Trump’s Iowa Victory Exposes Major Establishment Weakness. Zelensky Brings Pathetic Peace Plan to Davos. The Revealing Case of Rep. Paul Findley (R-IL)
Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET: https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald
Become part of our Locals community: https://greenwald.locals.com/
- - -
Follow Glenn:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glenn.11.greenwald/
Follow System Update:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SystemUpdate_
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/systemupdate__/
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@systemupdate__
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/systemupdate.tv/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/systemupdate/
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m.
Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight, Donald Trump won the Iowa caucus last night by 30 points over Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley in what is the largest ever victory in a contested Republican Iowa caucus since the race began.
It is, I think, insufficiently recognized how remarkable this victory is And how singularly revealing.
It is not just that the entire political media and financial establishment was united to stop Trump, though that is of course largely true and still is.
It is far more than that.
Establishment forces already unleashed on Trump a weapon that had never previously been used on a major candidate for the presidency in American history.
Namely, they formally charged him with felonies and are trying to imprison him.
Four separate times and four separate criminal proceedings he has been indicted.
And yet very large swaths of the political public simply do not care, obviously.
And it is not just Republicans, but independents as well, who continue to give Trump a meaningful lead in the king swing states that will determine the election.
Shortly before he went on there, a very new poll just came out from a very reliable Georgia pollster that put Trump seven points up in Georgia, a state that Biden was declared the winner of in 2020.
Put another way, this means that many millions of Americans, arguably most, Simply no longer trust the core institutions of power and authority in this country.
That is not a healthy state of affairs, but it is a very well disturbed one and we will look at all the implications of that.
European, American, and Persian Gulf elites are meeting this week in their annual rotted glamour fest at Davos.
Among the attendees is Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who traveled there and appeared in what the New York Times described as a stylish, smart, war general chic, quote, olive green pants and a black crunet sweater.
He did not only appear in his war general costume, he brought with him what he is calling a, quote, peace plan.
A proposal that is supposedly going to induce Moscow to stop the war.
A peace plan that is so delusional, out of touch, and detached from reality that you have to see it to believe it.
So we're going to show it to you.
This war, the one in Ukraine, that the U.S.
and NATO has funded and fueled is really one of the most horrific wastes of money and human life in many decades.
And the fact that the West is still entertaining the possibility of funding this futile bloodbath shows how decayed and rotted the Davos elite has become.
Finally, we were going through this last night, we ran out of time, and so tonight we want to take a look back at the fascinating, truly fascinating, and revealing career of a Republican congressman, Paul Finley.
He was first elected in 1960 to represent a moderate district in Illinois, and he became one of the earliest opponents of U.S.
intervention in Vietnam in the early 60s before there was a war authorization.
He was angry that the U.S.
had deployed what they were calling advisers there, and as a result, he authored the War Powers Resolution.
The bill that curbs the ability of the President to deploy the U.S.
military to fight wars without congressional approval.
A law that was much discussed last week after Biden ordered the bombing of Yemen without so much as a congressional notification, let alone a debate or a vote.
And that bombing of Yemen continues into this week.
And what makes this Congressman, Paul Finley, particularly interesting is not just how he spent his career, but also how it ended.
He not only opposed American intervention in general, but was a specific and increasingly vocal opponent of the U.S.
funding of Israel and all of its wars.
For that crime, for questioning whether it was in U.S.
interest to fund Israel's wars, he was accused by AIPAC and the ADL and other vehement defenders of Israel of being, you'll never guess what, an anti-Semite and then was targeted by the pro-Israel lobby with defeat.
In 1982, after he had served for 22 years, AIPAC funded a young Democrat who was highly supportive of Israel.
His name was Dick Durbin, who went on to become one of the Democratic Party's most senior officials in Washington, a very reliable supporter of U.S. funding of Israel.
In the case of Paul Finley, it was one of the first, by no means the last, that sent a signal to American lawmakers in Washington that they either unquestioningly support Israel and vote for U.S.
funding of it, or face likely destruction of their career.
Before we get to the episode, a few programming notes.
First of all, System Update is also available in podcast form, where you can listen to each episode 12 hours after they first are broadcast live.
Here on Rumble, you can listen on Spotify, Apple, and all other major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow the show, it really helps spread the visibility of the program.
As a final reminder, every Tuesday and Thursday night, once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we move to locals.
This tonight being Tuesday, we're going to, rather, tonight being Wednesday.
We won't do that, but every Tuesday and Thursday we do.
Today is, today is actually, today, today is Tuesday.
And so, I got confused because usually elections are on Tuesday.
I knew there was an election last night and my brain momentarily scrambled.
So, because it is Tuesday, we will do our live after show on Locals, which is part of the mobile platform, and that's designed to be an interactive after show where we take your questions and comment on your feedback and hear your suggestions for future guests and for topics.
Those who want to join the Rumble, the Locals platform, and that after show is available exclusively for members of our Locals community.
We'll get access not only to those twice a week after shows, but also to the daily transcripts of every show that we produce.
It's where we publish our original journalism.
We do a lot of interactive exchanges and dialogue with our readers.
And it's really the place that helps support the independent journalism that we're doing here.
We really rely on that Locals community for the show that we produce.
If you want to become a member, simply click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page.
and it will take you directly to the locals platform For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
It continues to be the single most important fact of American political life that the largest portion of American voters in recent American history, if not ever, knew.
No longer trust any of the core central institutions of authority and power in the United States.
And that is, if you think about it, an extremely poor state of affairs for any society.
We need reliable and trustworthy institutions to administer the law, to create the appearance that the law is being administered fairly and equally, to issue decrees in times of war or in times of medical crises that people can place their faith and trust in.
And just in general, to have a working set of facts that are given to us by the media that we believe are true.
The citizenry needs that.
It benefits from having a set of institutions that it can trust.
And by and large, in American history, people have largely supported those institutions, whether they identify as Republicans or Democrats, whether on the left or the right.
Obviously, there are a lot of exceptions.
There's been distrust in American history, but in general, the vast majority of American citizens have placed their faith and trust in leading institutions of media, of law enforcement, of science and health, and that has all collapsed.
And it collapsed more or less coinciding with the emergence of Donald Trump, though I don't think he was the cause of it.
I think he was one of the people who first perceived how great of a sentiment this was in the American populace, and he gave voice to it.
He became what he said he wanted to be, which was the vessel for the forgotten person, the person who perceives that these institutions have abandoned them, that they only care about a tiny sliver of the population.
Now, one of the remarkable things about 2024 and the presidential race that we just started with the Iowa caucus last night is that we have a situation we have never previously had in American politics ever in the history of this country.
The candidate that is leading essentially all polls, but now I think it's safe to say he's the frontrunner for the presidency, is not only facing four criminal processes, separate cases in four separate jurisdictions where he's accused of felonies in each and every one of them, but he has been formally indicted and faces the very real prospect of prison, not ten years from now or five years from now, but this year.
These cases are going to trial.
And they're not going to go to trial until many of these states have voted.
And what it looks very likely, based on the results last night, is that we're going to have a situation where huge numbers of people, millions and millions and millions of Americans, by a very large margin, are making very clear, crystal clear, unmistakably clear, that the person they want to be their president is Donald Trump.
And after months of watching this, Jack Smith and the prosecutors in Atlanta, And in Manhattan, they're going to march into courtrooms and they're going to argue that that same person should be put in prison.
If there's any recipe for unrest, civic unrest, I can't imagine what would be better, if that were your goal, than watching all these races and all these elections and hearing the outcome of all these people going to vote and then taking the person they want to make their president and doing everything possible to imprison him and kick him off ballots and render him ineligible to run.
I actually watched that happen in Brazil twice.
In 2018, when Lula da Silva was the frontrunner in polls, and he was arrested and made ineligible, and that's what paved the way for Jair Bolsonaro to win that race.
He might have won anyway, Bolsonaro, but the polls were showing Lula in front.
And then once Lula won, ever since that election, Bolsonaro being his main political opponent, he has now been declared ineligible to run in the next election, and they're trying to imprison him as well, and it's a recipe for extreme unrest.
We saw a little glimpse of it in Brazil, we've seen a little glimpse of it in the United States with January 8th in Brazil, January 6th in the United States, but so much worse will come if we continue down this path.
But the remarkable part about it is that even though he's been indicted four separate times, he not only is maintaining his political support, he has clearly increased it.
He has clearly consolidated all the support he had and then gained more.
And if you think about what that says, what that necessarily says, it is actually kind of frightening if you care about political stability in your country.
But it's also very well deserved.
What it's saying is that we know that the Justice Department and various prosecutors are accusing Donald Trump of being a felon and are trying to put him in prison.
But it doesn't affect our opinion of him and his fitness to be the president because we don't trust those institutions to administer the law.
We don't believe in the Justice Department.
We don't believe in the FBI.
We don't believe in prosecutors in this country.
We believe that those institutions of power have been weaponized, have been commandeered, have been corrupted.
And there is no way to read the outcome of this election thus far, even last night's vote, which you can dismiss as being a caucus, Only one state, which is Iowa.
All that's true.
But Trump didn't even win Iowa in 2016.
He was over 50% of the vote.
He won by 30 points, even though tens and tens of millions of dollars were first poured into Ron DeSantis and then into Nikki Haley.
It did nothing.
People have tuned out establishment voices.
That is the only conclusion you can reach.
And if you're like me and you believe those establishment sectors and those establishment institutions are deeply corrupted, then in one way you should be celebratory about the fact that they really have lost the faith and trust of almost everybody other than partisan Democrats, the only ones who trust these institutions.
But if you also value civic stability and just a general peace in the body politic, it should be something very concerning.
Generally, good things do not happen once people lose faith in their institutions of authority, and they no longer trust that authority is being exercised legitimately.
Now, here's a poll that was taken recently, and it was compiled by the Financial Times and by YouGov.
It was published by the Financial Times, by the data editor there, and the poll basically Here are the largest media corporations in the United States.
Tell us whether or not you trust these institutions, these media institutions, these media corporations to tell you the truth about what's happening.
And one of the points they were trying to make in this poll was that in the United States there's a very wide gap between who Democrats trust and who Republicans trust, whereas in the UK More or less, the left and the right have the same opinions of the same news agencies.
There's not this massive gap.
There's a lot of negativity and a lot of distrust.
But more or less, the Tories and the Labourites see things more or less the same, whereas in the United States they see things radically differently.
And it is an interesting part of American political life.
We know that to be true, that people on the left and liberals sit over here consuming one set of media outlets that feed them what they want to hear.
People on the right sit over here consuming their own set of media.
And there's almost no intersection any longer, which itself is kind of dangerous.
And that's part of the collapse of the faith in media institutions.
And if you look at these, this polling data, and you can see here, you have these institutions here like Bloomberg and The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Yahoo News, The Hill, Politico, Axios.
And what you see here, these blue dots, are how much Democrats trust these institutions, these media outlets.
So amazingly, every one of these, including National Review, which has become an anti-Trump magazine, so a lot of liberals like it, Democrats overwhelmingly trust these institutions.
This is not 40% of Democrats trusting the New York Times and Bloomberg and the Atlantic and Politico and Axios.
This is a plus 40% difference.
So it probably is something like 70% of Democrats saying they trust the New York Times, 30% saying that they don't.
It's a 40% difference with the Atlantic, with the New Yorker, with Politico, with Axios, with CNN, with MSNBC, with Slate, with HuffPost, with the Daily Beast.
It is amazing that Democrats, people who identify as Democrats, overwhelmingly trust the largest media corporations to tell them the truth.
Imagine being so gullible that you believe the world's largest media corporations are there to help you understand the world rather than mislead and propagandize you.
And meanwhile, it's Republicans who have overwhelming distrust in all of these institutions.
You can see the only exceptions here for Newsmax is one of the few that you can see there the red dot shows that Republicans trust Newsmax.
The same for Fox News is down below on this chart.
I don't know I can try and minimize it.
Here's Fox News you see here.
You see that red dot there which shows you that That's one of the very, very few that Democrats don't trust or Republicans do.
But overwhelmingly, these institutions of authority still have the trust of the Democratic Party.
The Democrats trust the CIA and the FBI, as we've shown you many times.
They trust the Justice Department.
They trust prosecutors.
They trust Homeland Security.
They trust the NSA.
They love the U.S.
security state.
And they love large media corporations.
Nobody else trusts these institutions, which is why independents and Republicans continue to back Trump overwhelmingly, despite the fact that for several times, major law enforcement institutions in this country have said that he is guilty of felonies.
Now, here is the New York Times story on this, and I I'm going to go ahead and let everybody else fix what's going on there since I messed it up a little bit.
But basically, here's the New York Times account of what happened yesterday.
And you see the headline, The Most Durable Force in American Politics, Trump's Ties to His Voters.
And the article says the following, Donald J. Trump's decisive victory in Iowa revealed a new depth to the reservoir of devotion inside his party.
For eight years, he had nurtured a relationship with his supporters with little precedent in politics.
He validates them, he entertains them, he speaks for them, and he uses them for his political and legal advantage.
This is the New York Times trying to grapple with the fact.
That they have been spending seven years now, every day almost, warning everybody that Trump is a criminal, that Trump is controlled by Russia, that Trump is corrupt, that he's a fascist, that he's a white nationalist, that he's a racist.
The New York Times just editorialized yesterday, we showed you, that it's the moral duty of every citizen to do everything possible to stop Trump.
and they ignored the New York Times, of course, and went to the polls in massive numbers, never before seen numbers, and voted for the person that the establishment told them not to vote for.
And so here's the New York Times trying to mock and minimize this connection because they can't understand it, they can't control it, so they wanna deride it and turn it into something nefarious.
This connection, says the New York Times, a herder bond for some, a cult of personality to others, has unleashed one of the most durable forces in American politics.
Now, the reason why this is such a sad effort on the part of the New York Times to mock this Trump movement that they cannot control and cannot understand, eight years after they first elected or six years after they first elected Trump president, Is because it isn't just Trump supporters.
If it were only Trump supporters, he would be winning 30-35% of the vote.
He would have 30% of the vote in polls.
And yet, it's not just inside the Republican Party, but in the American electorate at large, where huge numbers of people are prepared to vote for Donald Trump in 2024.
And these institutions of authority, like the New York Times that speak for them, should be saying to themselves, We've been saying this for so many years as poll after poll after poll shows a collapse of faith and trust in American media institutions.
They ought to be doing some self-reflection about this.
They ought to be saying, what is it that we have done to lose the trust and faith of so many people to make arguably the majority of the country deeply hate us and distrust us?
What is it that we've done to contribute to this and to cause this?
And people who work inside the U.S.
government, inside the security state, should be asking, why is it that we are so hated and distrusted, we the FBI, we the Justice Department, we the U.S.
security state, that if we accuse somebody of being a felon, something that used to destroy their political viability, instantly, it now seems to strengthen them among most voters.
But instead of engaging in that self-reflection, which is what a healthy institution of authority would do, a healthy power center would do, they're instead lashing out and blaming the people who refuse to obey them.
They're a cult figure.
They're cult followers.
Trump uses them.
He entertains them.
He deceives them.
They're stupid.
He mocks them.
He misleads them.
He convinces them that we at the New York Times aren't trustworthy.
That's all they're left to do is lash out.
They know they're losing control.
What else can they do to Donald Trump?
And they just watched him, after everything they've done, all the money they've poured into this race, get a 30-point victory never before seen in modern political history in a contested Iowa caucus.
Here is the actual vote total, the final vote total by the Associated Press.
There you see Trump at 51%.
DeSantis finished in second, which also upsets the establishment.
They really wanted what Nikki Haley hilariously tried to claim she got, which was a two-person race between Trump and Nikki Haley.
But instead, they couldn't even get Nikki Haley into second place.
She was in third.
There was DeSantis in second.
And then Vivek Ramaswamy ended up with, I believe, something like 7%.
He has now dropped out and endorsed Trump.
So, this is the race.
It is, of course, possible, but extremely difficult to see any path that could result in Donald Trump not winning unless he's removed from the ballot.
This is a failure of monumental proportions on the part of the establishment, and they know it.
Now, that's why their first plan was, let's try and do everything we can, pour hundreds of millions of dollars to dissuade and deceive and manipulate and propagandize these people not to vote how they want.
Let's try and pump up Nikki Haley and get her to be the nominee.
But if that fails, they're not going to go away.
They're not going to accept the decision of the American public.
Their real goal is to imprison Trump and to get him off the ballot.
They want to put him in prison.
And there's a very real chance that he will be convicted in one of these cases.
Remember, these are in Washington, D.C., in Manhattan, that's where the jury's coming from, in Atlanta, and then in South Florida.
It is not difficult to imagine with hostile judges and all the energy and effort of the Justice Department, seeing him convicted.
And if he's convicted of a felony, they're going to send him to prison.
And he may very well be running as a convicted felon.
And that will be the real test for just how broken establishment power is.
Here is Steve Kornacki, who, despite being at MSNBC, is someone I think is actually very trustworthy and Honest analyst of polling data and political opinion.
He really tries hard to say what he thinks without regard to who he alienates, and it's a rare attribute, so he deserves credit for exhibiting it.
He said the following about polling data.
Quote, the shift came abruptly, a clear rally around Trump effect among Republican voters when news of the first indictment by the Manhattan DA broke in March of 2023.
Look how the polling average diverged at that moment and never looked back.
And you can see here what he's talking about.
This was the moment in March of 2023 when DeSantis was actually pretty close to Trump.
And there was a pretty small gap here.
And then Alvin Bragg, the liberal Manhattan district attorney who got elected with the help of George Soros money, Skyrocketed, basically.
DeSantis began to collapse.
And although I think there's other causes, including DeSantis not being a very good politician, not a very comfortable politician dealing with people, which matters, he came off very stiff.
The reality is, is that it not only didn't hurt Trump to indict him, it actually helped him.
Because that Manhattan case, of all the cases I think, was the most frivolous.
And the most blatantly politicized.
And it really set the tone for how the next set of indictments was perceived.
Here is the New York Times, the NBC News rather, in July of 2023 with polling data on how Americans view the FBI and the DOJ.
The title was Americans Sour on the FBI and DOJ Amid Trump Investigations.
A new NBC News poll found that Americans' attitudes toward the Department of Justice and FBI are not positive.
Quote, views of the agency have soured since October 2018, when 52% of Americans had a positive opinion of the FBI and just 18% had a negative opinion.
That was as recently as 2018, 52 to 18 in favor of the FBI.
This month's negative numbers are buoyed by Republicans.
Among GOP voters, just 17% have a positive view of the FBI, while 56% have a negative view.
And again, they try and say it's because the FBI is uncovering crimes of Trump.
The media, of course, is on the side of Democrats.
That's why only Democrats trust them.
And that was the polling data.
And that was the setup.
And we've shown you the polling data for many years showing that only Democrats trust the FBI, the CIA, the security state.
Here's the evidence about Them trusting media corporations and only Democrats trusting media corporations, which means these media corporations speak for and to only Democrats.
Here is the attempt by MSNBC last night, in particular Joy Reid, to grapple with the fact that the person that these people go on the air every night and call a racist, and a fascist, and a criminal, and an insurrectionist, and a dictator, and a Trump, and a Putin lackey, And I think to the point that you made, Steph, I mean, it's the elephant in the room.
of the Iowa caucus to be the next president.
Watch them grapple with all of this and try and come up with an explanation.
You'll never guess what Jerry Reed's explanation is for why Trump remains so popular despite all this.
And I think to the point that you made, Steph, I mean, it's the elephant in the room.
She's still a brown lady that's got to try to win in a party that is...
This is Jerry Reed trying to explain why not just Trump won, but Nikki Haley, who, let me remind you, He used to be the governor of South Carolina.
And the reason she used to be the governor of South Carolina was because the people of South Carolina first elected Nikki Haley and then reelected Nikki Haley.
And she served as governor of South Carolina, a very Republican state, after being chosen to be the Republican nominee for governor for eight years.
Here's Joy Reid explaining why her candidate, Nikki Haley, came in third place last night and the person she believes is Satan, or worse than Hitler, came in first.
Listen to this explanation.
The point that you made, Steph, I mean, it's the elephant in the room.
She's still a brown lady.
That's got to try to win in a party that is deeply anti-immigrant and which accepts the notion that you can say immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country.
She's getting, you know, birthered by Donald Trump.
And I don't care how much the Democrats like her, which will ramp up a lot, the better she does in New Hampshire.
So it's still a challenge.
I don't see how she becomes the nominee of that party with Donald Trump still around.
I can't picture it happening.
Maybe it could happen.
Ron DeSantis' only argument for staying in it is he's the white guy but he can still make the appeal to white people.
Joy Reid, I honestly think Rachel Maddow is the single most pathetic person in media just because the way she has disseminated disinformation and lies and crazy conspiracy theories while pretending to be a highly influential and serious journalist and being cast as that by these other people.
Is without parallel, but Joy Reid is just a very hateful and pathetic person that every time there's an event that she can't understand, and there are a lot of events she can't understand, the only explanation to which she can resort, the only explanation she can turn to, the elephant in the room, is that everybody is a racist or else they'd be doing what she wants and thinking like she does and seeing the world the way she does.
She's so filled with racial hatred, it just oozes out of every pore.
And this is not a critique I make easily about people.
But like I said, the Republican Party is... The reason Nikki Haley is a candidate is because she was twice elected governor of South Carolina, and yet Joy Reid's explanation for why she's not winning isn't that she's such an oozing establishment puppet, that she supports every single war, that she sounds like Joe Biden in almost every instance.
It's that she's a brown lady, and the only alternative and asset that Ron DeSantis has is that he's the white guy, and that Donald Trump is the white guy.
Her brain is just broken.
It never gets past this most primitive analysis.
And she calls it the elephant in the room, meaning no one else is talking about it.
The reason no one else is talking about it is because it's so blatantly hateful and stupid.
But what this really is is that these people cannot grapple with the fact That the people of this country don't do what they're told.
That they tune out people like that.
That they don't listen to them, they have no audience, they have no influence, they have no power.
Here is the Georgia poll that we just referenced that came out just today.
There you see Trump with a seven point lead in Georgia.
The last time this poll was taken, it's from a University of Georgia poll.
Trump was actually tied with Biden.
It was 45-45.
Biden has lost seven points.
Trump has remained the same.
This is a state, again, that Joe Biden was declared the winner of in 2020.
And in all six of those key swing states with the exception of Wisconsin, Trump has now had a lead for at least two months over Biden in every one of those states.
Which shows you that it's not just the Republican Party and MAGA voters and Trump voters, but voters across the spectrum.
That at least for now we're saying they want Donald Trump to be president, not only despite the fact that he's been indicted four times, but in large number because of that.
And I don't think it can be overestimated, overstated, over-discussed.
How very revealing that is, and very disturbing that is, of the way in which these U.S.
institutions of authority, because of their own misconduct, because of their own corruption, because of their own deceit, have justifiably lost the faith and trust of most of the American population.
Only American liberals, only Democrats trust these institutions.
The rest of the country doesn't.
And it is a huge problem for them as they try and put roadblocks in front of Donald Trump on his way back to the White House.
We have had a sponsor now for a while that we are very happy to tell you about.
The reality that triggered this sponsor and this company and this product is that there is a serious problem when it comes to pharmaceutical products in the United States.
Namely that 90% of the pharmaceutical products that you consume that you need and get when you're sick, when your children are sick, are produced outside of the United States.
And so when there's a functioning supply chain internationally, it tends not to be a problem that the medication flows.
The question becomes what if there's a major disruption to the supply chain?
That is what came very close to happening with COVID.
I remember early on in the pandemic, in very early 2020, when someone called me and said, look, there's this pandemic in China that is spreading rapidly, and it's likely to destroy the supply chain.
It's going to isolate these countries.
And you're not going to be able to get food.
You're not going to be able to get medication.
Now, there were major disruptions, not quite what that person envisioned.
But any kind of pandemic, any kind of war, any kind of trade war, could really disrupt the supply chain.
That's one of the problems with relying on a global chain.
And so this is a kit that holds eight separate life-saving medications from the wellness company that has provided it.
They have worked out all the legalities.
You can get a prescription online.
It's something that a lot of Americans understand that they should have.
It's amoxicillin and ivermectin and a kit for infections, for life-threatening, easily treatable medications so that you simply have these things at home.
You have Tylenol at home.
You have Advil at home.
You have all kinds of things at home that you know you should have at home in case someone, your family or yourself needs for their health.
And this is something, the wellness company, that is a packet of eight key medications that if you get an infection, if you get some kind of treatable disease, you will have it in your home.
Once you buy it, it will always be there.
You won't have to worry about that kind of a disruption.
You can get them at twc.health.glenn.
There you see the URL on the screen.
It's twc.health.glenn.
There's a 10% discount for system update viewers available.
If you enter the promo code GLENN on checkout, you will get 10% off at checkout.
It gives you a lot of peace of mind about something that's very easy to treat and get and plan in advance and not have to worry about in the future.
Thank you.
It's this swanky, week-long gathering of all the worst elites, not just in the West, but the Gulf state, tyrants, and the oil mavens, and the bankers, and financiers in Asia all get together and sort of plan And gather with one another and just kind of reinforce each other's elite status.
But there's a lot of policies that come out of Davos as well.
And one of the people present at Davos this year, this week in fact, is Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who somehow was able to leave Ukraine and his daily supervision of this war as the Supreme General on the Frontline, in fatigues, in that costume that he wears, supervising the war.
He was able to go to Davos, thankfully.
And for the first time, and it's kind of amazing, he did not go there to ask for more money.
As we speak, President Biden is meeting with congressional leaders in the White House.
The current status is that President Biden asked for $110 billion in emergency funding.
$14 billion for Israel, $60 billion for Ukraine, and then the rest, another $40 billion or so for various programs.
But $60 billion is what they really want, which is for Ukraine, to keep that war funded.
Obviously, everyone's going to vote for the $14 billion for Israel.
Nobody questions money going to Israel.
But $60 billion in Ukraine, there's a significant chunk of the Republican caucus opposed to that and questioning that.
And if it gets to the floor, It will definitely pass by a significant majority because there's more than enough Democrats.
In fact, every Democrat will vote yes.
There will be more than enough pro-war hawks in the Republican Party to join with the Democrats and form a majority.
Right now the position of Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, is he won't bring that bill to the floor unless there are very serious and substantive concessions made by the White House to give the Republicans the kind of border security that they have long been asking for.
Things like walls and very real efforts to keep people out.
And obviously Joe Biden has a major problem because if he offers serious concessions to toughen up the border and prevent people from getting in and even taking people who have recently arrived and deporting them, he's going to have a lot of problems with major constituencies in his party who have been told for four years that these kinds of border policies that Donald Trump has wanted are fascist and are white nationalist and are racist and designed to keep brown people out of our country.
But if he doesn't agree to these things, not only is he going to have the political vulnerability of an insecure border, but he's also going to be impeded from what he really wants, which is $60 billion for Ukraine to keep this war going.
Now, Zelensky is appearing at this Davos conference knowing that Western capitals have grown tired of the Ukraine war, and especially of transferring tens of billions of dollars there for a war that only gets worse for Ukraine.
They can't win.
They have a massive artillery shortage.
They simply don't have enough people to fight any longer.
They're dragging 50-year-old disabled and obese people off buses and sending them against their will to the front line.
They expanded recently the list of people who can be conscripted to include all kinds of horrible, crippling diseases and congenital defects.
They're just grabbing anyone they can and just throwing them into the front line as cannon fodder because they don't have enough people to fight and they never will.
The Russians have held these defensive positions for more than a year now.
They occupy and control 20% of Ukraine.
And if anything is moving, it's the Russians expanding and taking over more cities.
There's no way for Ukraine to do anything but make a real peace deal with Russia.
That could have been done two years ago.
But that Biden and Boris Johnson said no to, and therefore this war continued, hundreds of thousands of people, tens of thousands of people at least have died since then on both sides.
And Ukraine is destroyed.
We're going to come in and who do you think is going to pay for its reconstruction?
The United States will.
It'll go to BlackRock and JP Morgan and all these vultures that are just waiting.
A lot of them are at Davos to, quote, do business with Kiev.
Imagine how much money is going to flood Kiev with this reconstruction.
But here is the quote-unquote peace deal that Zelensky is now calling for.
There is the New York Times headline.
Zelensky calls for peace, not more weapons in Davos.
Quote, in a speech in Switzerland, the Ukrainian president asked for more sanctions on Moscow, but he did not appeal for weaponry for new offenses.
Mr. Zelensky, dressed in olive green pants and a black crewneck sweater, Somehow he has time to leave the battle heavy front lines where he usually is present manning the war.
He's able to go to Davos, but he can't put on a suit because he has to wear that war costume that the West has fallen in love with.
The New York Times describes it as olive green pants and a black crew neck sweater.
So he was well dressed and nice war chic for Davos.
He was greeted with applause when he walked on stage in a room packed with hundreds of people at the forum, a high profile gathering of business and financial elites.
In his speech, he promised a Ukrainian peace plan and called for stiffer sanctions on Russia.
But in contrast to his comments to the forum last year, Mr. Zelensky made no direct appeals for weaponry for new offensives on the battlefield.
Quote, we need you and Ukraine to build, to reconstruct, to restore our lives, he told the audience of investors.
Each of you can even be more successful with Ukraine.
Obviously what they want to do.
Massive amount of money that has flown into Kiev, nobody knows where that money has gone, as we've shown you many times, is starting to dry up.
And now he wants a new flow of cash from the West, which is the money that will go to rebuilding Ukraine.
And that will be a whole new source of money that will come from the American public into the coffers of Kiev.
Imagine the buildings they're going to build and the buildings they're going to restore and who's going to finance that and how much money will be made.
Quote, Mr. Zelensky has highlighted his country's plan to end the war, an initiative called the Peace Formula, which has gained the backing of dozens of countries.
But those countries do not include Russia, and Moscow has rejected its terms.
Now, what is this peace plan that so many people are on board with, but that Russia said, and you see there in the New York Times trying to apply, unreasonably won't accept?
What is this peace plan that Zelensky is offering?
Here's what it is.
The plan calls for, number one, a full Russian withdrawal.
Let me get that back up.
So, the plan calls for a full Russian withdrawal from all Ukrainian territory.
I don't know what's going on with this pen.
I'm going to try one more time.
So there you see it, a full Russian withdrawal from all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea.
So Russia has spent the last two years pouring enormous amounts of money into this war, losing at least 100,000 Russians, probably a lot more.
In order to take all of this territory that it says are filled with ethnic Russians, Russian-speaking people in Ukraine who don't want to be under the central government of Kiev but who want to be part of Russia or who at least want to be independent.
They've been fighting a war of independence for eight years.
They've had Crimea since 2014.
And so Zelensky's plan is they're just going to give that all back.
They're going to leave Ukraine.
They're going to give all back the territory that they've taken with so much of their citizens' blood.
have been able to regain as a buffer against the West, and they're going to give back Crimea, which they've had since 2014, and which they have said is of existential importance to their security.
But they're not only going to do that under this plan, they're also going to agree to pay for reparations, so they're going to pay Ukraine, and they're going to agree to submit to prosecution of war crimes.
So, Putin's going to get back all the land that he has taken, he's then going to transfer all the Russian treasury to Ukraine, and he's going to say, okay, now I'm going to The Hague to be tried for war crimes.
This is such a delusional offer.
The kind of thing that you would offer if you have routed the Russians, and captured all of their troops, and crippled their economy, and destroyed the country, and now you're forcing unconditional surrender on them.
Why would anybody describe this as a peace plan?
This is a demand by the losing party that the winning party unconditionally surrender.
Oh, you think Putin rejected this plan?
The only thing that Ukraine could possibly negotiate for is for the Russians to keep some portion of eastern Ukraine and those give those provinces some sort of independent or autonomous status or at least a referendum to allow the citizens of those provinces to decide do they want to be part of Russia do they want to be part of
Kiev, do they want to be part of, or they want to be independent, similar to the referendum that was given to the people of Kosovo when it was time to justify independence of Kosovo and splitting Kosovo from Serbia, as was done in the late 1990s after the U.S.
bombardment of Serbia.
That would be the model.
And then you would actually have to have the Ukrainians agree they're not going to go into NATO, they're going to be a neutral country.
You give Russia the security that it needs from the West that the West won't keep expanding up to their border.
But to offer a peace plan like this, it would be like if Hamas tomorrow says, OK, we have a peace plan for you, Israel.
You're going to withdraw all your troops from Gazan territory.
Then you're going to transfer $100 billion from Israel to Gaza to allow us to rebuild everything that you've destroyed.
And Netanyahu is going to be hanged in the public square along with his top 12 officials that we select.
It would be as if Gaza offered that peace plan and somebody would say, well, that maybe is what should happen, but you're obviously in no position to offer that.
You're not winning this war.
You don't have an army.
You don't have a military.
You're getting crushed.
That is what this is like.
Remember, we showed you before this article from Time Magazine back in November where top Zelensky officials ran to Time Magazine to warn the West that Zelensky was completely delusional.
And that here it is, everybody in Kiev understands that the war is basically over except for Zelensky.
That's the Time Magazine article from November 1st.
Nobody believes in our victory like I do inside Vladimir Zelensky's struggle to keep Ukraine in the fight.
You see there, the tech, Zelensky's stubbornness, some of it they'd say has hurt their team's efforts to come up with a new strategy, a new message.
As they have debated the future of the war, one issue has remained taboo.
The possibility of negotiating a peace deal One issue has remained taboo, the possibility of negotiating a peace deal with the Russians.
Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, Zelensky does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace.
On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine's ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisors.
It is immovable, verging on the messianic.
He deludes himself.
One of his closest aides tells me in frustration, we're out of options, we're not winning, but try telling him that.
So, this is what we have here.
We have, on the one hand, a leader of a country who is the head of this country, whose word we're financing, who is delusional according to his own aides and officials.
He's not living in reality.
And he shows up at Davos with a peace plan that is a complete joke.
And the New York Times says, a lot of people are on board with this, like the West, but Moscow isn't ready to accept this deal.
As though this is any sort of a serious deal, as though this is anything remotely resembling what would actually have to happen for this war to end.
There's really no way for this war to end because the Americans and the West has talked themselves into a corner.
They announced very early on and then repeatedly that this war could not end, never will end, until the Russians give back all Ukrainian territory including Crimea.
They defined that as a win.
And everybody knows that.
Now we showed you before they're trying to be this effort to kind of rewrite history, to revise history, to say that, oh no, all along we said that a win in Ukraine was simply if we prevent the Russians from conquering all of Ukraine.
So as long as we don't let the Russians conquer all of Ukraine, That will be a victory for us.
I don't even mind the West pretending that that was what they said if that would actually end the war based on a realistic proposal.
But there's no way the West can say the war is over, Putin is keeping not just Crimea but large sectors of eastern Ukraine because everybody knows that would be a humiliating defeat for the West.
But there's no way Putin will agree to an end to the war unless he keeps That territory that he fought so much and gave up so much to gain and obviously would keep Crimea as well and demand that Ukraine be a neutral country that never goes into NATO.
And the Americans could give the Ukrainians a security guarantee.
That would be what a real peace deal would look like.
But I think they've talked themselves into this idea that there's no way to accept that on either side.
And so what likely could happen is a ceasefire, a kind of permanent ceasefire, where the war is never declared fully over.
It just kind of freezes and the parties stop fighting.
Ukraine remains this rump state of 80% or so.
The Russians are now trying to take more before this happens.
But if you have this completely delusional figure in Zelensky and Biden wanting to give him another $60 billion, the most yet, to continue this war, you're just going to send more and more people into the grinder, the meat grinder, destroy more and more of Ukraine.
And in turn, that will ensure that the people who then come in and profit at your expense by rebuilding Ukraine with your money And all the banks and vulture funds that will profit off of that to say nothing of how much graft there will be into the pockets of Ukrainians, corrupt Ukrainians, into their already bulging Swiss bank accounts from this war.
It's impossible to describe how large that will be, but it will be a lot.
But Zelensky seems to be a genuinely unhinged person.
It's not just me saying that.
It's his closest aides.
And the problem now is you have this war that the United States desperately needs to get out of, but doesn't really seem to have a way of doing that.
All right, so we wanted to spend some time last night talking to you about the career of Paul Finley, who served as a member of Congress from 1960 until 1982, a Republican congressman from Illinois.
We didn't have time, so we wanted to do that tonight, because it is a career that is really fascinating and I think very revealing of our current political dynamic.
And a lot of times, a lot of this history that's very recent history, I mean 1960 to 1982 is not that long ago.
People forget about, I had forgotten about his career, I'd known about it at some point, but it is important to remember because so much of what we're going through now, so much of what we debate now is reflected in the history very recently because not that much is different.
And one of the things that makes him so timely and so relevant to the news cycle is that he was the author of the War Powers Act, the law, the much discussed law last week that governs when a president can deploy military force in a emergency without Congress.
And that was being discussed because a lot of people were trying to justify Biden's bombing of Yemen as a defensive act.
That he doesn't need Congress to do because the Houthis in Yemen were attacking American ships.
And as we walked through the last time, that was not a justification, even if it's a moral justification for the war, it's not a legal one for Biden to do without Congress because it wasn't a defensive act.
It wasn't Biden in that moment defending American ships.
He had threatened to do this for weeks.
They had planned this attack for weeks.
And the problem is, as we discussed, that if you do it without congressional approval or congressional debate or public buy-in, It can just go on and on and on with no end.
And just this week we've now seen them bombing Yemen again and again.
And they'll likely continue to do it.
And this was the reason why Paul Finley authored the War Powers Act.
He did it in response to the way in which the United States just kind of fell into the war in Vietnam.
There was that 1964 Senate Resolution authorizing force when the CIA lied to the public and to the Congress about the Gulf of Tonkin incident where they said that the North Vietnamese had been aggressive and attacked U.S.
ships and it came out several decades later that the United States Security State lied that the aggressors were the United States trying to create a cause to justify getting the Senate to approve the escalation that were under President Johnson.
But before that, there were years where under President Kennedy, advisors were being sent, advisors were being killed.
Kennedy said that the reason he wanted to remove troops or all people out of Vietnam before he was killed was because he was seeing how many advisors were being killed.
He didn't know that that was kept from him.
And here is Paul Finley, along with a Democratic member of Congress who was an ally of his, Don Frazier, writing in the LA Times in September of 2008.
about the battle over war powers which remember was a very robust debate during the Bush years that was one of the things that caused me to get involved in politics was this debate over the limits of presidential power and here's what they wrote quote the framers of the constitution agreed that the president could be commander and chief of land and naval forces but deeply concerned over the gravity of war and as a safeguard against hasty and needless hostilities with foreign countries
they agreed that congress should have the prerogative to quote declare or authorize war they The framers meant to prohibit the president from waging war without a declaration of war or specific authorization by Congress, except when necessary to repel attacks on American territory or commerce, its military or citizens.
In recent history, an unauthorized presidential war brought calamity to the United States.
Ambiguity in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of 1964 was used as a pretext for executive war-making in Vietnam not intended by Congress.
That war was unjustifiable from a military and geopolitical standpoint.
The resolution retroactively approved the retaliation by President Johnson for an attack on Navy ships in the Gulf of Tonkin and it warned North Vietnam and all interested parties of U.S.
readiness to engage in further military operations through the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization.
But it contained no language that actually authorized the President to order acts of war in the future.
Johnson nevertheless used it to increase the U.S.
commitment in Vietnam to half a million men.
As domestic opposition to the war increased and U.S.
forces began to withdraw, Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973.
We were members of the House Committee that helped frame this resolution and were engaged in the process until it was passed over the veto of President Nixon.
It is a necessary and proper law that forbids a president from waging war without authority from Congress except to repel attack.
Now, at the time, this congressman, Paul Finley, was working at an organization because he had been removed from Congress in 1982 when the pro-Israel lobby in the United States targeted him by recruiting a challenger against him and then financing him lavishly, the challenger.
To remove Paul Finley from Congress because Paul Finley was not only an opponent of American intervention but also an opponent of American support for Israel at a time when they were trying to make it the pro-Israel lobby was taboo, career-destroying for any member of either party to oppose the financing by the United States of Israel.
In 2005, while he was still at the New Yorker, Jeffrey Goldberg, who's now the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, who had used his position at The New Yorker to lie the country into the war in Iraq, wrote an article called The Real Insiders that purported to explain why and how Paul Finlay was removed from Congress.
This was a year before Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer published their book The Israel Lobby, which described the massive amount of power that the pro-Israel lobby in the United States had amassed.
And their ability to demand and coerce and pressure and intimidate members of Congress to keep sending money to Israel.
And Walt and Mershheimer were accused of being anti-Semitic for writing that book, even though it was very scholarly about the power of the pro-Israel lobby.
As they said, there was nothing illegal about that lobby.
There's a lot of other lobbies like it, like the Big Pharma lobby, the Wall Street lobby, Planned Parenthood, the NRA.
It's just this lobby.
Involves the interest of a foreign country, and that's what makes it so unique.
And here was Jeffrey Goldberg in July of 2005, while still at the New Yorker, just off helping sell the country by lying about Saddam Hussein into the war in Iraq, before he went to the Atlantic, explaining what happened to Paul Finley.
Quote, APAC, Asher explained, is loyal to its friends and merciless to its enemies.
In 1982, Asher led a campaign to defeat Paul Finley, a Republican congressman from Springfield, Illinois who once referred to himself as Yasser Arafat's best friend in Congress, and who later compared Arafat to Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.
Quote, there was a real desire to help Finley out of Congress, Asher said.
He was an AIPAC official, Asher.
He identified an obscure Democratic lawyer in Springfield, Richard Durbin, as somebody who could defeat Finley.
Quote, we met at my apartment in Chicago and I recruited him to run for Congress, he recalled.
I probed his views and I explained things that I had learned mostly from AIPAC.
I wanted to make sure we were supporting someone who was not only against Paul Finley, but also a friend of Israel.
Do you see they were removing members of Congress and replacing them based on one factor, who is friendly to Israel, this foreign country?
Asher went on, and this is Jeffrey Goldberg telling this story, not John Mearsheimer and Stephen Wall.
Asher went on, quote, he beat Finlay with a lot of help from Jews, in state and out of state.
Now him, did the Jewish money find him?
I traveled around the country talking about how he had the opportunity to defeat someone unfriendly to Israel, and the gates opened.
Durbin, who went on to win the Senate seat, is now the Democratic whip.
He is a fierce critic of Bush's Iraq policy, but like AIPAC, generally supports the administration's approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Durbin said that he considers Asher to be, quote, his most loyal friend in the Jewish community.
Now the reason that's so revealing is when John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt wrote a book explaining how this lobby works the next year, they almost had their careers destroyed because they were widely accused of being anti-semitic.
Here was Jeffrey Goldberg turning this guy into a hero by saying he was right to cleanse and purge the American Congress of anybody critical of Israel.
As after he was removed he formed this Council for the National Interest where he advocated the kind of anti-interventionist views that I just read you from the LA Times trying to put limits on the president's power to bring the country to war and the ADL boasted of the fact that they were now targeting this organization.
Here's from the ADL on October 3rd, 2008.
It's quote, backgrounder.
The Council for the National Interest, CNI.
The Council for the National Interest, which includes the Council for the National Interest Foundation, is an anti-Israel organization which is opposed to U.S.
aid to Israel and disseminates demonizing propaganda about Israel to academics, politicians, and other audiences.
CNI founders Paul Finley and Pete McCloskey are the founders of CNIF and the president of both entities is Eugene Byrd.
On August 2008, the final day of the Democratic National Convention in Denver, CNI ran an ad in the Denver Post highlighting high foreclosure rates in the U.S.
and charging that quote, meanwhile, billions of your tax dollars continue to purchase beautiful homes with subsidized mortgages in Israel.
Now that's absolutely true.
This is the point we've been making for a long time, is that millions of Americans have a lower standard of living than millions of Israelis, even as the United States transfers billions of dollars over to Israel.
Now you may support that, you may not support it, but certainly it's something the American citizenry should know, and the group that was led by Paul Finley took out an ad Making Americans aware of that, the ADL said, quote, insinuating that U.S.
taxpayer dollars are helping Israelis afford their homes even while Americans cannot.
The ad called for, quote, a big change in U.S.
policy toward Israel and her neighbors.
CNI ran a similar ad in the Christian Science Monitor the same day.
CNI has run inflammatory anti-Israel ads in major national newspapers since 2002.
On 2007, CNI published an ad in the New York Times in support of an anti-Israel rally held that same day in Washington.
The ad demanded, quote, end the Israeli occupation now.
In a widely circulated 2003 article liberating America from Israel, Paul Finley, a member of CNI's board of directors, blamed America's relationship with Israel for the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
9-11 would not have occurred, Finley wrote, if the U.S.
government had refused to help Israel humiliate and destroy Palestinian society.
He continued, quote, America suffered 9-11 and its aftermath and may soon be at war with Iraq, mainly because U.S.
policy in the Middle East is made in Israel, not in Washington.
It's the kind of thing that is now more frequently said but back then was barely ever said.
Paul Finley paid for his career with it and we just want to kind of show you a video clip of him because he was such an interesting voice given that he was the author of the War Powers Act which now governs and tries to put limits on the ability of the United States to go to war.
He was trying to tell the truth about Israel, just to say that obviously we're sending enormous amounts of money to that country and we're paying a big price for our support of that country.
Not just financially, but in terms of our security.
Here's Paul Finley speaking in 2007.
He's now deceased.
He lived to be 98.
And here he is giving a speech on this topic.
Even sales of spare parts for pumps, for old pumps, are rigorously controlled.
As an American, I hang my head in shame to recount this fact because I know that America is the pipeline without which Israel could not survive and could not inflict this punishment upon those poor people in Gaza and the West Bank.
Israel Shahak says torture of Palestinians comes in many forms.
Listen again to the words of Israel Shahak.
Torture by humiliation.
Palestinians, including the elderly, he writes, are frequently ordered to attend the office of the military governor for hours and even days.
They are required to stand all that time, patiently and quietly.
Even the elderly must politely ask permission of a young Israeli official in order to have the right to go to the toilet.
The aim is to reduce all Palestinians without distinction.
Here I'm reading again from Israel's Shahak.
These are not my words.
The aim is to reduce all Palestinians without distinction.
To the level of small children, completely dependent upon higher authority, and to put every Israeli on the higher level.
It is also legal, he continues to write, to close all clinics, all medical services in a town.
To cut off electricity for hours and days.
To cut off telephone service for hours and days.
As an American, I hang my head in shame to have to recount these facts to you, because I know that the U.S.
government is the lifeline to Israel, without which Israel could not inflict these dreadful policies upon these people.
It is a very interesting fact that this is a moderate Republican who came out of the Congress in the 1960s, very much shaped by the war in Vietnam, by the fact that After, at the height of the Cold War, the U.S.
began increasing this massive security state that operated in the dark, that engineered coups in all other kinds of countries, and he applied that same rationale consistently and equally to U.S.
support for Israel.
He did not have an Israel exception to his worldview, and for that he was destroyed, he was removed from Congress, branded, oh, an anti-Semite.
And we tried showing you through the videos we've shown you many times of Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan offering a lot of these same critiques.
Pat Buchanan, a top official in the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 41 White House, and then ran for president on these principles and got a lot of support, as did Ron Paul, who was on our show a few weeks ago talking about a lot of this.
There is a strain in Republican politics for a long time questioning why is the U.S.
enduring so much damage and harm to fund The government of Israel, but the intent of AIPAC, as Jeffrey Goldberg himself documented in that 2005 New York article, was to send the signal that anybody who does that will be destroyed.
And we had Congressman Thomas Massie on our show, who is one of the most principled, smartest members of the U.S.
Congress.
He's very popular among the populace, right, but who is a dissenter on the issue of U.S.
funding of Israel.
He does not believe the U.S.
government should be funding Israel, nor does he believe that we should be giving up our free speech rights in the name of protecting that foreign country.
And here he is in 2024, 40 years after Paul Finley was successfully removed from Congress by AIPAC, where AIPAC is troving through Kentucky, trying to find a primary challenger to run against Thomas Massie, there's no way a Democrat could win that district, they need to remove him in a Republican primary, based solely on, as they said, the question of who is friendly to Israel.
It is a very unhealthy environment that we have this major policy, and anybody who asks questions about it, or who in any way expresses any dissent, let alone tries to stimulate a debate on it in Congress, where all of these things should be aired, Knows that there is a very powerful pro-Israel lobby in this country that will set out to destroy them, remove them from Congress, destroy their political career, and in more cases than not, will likely succeed in doing so.
Paul Finley was one of the very first instances where that got conveyed to Washington.
They heard the example very loud and clear.
There is nothing that makes them listen more than threats to their political power.
And that message has been repeated over and over and over, in case you're wondering why there's almost never any dissent.
Solely United States when it comes to the issue of handing over all the money that Israel asks, all the weapons it asks, and doing everything possible to protect that country and its wars.
So that concludes our show for this evening.
As a reminder, our system update is also available in podcast form, where you can listen to every episode 12 hours after they first are broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms.
And if you rate, review, and follow the show, it really helps spread the visibility of the program.
As another reminder, every Tuesday and Thursday night, once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we move to Locals, which is part of the Rumble platform for our live interactive aftershow.
Today is Tuesday, so we will be doing that aftershow on Locals.
And in that show, we take your questions and respond to your feedback and hear your suggestions about future shows and guests.
And it's designed, obviously, to be very interactive in nature.
That show is available exclusively for subscribers to our Locals community.
If you want to become a member, Which gives you access not only to those twice a week after shows but also to the daily transcripts of every show that we produce here.
We have interactive features where we respond to questions and comments and critiques and writing.
It's where we publish our independent journalism and our original journalism and it's really where we rely on our audience to do the independent journalism that we're doing here.
We really rely on that locals community.
Simply click the join button right below the video player on the Rumble page and it will take you directly to the locals
