As millions of Americans are about to go hungry due to the US government refusing to fund SNAP, just remember that only two countries voted against making food a basic human right. The US and the terrorist colony of Israel
You must log in or # to comment.
UN link here: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3951462
Reminder to not take “infographics” as fact until you look at the source. Which this post doesn’t provide.
It wasn’t in November, but December, with 186 in favor, 2 not in favor, and 5 non-voters.
So 1 month difference and missing 6 yes?
Removed by mod
1 month difference, 1 year difference, 6 missed votes, 60 missed votes, Either the information is correct, or it isn’t. There’s no excuse to have incorrect dates and votes when the information is available to everyone.
The reason for the difference is because OP didn’t bother to look into any of it. He probably just heard from someone that USA and Israel voted No on this topic, and that was enough, the rest didn’t matter to him.
So, this is why you should be cautions
I’d usually be with you on batting away the misinformation but all that was brought here to make your point was negligible and completely missing the overall point.
So I’m also cautious of derailing underlying topics just to be nit picky. It’s rude on it’s face and self serving at it’s root.
Folks that are nitpicky, especially when something such as statistics that goes against their views, is a red flag. Lowest form of rebuttal
They weren’t mad that it went against their views, they were upset that there was no reason why these numbers should be wrong. The information is available, just do it right.
People who will brush aside poor execution because it worked out this time is a huge red flag.
You are technically right but the essence of only America and Israel voting against it is still correct. If anything Israel is getting away with it a bit too easily by being so small
Yes, but how would you know that’s the 1 out of 4 pieces of information that is correct? Especially when they don’t even provide the source of the information.
The point is not about the 1 out of 4 pieces of information that was correct, the point is to not take info-graphics at face value without verifying the source. To be vigilant and critical of that which doesn’t provide a source.
And honestly,if the lack of sources didn’t catch your eye, the fact that the date in the image has a mismatched font and font size to the rest of the text, should. It stuck out like a sore thumb, and that was my first clue that I need to find the actual source.
The point is that the USA and Israel are against the notion, pal. Stop pretending like you are all about straightening out facts.
This is so not about straightening out facts, buddy. Without a source, how are you supposed to know ANY of this is actually true? It’s downright scary how many people just accepted this as facts and not once, questioned the validity of what is unverified information.
If you can’t see why this is a problem, you’re part of that problem. Part of that gullible population that believes everything they see just because it’s a coloured map
You pasted the source and it confirms what the post intended to show. So what is your problem exactly?
Had it made a lick of difference to the overall point, maybe. But all this is is being technical to be nitpicky. No actual wrong was corrected here.
A broken clock is right twice a day. If you can’t see the problem with spreading unverified information I don’t know what to tell you. They did not know, if it was true or not. OP saw this image on reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/lostgeneration/comments/111e2t9/til_usa_israel_were_the_only_countries_to_vote/
And OP took it as fact. Not a single effort of verifying the information was taken. Just copy and paste. And that’s exactly how misinformation is spread. Though, in this case, at least 1 of the facts were true. That US and Israel voted against.
The only fact that mattered was the US and Israel vote
The yea, missing, or missed votes dont matter. Both times the resolution has come up at the UN the only ones to vote no have been the US and Israel
A huge point of the image is to show that those two countries are the odd ones out. It super does matter and it’s wild you don’t see that.
Instead of owning it, telling us you’ll double check your facts for next time, you’re just excusing it with “at least the ones to vote no was correct”. Which is quite disappointing
Take the L and be better
I’m actually more concerned with the lack of common sense on your part to keep missing the overall point and still insist your’s still stands now that it’s been pointed out to be too negligible to derail the overall point.
This has been like observing as AI doubling down about a pebble on the ground trying to convince all humans with spatial awareness and instinct that it matters more than a meteor colliding with earth.
If in the case you really are an AI bot that somehow fell into the fediverse:
educating privileged, wealth hoarding capitalist masses about basic right to just simply not starve to death is probably more fucking important here.
And If in the case you are not an AI bot: This is low. Even for a troll.
What are you even talking about?
The truly concerning part here is that you are somehow arguing against verifying the source of information.
You added no relevant context
That’s why I usually just downvote info graphics to be on the safe side.
Thank you!!
to people saying the resolution is useless theatrics and just symbolic. then if there were no consequences, why the fuck would the US and Israel vote against it?
Because they’re assholes on principle.
These resolutions are toothless without the materials and logistics to implement them. Food should be a right and it’s an easy thing to vocally support (unless you’re manufacturing a famine in Gaza).
But how do you relieve the famine in Sudan if you’re unwilling to export agricultural surplus at below market rates from Southern Europe? How do you meet global human demand for fresh produce if you’re dedicating enormous qualities of arable land to high profit, low yield livestock? These generic statements of principle don’t actually change how and why food is distributed.
And those are just the “capitalism bad” dumb lefty critiques.
What about in a war zone? Should we be feeding Russians occupying Ukraine? What about Israel settlers in the West Bank or Han Chinese in Xinjiang and Tibet or illegal Hamas ISIS Haitian Cartel MS-13 terrorists attacking people’s dogs in Cleveland, Ohio?
Shouldn’t we be killing these people instead?
Should we be feeding Russians occupying Ukraine?
they should have their own logistics, and if surrendered/captured then yes, 100% we should feed them
What about Israel settlers in the West Bank
Illegal settlers likely already get plenty of assistance and welfare. But if there was justice, they would be captured as invaders and deported back to Israel borders, and fed during custody
Han Chinese in Xinjiang and Tibet or illegal Hamas ISIS Haitian Cartel MS-13 terrorists attacking people’s dogs in Cleveland, Ohio?
I lost track, but if captured, then yes, otherwise as long as you aren’t actively blocking food from entering (a literal war crime) then it is acceptable.
they should have their own logistics
“Everyone has a right to eat, but not everyone should have the right to the logistical supply chain that they need to receive the food” is UN doublespeak in a nutshell.
I am pretty sure if you have a military invading another country, it should be your responsibility to feed them.
And if they get hungry and surrender just to eat, because the “enemy” is following international law, the that is good.
Also, there are programs to feed starving people, but it is often blocked by malicious states (like Israel). There is no demand for Israel to feed Gaza, but there is demand for them to not block existing aid from coming in.
And if they get hungry and surrender just to eat, because the “enemy” is following international law
If its international law to guarantee everyone gets fed and you are able to defeat an military by starving out the host population (a technique the Israelis are claiming is being used to defeat Hamas) then how are you following international law?
Also, there are programs to feed starving people
Well, Israel is breaching international law, and way too many western nations are complicit in that genocide.
There’s a difference between attacking enemy supply lines and blocking food from entering a civilian urban area.
Sure. And you can know the difference. And I can know the difference.
And the UN Security Council can pretend not to know the difference.
And if they get hungry and surrender just to eat, because the “enemy” is following international law
If its international law to guarantee everyone gets fed and you are able to defeat an military by starving out the host population (a technique the Israelis are claiming is being used to defeat Hamas) then how are you following international law?
I think it’s about the enemy soldiers starving into surrender, not the civilian populace. Surely this doesn’t mean you are not allowed to attack the supply lines of an invading army inside your own borders?
Or… does it?
A quick google yields the resolution: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3954949?ln=en&v=pdf#files
Starting to read it…
It… starts with six pages of “recalling this”, “acknowledging that”? Are UN resolutions like patents, where only a small fraction of the text is actually meaningful? Maybe I should find a guide for reading them first…
I think it’s about the enemy soldiers starving into surrender, not the civilian populace.
Shy of magic, that’s not a policy you can implement. Either people in a region have access to food or they don’t. You can’t just put a stamp on a loaf of bread that makes it inedible to anyone carrying a gun.
Are UN resolutions like patents, where only a small fraction of the text is actually meaningful?
:-/
A lot of it is legalese that matters much more to an actual court system than a random layman picking through the fine print. But yes, broadly speaking a central critique of the UN has been its habit of going out and announcing “Bad Thing Is Bad” and then failing to do much to back that statement up.
At the same time, when the UN has intervened… well… look at the horror show that was the Korean War. Nevermind the intervention and occupation of Yugoslavia or Somalia. Or the Oil for Food Scandal with regard to Iraq.
I mean, the fundamental problem with the UN is that its still composed of many of the countries that are actively participating or tangentially benefiting in whatever horrible thing they’re supposed to be preventing. Much like any republican institution, you’re stuck with people who were put there by the corrupt institutions they’re supposed to police. How do you untangle that web? Ask Alexander the Great, maybe.
Found one: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/31493
What’s actually important about these italicized words is the division between the preambulary and operative clauses as a whole. Whereas the preamble uses gerunds such as “Reaffirming” and “Recalling” and similar terms, the operative clauses, which are binding, use terms such as “Decides” “Appeals” and “Approves”.
So… I need to look at the first word of each paragraph, determine whether or not it’s operative, and if it is it’s worth reading the rest of the paragraph?
The US and Israel, who would have thought?
I fucking hate USA and Israel
Ironic countries to currently be the most like Nazi Germany, but here we are.
Nazi Germany was directly inspired by the US’s manifest destiny, racist laws and racial theorists from the US, we blocked Jewish refugees from coming to the US in 30s and after the war gave several prominent Nazis positions in US organizations, the US is called ‘The Great Satan’ for a reason.
Yes, but we were also a large part of why Nazi Germany was defeated. Hence the irony.
If Germany stuck to genociding Jews in their own country there would be no war. Even the US didn’t get involved until they got sttacked directly.
Regardless of the reason, it happened.
Right but you said it was ironic that the US is now like Nazi Germany. Implying they fought the Nazis out of anti-Nazism only to end up like Nazis themselves. That would indeed be ironic but that’s not what happened. The US were always like Nazis, the Nazis were literally inspired by America. They only fought the Nazis because they were attacked not because they had some moral integrity.
The U.S. fought the Nazis because the U.S. predator class did not like the competition.
No, the irony in the US’s case is that they were instrumental in their downfall, regardless of any hypocrisy. Germany were portrayed as the bad guys, the ultimate evil. And they were attacked by Japan, not Germany - they could have just gone after them, but chose to enter the whole war.
Eh, its just earth. Bunch of assholes running things here thats for sure.
Hey that looks like this map!
As if the countries that host the child factories care about CRC. Atleast the US and Israel aren’t hypocritical enough to sign something that they wont enforce either way.
Ok boomer
Lol I see somebody read another post recently…
I keep that map in my favorites to post
This one? This is the reported amount of child labor in the world. Truly a resounding win for the CRC and the pretence that it is “ratified”.
The colour code is as follows: yellow (<10% of children working), green (10–20%), orange (20–30%), red (30–40%) and black (>40%)
The CRC grants rights to children [1]; e.g., right to health care, right to education, right to be protected from economic exploitation or hazardous or harmful works… It also expects that states fix a minimun age to work but not forbid children to work.
Please, stop justify the USA and Israel with false and racist arguments.
You’re making your own argument look silly. I’d say that making 40% of kids below 18 work is pretty harmful.
I guess it only applies if you have a functioning society.
I’m not justifying them as much as i’m allergic to false information, presented as facts. I’ll ask the same thing i did to another one of the other silly goofs on here. Do you think it’s worse to sign a contract and then not fulfilling it, or not signing it to begin with?
I think being a raging hypocrite is much, much worse. So look at the map i sent and compare to the first post, then tell me who is the hypocrite.
Ok condescending fuckwad.
Do you think it’s worse to sign a contract and not uphold it or to not sign it at all? Now think a little before you answer.
That’s not a real argument, just typical whatabout-ism.
countries that host the child factories
Ah yes, the dreaded child factories. The ones in Sweden are particularly bad. Bought a defective child a few months back. Kept asking for food.
Oh deary me. In what world did you think Sweden was one of the countries i’m talking about?
No, you just want to ignore that most of the non-western world still have child labor. But atleast they signed the CRC! Thank fucking god they did.
The colour code is as follows: yellow (<10% of children working), green (10–20%), orange (20–30%), red (30–40%) and black (>40%)
Don’t take it so hard, it was a joke.
Then maybe don’t start by trying to sound like a know-it-all by regurgitating the only logical fallacy that you can remember the name of. It’s like talking to a chat bot with limited answers.
Notice that you didn’t deny engaging in whataboutism.
I suggest we change the name of the fallacy from tu quoque to y tu mama tambien.
No, i’m literally commenting on the same subject within that subject. No whataboutism to be found, which is why i called you out for not knowing what the fuck you’re talking about.
At the risk of getting banned, when I only saw one country in red and “2” in the summary l knew exactly where on the map I needed to zoom to find the second
I had the exact same thought. If you could really be banned for saying that ISRAEL is a scourge on the planet earth for starving an entire population of innocent people, I’d rather not be on .world anyway.
it really is impressive (and terrifying, if i’m being honest) just how…extensive and all encompassing this Israeli/AIPAC propaganda is.
like…it’s so bad that I don’t even feel comfortable thinking on it too much, because what if I’m falling into some antisemitic rabbithole that blames the jews for everything? the start of some alt-right pipeline?
but then it’s undeniable, that there is a concerted effort to suppress any and all information about israel’s atrocities across the western world, with plenty of jews in positions of power essentially sanctioning it.
When you make the distinction that there are more christian zionists than Jewish ones calling out their bullshit cant be considered antisemitic
There is a person on Lemmy who is a mod and has many alts. Let’s call them SmugJesus. They will definitely call you antisemitic if you talk negatively about Zionism and the Israel lobby.
Yeah fuck that person. Instant downvote anytime I see a post from that asshole.
They can go fuck themselves
I’d add that it is not only Jews doing it, and a lot of Jews you will meet are not complicit. In fact, they are most likely being marginalised by their own communities.
Also, it’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a publicly admitted Israeli effort, look up hasbara on Wikipedia.
So you’re denying your own obvious observations because you disagree with some of the other people that hold those thoughts?
consider me recently (re)awakened, also i don’t entirely trust my own memories/experience if I’m being entirely honest.
i’v done some psychedelics in the past and know how fragile (fluid?) the human mind/pysche can be
also I’m kind of like a dog that was never socialized properly, so just in general things are new to me
Some communities have weird stances on where they draw the line. To some extent, I have sympathy, because it can be quite easy for a discussion to devolve into shit slinging that involves surprise Zionists popping up, and often legitimate antisemitism ends up appearing if mods aren’t able to stay on top of things (by “legitimate antisemitism”, I mostly mean stuff that indirectly conflates Israel with Jewish people by using antisemitic rhetoric to attack Israel). Some communities may have fewer mods, or a culture that leads to discussions becoming toxic sooner.
This community is a good counter example to the culture problem. There’s been a lot of harshly worded comments against Israel in this thread (reasonably so), but I haven’t seen anything that falls into the trap I describe above, but that’s no doubt a credit both to the culture of this place, and the efforts of the mods here
Considering the biblical law laid out charity as a rule (don’t harvest the edges of your field, allow the poor etc. to eat from it)
we are thankfully not on reddit. you can hate zionism in peace without getting banned.
But this is .world, where key super mods have removed people calling out the US/Israel several times.
i didn’t know that.
.world was always more reddit-y and conservative, but i wasn’t really expecting fascism/zionism from them so soon.
JordanLund and Seriunus are two prime examples. Power mods who remove you if you prove them wrong. Serinus even said that “from the river to the sea, palestine will be free” is actually antisemetic, and the admins didn’t do anything about it, nor JL’s constant power abuse when he was wrong. Even after the admins took over a month to do something, they just dumped entire load onto JonsJava, which made him leave in protest of the Admin doing that without talking to him.
deleted by creator
If im gonna call Israel a terrorist colony theres no fear of getting banned by me
Afaiu having a brain and stating facts are only bannable offenses over at that Reddit shithole.
Nevertheless I wish you luck 😅.world is the r*ddit of Lemmy tho
I was wondering for a moment, saw this comment. Ohhhh, yes of course.
I didn’t realize how small Israel was until now! Your comment definitely helped me find it though.
Sir, this is a lemmy
Lmao same
This preface is bullshit. Perfect “I am not a racist, but” energy.
Huge miss. I wasn’t saying it as a form of defence, I was saying it as a sideswipe at people like you who wilfully interpret criticism of a country’s actions as bigotry.
I don’t consider your statement bigotry. I am just annoyed by people hedging.
The US and Israel voted against?! I am shocked, SHOCKED! Well, not that shocked.
food deficiency is useful in producing conservative voting blocs for both countries. hungry people are an angry people,
Or just useful for eradicating a specific ethnic group…
Tip: to find the other one, zoom in on the middle east
Or make an educated guess - you’ll be totally right.
“the terrorist colony of Israel”
I like you.
I just want to point out that Nov of 2021 was under Biden’s watch.
Both sides, I guess. One side wasn’t that great, and the other is setting everything on fire. Seems about equal. 😜
More like: “if the one side wasn’t consistently shitty (even if not as shitty as the other side), they might find more success in winning elections.”
It’s like they push the fucking envelope on how much bullshit we’ll put up with and still vote for them. And unfortunately for all of us, they lost that bet in 2024.
This is what I feel a lot of people miss. Yes, the Democratic party is far worse than we deserve. But they still manage to get away with being the second worst option and taking money from whichever evil billionaire wants to build an orphan crushing machine, because Republicans are able to give such stupid talking points and openly hire rapists and racists, and their base is brain-dead enough to give them that leeway.
That second bit is what I still fail to understand. They cater to anger even when that anger is facing the complete wrong direction.
It’s a very corporate mindset. Any bullshit they could have gotten away with but didn’t is viewed as loss while pushing it too far is just the cost of doing business.
It really is corpo ghouls vs death cult ghouls.
Oh shit, don’t you know you’re not allowed to say that on libby.world???
It was Linda Thomas-Greenfield, appointed by Biden
wasn’t that great
You people will never not be funny. Great to whom? People in Iraq? Afghanistan? Syria?
Just say you fuckwits only care about yourselves and try some introspection next time to think how it got to a point you have to choose between the lesser “evil”.
You wanted less evil for yourselves, not anyone else.
Starting off with “you people” always sets the bar for a good discussion. Maybe part of my sarcasm was referring to those situations as well as domestic problems, or how either or both sides could have done a lot better for decades. I wonder if you think all this is recent? I’ve been seeing this shit for decades, trying to change it… I guess it’s my fault that it hasn’t. This sure sounds like projection.
It depends who you mean by “you people”.
If you mean “Liberals (in the American style)” you’re probably right.
If you mean “Americans”, you’re wrong, not because many or most Americans think like that, but because many do not at all think like that.
PS: And I use “American-style” because I don’t just mean those in America, rather any who believe in a certain kind of self-proclaimed “Liberal” politics which is the same as “Liberals” in America (basically Neoliberalism, with or without the Identity Politics decorative elements). People who believe in that kind of politics are definitelly not just in America.
Whataboutism
And typical Democrat fashion they used a black woman to do their dirty work, to cast their vote against it being a basic human right.
Does she not have agency to make her own choices?
Her choices were “follow instructions” or “find a new job”.
So just no backbone, got it.
Not necessarily!
She might just be ideologically aligned with her bosses and wants people to starve.
How many branches of the US government were under Republican control though?
Irrelevant. Who appoints the US ambassador to the UN?
how many branches of the US government were under Democrat control for how long and at what points but we still got no living wages, universal healthcare, police reform, clean environment, etcetera
Democrats have held a majority in Congress at various times, with notable periods including the long stretch from 1955 to 1995 in the House and from 1933 to 1953, the control of both chambers after the 2006 elections, and a brief, two-week majority in the Senate in 2001. The party’s largest majority was in the 75th Congress (1937–1938).
House of Representatives
1955–1995: Democrats held a majority in the House for 40 years.
1937–1938: The 75th Congress saw the largest Democratic majority in the House.
2006: Democrats gained a majority in the House following the midterm elections.
2018: Democrats won a majority in the House again in the November 2018 midterm elections.
Senate
1893–1895: The 53rd Congress had a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate.
2001: Democrats held a majority for a short period from January 3 to January 20, 2001, due to the deciding vote of Vice President Al Gore.
2006: Democrats regained control of the Senate after the midterm elections.
2008: Democrats increased their majority in the Senate, and after the 2008 election, they briefly held a filibuster-proof majority (60–40).
Other significant periods
1933–1953: This period is known as the New Deal Democratic Era and saw the party dominate federal government.
1964: Following the election, Democrats had their largest plurality in history, leading to a Democratic majority in Congress and the 89th Congress.
2009: Democrats achieved a “trifecta” (control of the House, Senate, and presidency) after the 2008 election.
democrats suck too quit trying to be an uncle tom defending
both parties suck and should be fucking obvious they are not going to shit for us no matter how many times vote straight ticket democrat or republican
forty fucking years was that not enough or did republicans fuck that up too somehow or the other voters democrats are always blaming or was the third parties again
make it make sense
Easy. Democrats are sponsored by billionaires. So are Republicans, but they can be openly supportive of billionaires, while Democrats have to show they’re here “for the people”. If Democrats would get serious about anti-billionaire social policies, they would lose funding and media coverage overnight.
Just look at how they desperately try to tank Mamdani, despite the fact he is fully aligned with Democratic party lines and is immensely popular. Dems know that his “for the people” reputation, even if it’s one mayor of one city, will make billionaires upset, and desperately try to reverse course. Also, other, way less popular candidates got more campaign funds, with much higher average donations - guess who got involved.
Uncle Tom?
I’m lucky enough not to be a yank
I live in a civilised country
On a practical level, what would it mean to make food a human right?
Water is a human right, and there is a somewhat vague statement that, if you have access to a tap and someone asks you for drinking water you have to give it. Already the applications are confusing, since most local laws impose such burden only on public spaces (with varying definitions of public spaces).
For food, what would that mean? How could that ever be implemented? Or is the vibe good enough?
to my knowledge it obligates governments to provide food to people who can’t get food for reasons outside of their control such as prisoners, prisoners of war, and victims of natural disasters
Thanks for the clarification
In most countries, if your rights are violated, you can sue the one violating them and get them restored.
If food is a right and you can’t get food, then you should be able to sue the government to give you food. After the first won case, further similar cases would be handled by precedent, thus kind of necessiting the government to create a system to get food to people.
Point of clarification. This is only in common law countries, which are the minority. In most of the world, it’s code law that prevails and precedent means little or nothing. If it is a law, it is fulfilled, no matter what previous judges thought.
For water being a right, it also means the corporations and government can’t restrict you from accessing water. For example in most places you are allowed to access beach front or lake front property to get to the water. Some landlords and people complain in various situations but they legally have to have public access to a water body. I imagine for food, since corporations and landowners have occupied land or have land titles that would preclude you from growing your own, so somebody has to provide it if you can’t access land to make it.
Water is a human right, and there is a somewhat vague statement that, if you have access to a tap and someone asks you for drinking water you have to give it.
At least here in the US, there’s a fair bit of public infrastructure around water being a human right. Every establishment you walk into likely has a publicly-accessible fountain.
I imagine something similar would have to happen around food, and I don’t think it would be that hard in practice. All we’d have to do is make it illegal for food vendors to trash edible food at the end of the day, but it’ll never ever happen. We care more about the civic religion of capitalism than we do about people being able to eat.
Boston’s main bus station literally doesn’t have a water fountain. I had to ask McDonald’s to fill my canteen with water, and she literally said no at first. I had to demand it, because there was no water fountain in the building
Oh wow. That’s surprising. Here in KC I can’t think of a single place I go that doesn’t have them.
boston is where the rot destroying the USA began, and has continued over the centuries pretty much unfettered
the whole city is a trap designed to squeeze as much $ out of as many people from across the country/world as possible, but hey…atleast they got some bike lanes, and that’s enough to keep their libs happy i guess.
It wouldn’t make a difference, it’s just moralist masturbation to put it bluntly. Declaring something as a human right doesn’t magically open up a portal where we can take an infinite amount of “human right” goods, especially not under capitalism where water, food and everything else produced and extracted are commodities to be produced for profit
(Edited)
(in the UN)
the US is Israel’s bitch, the US ALWAYS votes the same way as Israeltells them tonomatter how much it hurts Americans.the US is Israel’s bitch
Billionaires in both countries are profiting handsomely off the genocide
You have the relationship backwards, Israel is a vassel state of the US, the ruling class in the US uses Israel to reduce stability among Arab states and profits from their colonialism. Israel wouldn’t function without the backing of the US. It’s a classic trope that the global Jewish elite is pushing the US around, but every action Israel takes is overseen by US officials and military and is supplied primarily by US weaponry. They may act independently and against the interests of the US at times but that doesn’t change the overal dynamic.
Ehhhh it’s very much a too way relationship. If the US was firmly in control Trump could have just forced Bibi into peace to get his day 1 end the war promise.
BS
How did you manage to twist yourself into making the nazi propaganda your view of Israeli-U.S. relations?
“Israel is the great ruler of the world”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Jewish_conspiracy
what about hamburger helper tho
Fucking Israel and his lackey.
