus, paradoxically saying “His blood be on us and on our children!”.
Joseph, you are incoherent. Again. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Nothing incoherent about Joseph’s narative. That’s how Christ was crucified. He had become a liability to the power elite of his time, who happened to be the Pharissees, saducees and the priests of the temple.
Joseph.
No one can claim to be a Christian “liberal” or “conservative”. Either you’re a Christian or you’re not.
Christ was a revolutionary in his time. He took on the established hypocrisy of the Pharissees, the Saducees and the Temple priests and they conspired to kill him. Many people today are telling us that it was the Romans who killed Christ. It was the Jewish establishment. The Temple priests, such as Anas and Caiafas were the elite of the time. They spread rumors that Christ was a revolutionary, conspiring against the Roman empire. When the soldiers arrested Christ, he was brought before the priests who accused him of blasphemy, for disrespecting the power structure of the priests. The priests couldn’t execute them, because only the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate held the power for the ultimate of punishments. So, the priests brought Christ before Pontius Pilates, who couldn’t find Christ to be a dangerous man. But in order to apease the crowd, he agreed to give his permission to crucify him.
Its no different from Helleniscope’s struggle–and also my own struggles— to stand up and call out the many anti-Christian actions of the hypocrite, Elpidoctonos, who represents the priestly power structure, that would have crucified Christ if Christ was around today. Elpidoctonos has taken Nick to court, for having the chutzpa to call out their hypocrisy.
Helleniscopoe is considered conservative and to the right. But Nick’s taking on of the archdiocese is a very liberal action. Which is what Christ would have done.
Joseph (&Bob by extension),
You are omitting the key to the puzzle, which is just prior to the God-haters exclaiming “let His blood be upon us and our children”…
Just prior to that utterance, Pontius Pilate gave them a choice of who to condemn…Jesus, or Barabbas…
According to patristic explanation, the name Barabbas means “son of the father” (Bar + Abba)…that is not an accident. Barabbas personified everything demonic…A ruthless robber who undoubtedly either had already or could violate every one of God’s 10 Commandments.
In this light, the spiritual choice was clear…either:
a) Jesus, the Son of the Heavenly Father, or
b) “Barabbas”, a.k.a. the “son of the (other) father” (the spiritual son of Satan, the ruler of this earth), the “upgraded” model of the worst “Prodigal Son”
They ultimately made the choice based on “who” they preferred to associate with on a daily basis…they preferred the company of the personification of the “prince of darkness” the “Bar Abba” (Son of the father) of Darkness…not because they were “conservatives”, but because they were totally in love with the material things and earthly power that Satan offered them, but which Jesus refused when he was offered the same while fasting in the desert…
In light of this choice, it is a very flippant and spiritually improper thing to view and label the enemies of Christ as “the conservatives of the time”… what does that make Jesus…a “liberal of the times”? Are you so blinded by ego that you have lost all sense of logic? But what else do we expect from someone who uses the words “I” and “myself” 4 times in two sentences in a public internet forum? (See the comment further below “It’s been at least 35 years since…”)
Total nonsense once again from Joseph Lipper the whining snowflake liberal.
Mister spare us your BS.
Zoey. If you call someone’s comment B.S. as you’re doing to Joseph’s, you must explain what’s so B.S. about it. What he is saying is what’s written in the Bible and what we read every Holy Week. Are you saying the Bible is B.S.?
It’s been at least 35 years since I voted in any political elections, so I don’t really consider myself to be liberal or conservative. However, I’ve noticed that the word “liberal” is only used in the Bible with a positive connotation.
Joseph. I am disappointed that you’re not voting. You are not doing your duty as an American, or a citizen of the world. Commenting on Helleniscope is good, but not enough. I would encourage you to vote your conscience. No need to follow a certain ideology. America needs the voters who are independent. Too many Americans are stuck to their own party, either Democrat or Republican, no matter who the candidate is.
Joseph, you can’t possibly think that there are no changes in the meaning of the word “liberal” through time. For one, I do not think back then liberals were pro-killing babies like most of them are now. Nothing positive about it, it is against God’s commandment. So stop putting conservatives down because I don’t know how liberals go to sleep at night and even consider themselves Christians if they do not have any kind of compassion for God’s babies and are ok for them to be executed in the most barbaric ways. How many millions of babies were executed by the nice liberals? Sometimes I think you just speak without thinking.
Sandy.
Abortion and/or baby killing was a part of life at ancient times in all of the Medi.terranean. Look at Sparta, where sickly babies were thrown over the cliff to their death. With Judea being part of the Roman empire, during Christ’s life on earth, abortion and homosexuality were acceptable by law. Abortion was so prevelant, that a Roman senator was worried about Rome’s demographic decline. Yet, Christ never said anything against either practice.
Therer is no question that abortion as birth control is wrong. But its easy for do gooders such as you to criticize women who might choose abortion, because of their health. You consider yourself better than them. You dont know what anyone’s circumstances are. How many mothers are you financially supporting, that gave birth and they can’t take care of their offspring?
Conservatives are good at preaching against abortion, but they’re o.k. with killing those same kids by gun proliferation and denial of government assistance and health care. Both denials are happening now. Have you lost any sleep because of those barbarous denials of assistance?
Hey Bob,
Since you like theoretical questions…
A pregancy is terminated at a clinic, and it’s legal…a pregancy is terminated by someone that kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach, and that’s “murder”…how is the same result (nobody asked the soul that was killed if it wanted to live) treated in two different ways?
If your mother had chosen to abort you, would you support her decision? Would you like that?
Even better…if a mother ever regrets giving birth to a kid that becomes a burden to society and becomes “worried sick”, should the mother exercise her “right to terminate the kid” at that time, too, years after birth? Same thing, isn’t it, based on your logic, since the “termination” has to do with the mother’s health (mental in this case)?
Are you also going to propose a “National abortion day” and that King Herod be recognized on that day as the Universal hero of infanticide?
Maybe the state should start exercising its right to “forced sterilizations” for irresponsible members of society, and then the problem gets reduced dramatically, doesn’t it? The state could potentially start with sterilizing those who believe in abortion, perhaps, in an effort to eradicate that mindset in a couple of generations…Sounds like a great idea…
Sandy, the use of the word “liberal” in the Bible is synonymous with generosity and is therefore considered virtuous. So for example, in Isaiah 32:8, “The liberal man deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.” In biblical terminology, calling someone a “liberal” would traditionally be considered a compliment.
How far have we strayed from the biblical understanding! Social conservatives of today typically use the word “liberal” to refer to persons (or policies) that defend sexual perversion and the killing of babies. Yet it should not be lost on anyone that these same conservatives have largely defended and/or ignored Zionism and war in the Middle East, such as with the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and they have done so primarily on the cover of being “anti-abortion”. From Reagan, to Bush, to Dubya, and now to Trump, we can see that support of Zionism and war in the Middle East has largely been empowered by the U.S. anti-abortion platform, otherwise known among conservatives as the “most important political issue we face today, second only to the ubiquitous scourge of homosexual perversion.”
As for the latter, these same social conservatives typically ignore the fact that heterosexual perversion is not only far more ubiquitous and problematic in our society, but that it is also the chief culprit of abortions.
Joseph,
Where do you get the word “liberal” from this Isaiah 32:8 Septuagint quote?
8 οἱ δὲ εὐσεβεῖς συνετὰ ἐβουλεύσαντο καὶ αὕτη ἡ βουλὴ μενεῖ
KJV not only got it wrong (unless “liberal” meant something else in 1600’s English, in which case you can’t quote it using a modern context anyway), but you prove the point we’ve been saying here for years now…your reliance on bad translations is deceiving you day after day…
Markos, my main point is that the word “conservative” is not found in any translation of the Bible, whereas the word “liberal” can be found, as in the KJV, and with a positive meaning. The Hebrew word נָדִיב is translated as “liberal” in the KJV, and yes, this word could also describe a person who is generous, noble, pious, and intelligent.
The modern political dichotomy that many throw around of “conservative” vs. “liberal” is neither a biblical nor patristic concept. It makes more sense as a Christian to simply talk about good vs. evil.
What does Christianity have to do with conservatism anyways? What are Christians trying to conserve? Dogmatically speaking, the Nicene Creed says “we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.” Conservatism, by contrast, suggests those who are more concerned with the life of this present world, at expense of the world to come, and perhaps this was true of the Pharisees and Sadducees who demanded Jesus to be crucified.
Bob: Seriously? How about Thy shall not kill? Isn’t that enough for you? Or are you reading into it and justify it somehow? A life is a life, if you “terminate it” you actually kill a human being and please do not tell me it’s just cells! You are just cells, too. And that baby has a human DNA just like you. How can you justify taking a life of someone that did nothing to you? There are plenty of liberals using guns to kill, just recently we’ve had a few, the shooter that killed Kirk and so on. Liberals don’t like guns except when they want to use them themselves to shut people up that don’t agree with them–that is being a Nazi.
No I do not consider myself better than them, not at all. I think they do not know what they are doing. Killing babies that God Himself created, I would not ever dare to hurt in ANY way. Those babies actually suffer, they are tortured. And you know very well most of the time has absolutely nothing to do with their heath, so don’t hide behind a lie. It’s just being irresponsible; there are plenty of people that would help with that baby. Killing those babies it’s the most barbaric way a human being can treat another human being. It’s heartless. Of course if a mother doesn’t want her baby she should not raise the baby, but she can at least give the baby up for adoption and at least give that baby a chance! 9 months is not that long to “sacrifice”!!!
Those laws are created by the devil to kill the children of God. It is human sacrifice. Those laws have nothing to do with God. Christ never once said kill your babies! Those women and those liberals are interfering with God’s plant. Some of those children may have become saints. But in any event, as a Christian you should know better, their sole is not dead!
Sandy
You’re going off as if I said abortion is good. First of all, I’m a man. A man should not have an opinion on an issue that involves women’s body. Another fact: 92% of abortions take place in the first trimester. The rest 8% take place because of the mother’s or baby’s health. Many people think that women want to fit into a bikini and that’s why she had an abortion. Its a wrenching choice. And I’m glad I never had to face it.
Christ didn’t say “kill your babies” Now that’s pretty dumb thing to say. He never said ANYTHING about abortion.
My question to you and to anyone who wants to tell women what to do with their bodies, is, are you ready to help her support the baby? Then write a check, for the next 18 years. Because the government keeps cutting healtth care and food stamps. Chriist said to feed the poor. As for guns, it doesn’t matter if the killer is conservative or liberal. What matters is that conservatives gave him access to guns. . So stop with your preaching and don’t have abortion yourself if you’re against it.
Bob:
You keep saying Women’s body as there is no other body in there. The fact is that is not what they do with their bodies, but what they do with the bodies that God created in them! And don’t say men should not have an opinion, because those bodies that are thrown in the garbage like trash, are half theirs. Christ did not say don’t kill your babies because it should be obvious, they should not! Those children are not ours, they are God’s. gives us temporary care of them and what? We should say, not thanks? I’m going to get rid of “it”? Yes, that is what we are supposed to do with our money, write checks. God’s commandment is to multiply, not to throw our babies in the trash so we can enjoy more wealth. We do not have the right to wack them because they are not ours and we will be judged for this! Am I ready to support her baby? Yes through organizations we should all be able to support her baby and there are so many organizations, more than we need, because women foolishly choose the easy way out. Conservatives did not give anyone access to guys, they were not holding the guy. They shooter would have found another way to kill. That’s just what killers do. People have been a lot poorer in the past and they did not kill so many babies. I urge all people to be responsible rather than kill so many unborn children. MILLIONS! You can’t possibly find MILLIONS of excuses. Can you tell God, oh please don’t get involved, it the women’s body, let them do what they want with the baby you put in them, and let them throw those babies in the garbage if they want?
Joseph:
Liberal doesn’t mean what it used to mean. And you bring zionism up but your liberal president Biden proudly announced he is a zionist. And you know very well it was Biden that started to fund wars in Ukraine and Gaza, not the conservatives.
The “most important political issue we face today” should be not killing human beings that can’t defend themselves. Those babies are not ours! God created them and trusted us with their care temporarily, but we will judge for killing little humans when they can’t defend themselves like cowards. Think about it for a second: God put that baby in there to be protected and we are ready to throw them in the garbage! God had a plan for that baby and we are interfering. I do not care what the homosexuals do in their private life as long as they don’t bring their propaganda in schools. My children don’t need to be brainwashed by this. Yes it is a sin like many sins, so let’s not start normalize it. Both of those issues are sins. Period. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.